If Google wins then Java is Free, if Apache wins then Java is Free, if IBM wins then Java is theirs.
I don't see how you get there. If Google wins, then yes, Java is free. Apache looks more likely to break Java than to set it free. If IBM wins, then OpenJDK is still Oracle's.
We'll be able to plat tux racer with hand movements?
Actually, that was my third idea for a Kinect application: a racing game where you steer with a pretend-wheel in the air. And if possible, accelerate by going "BWBWBWBWBWB" with your lips. That'd be really cool.
Apple gets plenty of crap around here for their walled garden. And this is the first time in human history that Microsoft made something really cool. Can we please applaud that? Or do we all have to be grumpy curmudgeons like you?
Minority Report required special gloves. In a way, Kinect multi-touch is already more advanced than that. And I wouldn't mind if someone used his leg or head to do multi-touch manipulations. But perhaps special gloves might help to track only the hands and ignore the rest.
Ah cool! What I was mostly worried about is how to pass those multitouch evens to the browser, though. Apart from some built-in zoom and scroll features, I didn't think browsers had any sort of general multitouch support.
But apparently, Firefox 4 has it. And apparently Safari and Chrome should be able to do it too, but I can't find anything about it yet.
I've got a couple of (really simple) ideas for how to use it.
Actually, only one is really simple. I think my 1.5 year old son would love to see a big rabbit on TV that would simply replicate his every move. Not much of a game, but a cool tech demo, as well as something for my son to enjoy.
The other (much more ambitious) idea, is to mix it with an HTML 5 demo I already was considering. I'd need some way to turn Kinect events into mouse events, I guess. Something that a browser can handle, in any case, so I think that means mouse events. Something multitouchy would be nice, but I don't think browsers support that, do they?
Java is three different and increasingly separate things:
* The Java programming language * The JVM * The Java libraries
The JVM can run many languages that are not Java. Many of those languages can use Java libraries. There can be compilers that compile code in the Java language to something other than JVM-bytecode. Dalvik is a VM, but not a JVM. You can compile Java, but also other languages to Dalvik bytecode. Harmony is (as far as I understand) a re-implementation of Java libraries, and they're available to any language running on Dalvik.
As far as I understand, compiling Java code to Dalvik bytecode is not the issue. What is an issue is whether Dalvik violates patents and/or requires a JVM license. Also an issue might be whether Harmony violated copyright by copying code from Java libraries.
Note: I'm no legal expert, nor do I know all that much about this case, but this is what it seems to be about to me.
It sounds like they're fighting the validity of software patents in general. Or at leas the "I have this obvious idea" kind. It'd be really awesome if they won that one.
Oracle is concerned about Google's unique combination of high profile, database experience in relation to their search and similar businesses, expansive business strategy and collection of high profile friends and business partners.
More than that, Oracle is concerned about Google having a lot of cash that is not in Oracle's wallet.
They don't really need to compete on licenses (though I don't doubt it's commercially attractive for them). Their bricks are of much higher quality than those of the competition. I doubt there's any other toy that's produced with that kind of precision, whereas competitors' models fall apart when you look at them.
Actually games workshop encourages the use of self made models in their games... And modified models (They even have a competition for best made and painted models that does not favor their own stock models) so I don't think you will see the big objection from there...
Don't fool yourself. GW has rules that you're only allowed to use their models in tournaments. Even when playing the game with friends, in fact, but they can't really enforce that in any way.
What they encourage people to do, is for people to buy several of their models, cut them up, and turn them into one really awesome and unique model. They call them conversions, because they convert an existing model into something new. But truly home-made stuff is heavily frowned upon. They only approve of stuff that brings your money to their pocket.
You could probably print up something fairly similar to a LEGO brick right now. Or, if not LEGO, then a DUPLO certainly. And there's definitely money to be had there. I don't know that you could really make money printing your own bricks and selling them... But you could probably save some money by printing your own bricks instead of buying them.
Do you have any idea of the accuracy of the manufacturing process for lego bricks? There are competing companies that sell compatible bricks (they're not allowed to call them LEGO, nor can they include the logo, but everything else is fair), and those bricks suck in comparison. They're either too loose, or they fit so tightly you can't separate them anymore. I really doubt a home 3D printer can get anywhere near the micrometer accuracy of LEGO or even their competitors, and I also doubt you'll be able to compete with them on price. After all, professional printers are also still in business, despite the fact that everybody has their own ink jet.
Still, might be useful if you just need one particular piece. Especially when it's a piece that doesn't even exist yet!
