Java Architect, large pant wearing psychopath here.
My first thought was web-app + quartz, so what - why should I care? The examples given (creating a email server??) are not that great either, considering only niche devs would be doing anything remotely like this. In my own, quite varied, experience the only time I (or others) have had need of a "daemon" is as a small part of a wider web app and we would just use quartz job initiated java code, JBPM or something similar.
Having said this, it appears to support clustering and other snazzy features. ("it apppears" is used because I never trust the claims of OS devs or their user's opnions of products - the bar is so low nowadays) The possibilities for distributed computing is quite compelling also.
I guess, in the highly unlikely event I should ever work on such a project, the main draw card for me would be that it just rolled out and clustered with minimal fuss and bother (Not an OS strong point...), was very lightweight and could plug easily into a range of security environments (or at least the one I was using!).
So what is my point? Cool tech, but appears very niche to me. The only reason I find myself having to point that out is because it talks a lot about app servers and how it compares.
Sorry to point out something to the land of the burning oil and coal....
New Zealand is currently 70% renewable. We have a lot of hydro per capita of course.
However we already have (and are about to put in a whole lot more) wind farms. I have heard of several initiatives trying to get consent for tidal generators also.
So yeah. Wind. Water. Solved.
Solar? I think people still worship the sun far too much.:) Or perhaps its a consiracy to stop people working on the technologies that have half a chance??
Yes, but that does not make their argument in #3 any more or less valid.
You can't disprove an argument based on the arguers motivation. All you can do is state said motivation as fact. (not that it is actually realted to the topic)
From a logical/debate/argument point of view, yours is much more a fallicy than theirs. It is known as an "Association fallacy".
There was a url and I can't for the life of me find it anywhere.
The problem is that the answer to "what is music" is not easily defined because it is entirely subjective. Most people, especially here, try to find that dictionary one liner. That is not going to cover it.
Personally, I think that the definition of music rests entirely on "honest intent". In other words, I honestly attempting to "create music" with this object I am honestly calling an instrument. What is "create music"? It does not matter as long as it involves receiving audable sound waves.
Animals do not count. We call it music, but it is merely a form of communication that happens to sound good to us. They don't care whether we like it or not...
Everything else is complete rubbish as far as I am concerned.
While I agree with you, there are HUGE problems with most of your analogy.
If a human being uses the car engine/horn/whatever as an INSTRUMENT, then it IS music.
I have someone here who made a musical instrument out of a sponge (via midi) for his thesis. Go figure.
However.
This sort of rubbish came up in many previous slashdot articles I cannot even bother looking up. (One was automata data, another was gamma rays from the universe or some such droll nonsense) The story pattern is: "Random" data that has "chaotic patterns" is used to produce sounds through some VERY SIMPLE mapping process - usually involving midi. We are calling it music and making a story out of it.
The music almost always sounds like noise and is not very experiemental at all. Taking random data sources and plugging them into midi output is not that amazing...
Or perhaps I just have high standards or something?? (being a musician)
I believe the "review" would be in the context of this is a preview of an unfinished game. Call it a "preview" if you will...
Why are so many posters missing this point? It NOT the goal of this article to point out that previews should be the same as reviews. (BTW: I mean unbiased reviews, because most have the same problems)
Things like vision, core graphics models, levels and premise are MOSTLY completed at the time of previews and can be commented on. But even things that are not finished can still be evaluated on in context of an unfinished game.
Just because it is not finished, does not mean you cannot make ANY critiques at all.
What are you after?? Something like this: (????)
This game has been in development for 2 years now and is set to go gold in 2 months. Currently it is only a cuboid polygon that is moved about with the mouse (with many controller bugs) on a white background. However, we feel confident that this will be THE BEST GAME OF THE YEAR, based on the marketing fluff we were given.
Most of the beta testers of SWG knew what was going to happen on release...
Actually I was referring to the victim's response, not the "annoyer".
The way he stood there for 10 mins when there were other ways to go. (in fact one of his team came by later??) They way he did not really appear angry, yet kept it up for a ridiculous amount of time.
This seems rather (read: completely) staged for many reasons. I guess if you were a fan of CS you might want to believe it was real, but I would put money on the fact it is not.
I think the implied backdrop to these discussions is the Patriot Act, RIAA/MPAA, Homeland Security, Corporate donations influencing government, NSA wiretaps and of course Secret Prisons(TM) full of people held without charge and (some) being tortured.
While I respect that popular FICTION should not be used as an argument to prove a point, this is hardly the case here.
BTW, all of the above is happening under the guise of a "Great Enemy"(TM) ready to pounce at any moment.
1984 covers many of these issues in hyperbole, but mostly in a "where we could end up" sort of fashion.
Again, you completely miss the point of my post and the book itself.
1984 was a "doomsday" scenario or a "what if?" about a FICTIONAL and FUTURISTIC society.
Just because you write a sci fi about life after armageddon and it has parallels with current society, does not mean you believe the world is about to be destroyed.
Your statements are more fallacious than the statements you disagree with, because they are not talking in absolutes. You are.
Or perhaps you can miss the point entirely - there are always some? (although i see many agreed/liked my point...)
Step 1) Pretend and respond as if the author was talking in absolutes instead of making witty/amusing/thoughtful comments. Step 2) Pretend that your own intellect is far great by posting a pretentious and patronising reply pointing out how that can't possibly be an absolute. Step 3) Chuckle to self in masturbatory glee at your own brilliance.
1984 was a WARNING about what can happen to a society that allows it government and bureaucracy to take over. Nothing more, nothing less.
I was pointing out that it was such and that we should be careful to not "count ourselves lucky" just because things are not the same as a book, they can arrive at that in other ways.
Am I saying we live in a society as bad as 1984? No, of course not and you would be a fool to think that.
Am I saying that there are X similarities, therefore we are like 1984? No, and it would ridiculous to suggest it.
Am I saying that we should be wary of letting our liberties being taken from us just because the current government doesn't dress the police in jack boots and grey uniforms (yet). Absolutely.
In every example of fascism/totalitarism/etc there was a gradual decline or a large event (e.g. 911 style) that precipitated those societies. The people's denial/ambivalence/ignorance of the process as it happened can be studied in any textbook.
What I AM saying is that we must be careful that we don't laugh at other societies and their failings and fail to fault check our own. The pursuit of freedom is an ongoing struggle against those that would wish to take it away - and there never seems to be a shortage of them!
I based my doubt on the fact that there was no evidence given. I reserve judgement until facts are stated. My OPINION is that this is not the case.
Consoles have become CONSUMER devices, just like the Ipod. Gamers have to stop thinking that they are the only ones that buy games. The gaming revolution has happened already. Just because you play games, does not make you are geek or "hardcore". I disagree totally with: "Anyone who shells hundreds of dollars, or is able to convince a parent to do it for them, is a hardcore gamer.".
" I've observed this phenom over decades. There's little variance." You fail to state how you have been observing it and what data you have been using??
I agree with most of your post except: "politicians and large businesses are not leaders but followers".
I believe that this used to be true, but is no longer. At least not to the same extent.
While it IS true that public opinion is THE MOST important thing for a politician still, thank god, it does not follow that they therefore almost always do what we want. (trivial assertion to be sure) Note: Current Bush government seems to be less concerned, since they have appaling public confidence figures and don't appear to be in frantic damage control as one would assume??
While they are most concerned with public opininon, they knwo that the "masses" are not all that smart when it comes to politics. Now it is a game of "what can we get away with", rather than "make the people happy".
I agree that it will get a lot worse. The main reason, which I alluded to in my post, is that "relegislation" will take a very long time. It will also not begin until it is already a very bad problem. (like it isn't all ready) This means that the time to "fix" problem (TTFP) is given by: TTFP = (already a chropnic disaster) + (slow legislation time)*(ability of old guard to make it slower coefficient)
I find your post somewhat heartening in that perhaps we are on the cusp of some sort of IP revolution. Many companies are ALREADY finding it VERY expensive (read: stifling) to operate with an entire IP department and having to run every piece of code through their lawyers before release.
The number of patents is increasing at a ridiculous rate and this IS A GOOD THING. As the number of patents increases, it will become increasing more expensive (and soon impossible) to check even a small percentage of patents.
Let's not begin to talk about the vast numbers of bogus patents that are far too expensive to fight in court and are used only for mob-style extortion.
While you appear sure that everything will crumble and "we" will get our way, I fear that this may be a little optimistic.
What I believe will happen is that the "crumbling" of IP will create a vacum and the business funded politicians will fill this vacum with an alternative system. This may or may not be to "our" liking. Also, the "crumbling" will be more of a "re-legislation" process over a long period of time. IOW: I have no faith in politicians, especially not in the US with the current corporate donation racket. Do you??
The only optimistic thing I can say is that the new system cannot possibly be any worse than what we have now...can it??
Re:Throw your Microsoft boxes into Boston Harbor!
on
The Demise of IP?
·
· Score: 1
That was one of the best posts I have read in a while...egg shells...so true...
I disagree and feel that this is not insightful at all.
Firstly: The reason consoles sell so well is that they appeal many people who are NOT hardcore gamers. Flats of students now consider a console in the living room a must, much like the TV they plug into.
Secondly: Are you saying that the majority of consoles sold are to "hardcore" gamers as opposed to casual players? I would seriously doubt this.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be an application. You could come up with hundreds like it.
:) )
But is that a mainstream killer app? Very few people build chat servers AFAIK? (apart from students learning client server programming!
I guess that is my point: "Where is the mainstream usage killer app example?"
Does it exist??
Java Architect, large pant wearing psychopath here.
My first thought was web-app + quartz, so what - why should I care? The examples given (creating a email server??) are not that great either, considering only niche devs would be doing anything remotely like this. In my own, quite varied, experience the only time I (or others) have had need of a "daemon" is as a small part of a wider web app and we would just use quartz job initiated java code, JBPM or something similar.
Having said this, it appears to support clustering and other snazzy features. ("it apppears" is used because I never trust the claims of OS devs or their user's opnions of products - the bar is so low nowadays) The possibilities for distributed computing is quite compelling also.
I guess, in the highly unlikely event I should ever work on such a project, the main draw card for me would be that it just rolled out and clustered with minimal fuss and bother (Not an OS strong point...), was very lightweight and could plug easily into a range of security environments (or at least the one I was using!).
So what is my point? Cool tech, but appears very niche to me. The only reason I find myself having to point that out is because it talks a lot about app servers and how it compares.
Sorry to point out something to the land of the burning oil and coal....
:) Or perhaps its a consiracy to stop people working on the technologies that have half a chance??
New Zealand is currently 70% renewable. We have a lot of hydro per capita of course.
However we already have (and are about to put in a whole lot more) wind farms. I have heard of several initiatives trying to get consent for tidal generators also.
So yeah. Wind. Water. Solved.
Solar? I think people still worship the sun far too much.
What are you talking about? There is only D?!
"Cocaine is a hell of a drug."
Rich James, bitch.
Yes, but that does not make their argument in #3 any more or less valid.
You can't disprove an argument based on the arguers motivation. All you can do is state said motivation as fact. (not that it is actually realted to the topic)
From a logical/debate/argument point of view, yours is much more a fallicy than theirs. It is known as an "Association fallacy".
says you...and billions of other people.
I think music is a form of communication. Hence my definition.
There was a url and I can't for the life of me find it anywhere.
The problem is that the answer to "what is music" is not easily defined because it is entirely subjective. Most people, especially here, try to find that dictionary one liner. That is not going to cover it.
Personally, I think that the definition of music rests entirely on "honest intent". In other words, I honestly attempting to "create music" with this object I am honestly calling an instrument.
What is "create music"? It does not matter as long as it involves receiving audable sound waves.
Animals do not count. We call it music, but it is merely a form of communication that happens to sound good to us. They don't care whether we like it or not...
Everything else is complete rubbish as far as I am concerned.
While I agree with you, there are HUGE problems with most of your analogy.
If a human being uses the car engine/horn/whatever as an INSTRUMENT, then it IS music.
I have someone here who made a musical instrument out of a sponge (via midi) for his thesis. Go figure.
However.
This sort of rubbish came up in many previous slashdot articles I cannot even bother looking up. (One was automata data, another was gamma rays from the universe or some such droll nonsense) The story pattern is:
"Random" data that has "chaotic patterns" is used to produce sounds through some VERY SIMPLE mapping process - usually involving midi. We are calling it music and making a story out of it.
The music almost always sounds like noise and is not very experiemental at all. Taking random data sources and plugging them into midi output is not that amazing...
Or perhaps I just have high standards or something?? (being a musician)
I believe the "review" would be in the context of this is a preview of an unfinished game. Call it a "preview" if you will...
Why are so many posters missing this point? It NOT the goal of this article to point out that previews should be the same as reviews. (BTW: I mean unbiased reviews, because most have the same problems)
Things like vision, core graphics models, levels and premise are MOSTLY completed at the time of previews and can be commented on. But even things that are not finished can still be evaluated on in context of an unfinished game.
Just because it is not finished, does not mean you cannot make ANY critiques at all.
What are you after?? Something like this: (????)
This game has been in development for 2 years now and is set to go gold in 2 months. Currently it is only a cuboid polygon that is moved about with the mouse (with many controller bugs) on a white background. However, we feel confident that this will be THE BEST GAME OF THE YEAR, based on the marketing fluff we were given.
Most of the beta testers of SWG knew what was going to happen on release...
Actually I was referring to the victim's response, not the "annoyer".
The way he stood there for 10 mins when there were other ways to go. (in fact one of his team came by later??) They way he did not really appear angry, yet kept it up for a ridiculous amount of time.
Oh, and he was a VERY bad actor....
This seems rather (read: completely) staged for many reasons. I guess if you were a fan of CS you might want to believe it was real, but I would put money on the fact it is not.
That may be true.
But "I think you wife is a fat slag" is not quiet the same thing as this article....
So you have ended up something like this??
http://www.sexylosers.com/216.html
lol. Animal Farm.
I think the implied backdrop to these discussions is the Patriot Act, RIAA/MPAA, Homeland Security, Corporate donations influencing government, NSA wiretaps and of course Secret Prisons(TM) full of people held without charge and (some) being tortured.
While I respect that popular FICTION should not be used as an argument to prove a point, this is hardly the case here.
BTW, all of the above is happening under the guise of a "Great Enemy"(TM) ready to pounce at any moment.
1984 covers many of these issues in hyperbole, but mostly in a "where we could end up" sort of fashion.
OMG. I am in shock... ... ...
:)
a retraction on an internet forum...
My respect for you just went up 500 fold. I am now even sorry I used the phrase "masturbatory glee"...
Again, you completely miss the point of my post and the book itself.
1984 was a "doomsday" scenario or a "what if?" about a FICTIONAL and FUTURISTIC society.
Just because you write a sci fi about life after armageddon and it has parallels with current society, does not mean you believe the world is about to be destroyed.
Your statements are more fallacious than the statements you disagree with, because they are not talking in absolutes. You are.
Or perhaps you can miss the point entirely - there are always some? (although i see many agreed/liked my point...)
Step 1) Pretend and respond as if the author was talking in absolutes instead of making witty/amusing/thoughtful comments.
Step 2) Pretend that your own intellect is far great by posting a pretentious and patronising reply pointing out how that can't possibly be an absolute.
Step 3) Chuckle to self in masturbatory glee at your own brilliance.
1984 was a WARNING about what can happen to a society that allows it government and bureaucracy to take over. Nothing more, nothing less.
I was pointing out that it was such and that we should be careful to not "count ourselves lucky" just because things are not the same as a book, they can arrive at that in other ways.
Am I saying we live in a society as bad as 1984?
No, of course not and you would be a fool to think that.
Am I saying that there are X similarities, therefore we are like 1984?
No, and it would ridiculous to suggest it.
Am I saying that we should be wary of letting our liberties being taken from us just because the current government doesn't dress the police in jack boots and grey uniforms (yet).
Absolutely.
In every example of fascism/totalitarism/etc there was a gradual decline or a large event (e.g. 911 style) that precipitated those societies. The people's denial/ambivalence/ignorance of the process as it happened can be studied in any textbook.
What I AM saying is that we must be careful that we don't laugh at other societies and their failings and fail to fault check our own. The pursuit of freedom is an ongoing struggle against those that would wish to take it away - and there never seems to be a shortage of them!
Or perhaps that we are already living in his society and just fail to realise it...?
His work was a metaphor or a possiblity. We could already be living it, it just looks different.
Instead of the ominous TV screen, we have cable Sport, Xbox and DVDs.
Instead of a "father figure" telling our kids how to behave we have Britney(TM) or, more correctly, RIAA & MPAA?
Instead of factories where the poor go to work and large, souless offices for the rich we have....oh wait...
And so Google began its journey to the dark side.
Give in to your investors...feel the equity flow through them...all things can be financed with the equity...
Beware those that say they can do no evil. They almost always do the opposite, its just that they don't consider it that personally.
I based my doubt on the fact that there was no evidence given. I reserve judgement until facts are stated. My OPINION is that this is not the case.
Consoles have become CONSUMER devices, just like the Ipod. Gamers have to stop thinking that they are the only ones that buy games. The gaming revolution has happened already. Just because you play games, does not make you are geek or "hardcore".
I disagree totally with:
"Anyone who shells hundreds of dollars, or is able to convince a parent to do it for them, is a hardcore gamer.".
" I've observed this phenom over decades. There's little variance."
You fail to state how you have been observing it and what data you have been using??
I agree with most of your post except: "politicians and large businesses are not leaders but followers".
I believe that this used to be true, but is no longer. At least not to the same extent.
While it IS true that public opinion is THE MOST important thing for a politician still, thank god, it does not follow that they therefore almost always do what we want. (trivial assertion to be sure)
Note: Current Bush government seems to be less concerned, since they have appaling public confidence figures and don't appear to be in frantic damage control as one would assume??
While they are most concerned with public opininon, they knwo that the "masses" are not all that smart when it comes to politics. Now it is a game of "what can we get away with", rather than "make the people happy".
I agree that it will get a lot worse. The main reason, which I alluded to in my post, is that "relegislation" will take a very long time. It will also not begin until it is already a very bad problem. (like it isn't all ready) This means that the time to "fix" problem (TTFP) is given by:
TTFP = (already a chropnic disaster) + (slow legislation time)*(ability of old guard to make it slower coefficient)
And people wonder why the world is so screwed....
I can't believe some mod rated this a troll???
I find your post somewhat heartening in that perhaps we are on the cusp of some sort of IP revolution. Many companies are ALREADY finding it VERY expensive (read: stifling) to operate with an entire IP department and having to run every piece of code through their lawyers before release.
The number of patents is increasing at a ridiculous rate and this IS A GOOD THING. As the number of patents increases, it will become increasing more expensive (and soon impossible) to check even a small percentage of patents.
Let's not begin to talk about the vast numbers of bogus patents that are far too expensive to fight in court and are used only for mob-style extortion.
While you appear sure that everything will crumble and "we" will get our way, I fear that this may be a little optimistic.
What I believe will happen is that the "crumbling" of IP will create a vacum and the business funded politicians will fill this vacum with an alternative system. This may or may not be to "our" liking.
Also, the "crumbling" will be more of a "re-legislation" process over a long period of time.
IOW: I have no faith in politicians, especially not in the US with the current corporate donation racket. Do you??
The only optimistic thing I can say is that the new system cannot possibly be any worse than what we have now...can it??
That was one of the best posts I have read in a while...egg shells...so true...
I disagree and feel that this is not insightful at all.
Firstly:
The reason consoles sell so well is that they appeal many people who are NOT hardcore gamers. Flats of students now consider a console in the living room a must, much like the TV they plug into.
Secondly:
Are you saying that the majority of consoles sold are to "hardcore" gamers as opposed to casual players? I would seriously doubt this.
This is funny, but that is what many people will be doing. one of the considerations is which console is more "modable".
Of course I wont be....nooooo....no mod chip here...