You could also probably use a 3D printer to generate a mold out of plastic or wax or something, and then cast something inside it. Imagine being able to turn out your own lead/plastic/pewter/whatever miniatures. Games Workshop would pitch a fit.
They would. And their stuff is so incredibly overpriced that I think printing your own army would be economically very attractive. I don't doubt you can sell them at a tidy profit too. Until GW finds out and sues you into bankruptcy, which they will.
But really, making your own designs and sharing them with others, is where the real fun is, if you ask me.
I've got a son that's 1.5 years old. If he wants to go outside, I'd have to go too, and that's not always an option. I don't want to park him behind some DVD movie either. But I think he'd really enjoy watching for example a big rabbit on TV that copied his every move (but with long ears swaying around a bit more).
Maybe I need to start writing some Linux kinect children games.
When was the last time people were excited and impressed about something new from Microsoft?
Windows 7?
Not me. Kinect is the first time in my life that I'm honestly excited about something from Microsoft. I might even want to give them my money, despite my vow from very long ago to never do that.
I rarely trust commercial reviews. I do trust user reviews, but then too I want to read more than one. A single review doesn't mean much.
Compare to boardgames and RPGs
on
When DLC Goes Wrong
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It's interesting to see how DLC is detested in computer games. In boardgames, expansions are popular and sell like wildfire, even if they tend to hurt the game experience (the basic game is often sleek and elegant, and expansions add lots of extra crap). But when people love a game, they love to pay to get even more of it. In RPGs it's even worse: a game is considered unsupported if there's not a regular schedule of source books and other stuff prying money out of our wallets. But here, more stuff usually gives the game more viability. The basic rules are nice to get you going, but we want more setting, more adventures, more careers/classes/abilities/spells, etc.
There's no real reason for it. There are lots of excellent games that have a complete and very enjoyable game in a single package, but the big sellers are the ones that keep releasing more and more stuff.
Why wouldn't this work for computer games? A big part of it is of course the way in which the game is released. If the basic game is broken and no fun at all, you'd be crazy to spend money to get more. Releasing an incomplete game and finishing it in DLC is a terrible idea. But releasing a small but fun complete game for a reasonable price, and then selling expansions and more content to those who love it so much they want to get more out of the game, that sounds like a very sensible approach. A company might make the last game you'll ever need, and live from continued support, expansions and new ideas for that game, and of course the new customers that are attracted to such a well-supported game. But yes, it needs to be about honest support, and not merely teasing some extra money out of your customers' wallet.
I think there's also a collector's itch at work with boardgames and RPGs, though. That's probably less the case with computer games, simply because they're not physical products.
I'm not an expert on this, but apparently Java is quite a lot faster at allocating memory. And it can take advantage of runtime optimalization, which can make many common operations a bit faster in some situations.
Copying data around is probably going to be slower however, simply because of the memory overhead.
Slashdot Mirror
If Google wins then Java is Free, if Apache wins then Java is Free, if IBM wins then Java is theirs.
I don't see how you get there. If Google wins, then yes, Java is free. Apache looks more likely to break Java than to set it free. If IBM wins, then OpenJDK is still Oracle's.
Considering IBM just went over to the Dark Side, I'd say IBM is Darth Vader. So Larry Ellison has to be the Emperor.
We'll be able to plat tux racer with hand movements?
Actually, that was my third idea for a Kinect application: a racing game where you steer with a pretend-wheel in the air. And if possible, accelerate by going "BWBWBWBWBWB" with your lips. That'd be really cool.
Apple gets plenty of crap around here for their walled garden. And this is the first time in human history that Microsoft made something really cool. Can we please applaud that? Or do we all have to be grumpy curmudgeons like you?
Exactly! It's perfect for that age. I'm sure my son would find it absolutely hilarious. I hope he's not too old for it by the time it's finished.
In other news, my boss is also somewhat interested in doing cool stuff with the Kinect.
Minority Report required special gloves. In a way, Kinect multi-touch is already more advanced than that. And I wouldn't mind if someone used his leg or head to do multi-touch manipulations. But perhaps special gloves might help to track only the hands and ignore the rest.
In any case, I prefer a gloveless interface.
Ah cool! What I was mostly worried about is how to pass those multitouch evens to the browser, though. Apart from some built-in zoom and scroll features, I didn't think browsers had any sort of general multitouch support.
But apparently, Firefox 4 has it. And apparently Safari and Chrome should be able to do it too, but I can't find anything about it yet.
I think Microsoft already announced that they're okay with it. Just don't expect any support from them.
I've got a couple of (really simple) ideas for how to use it.
Actually, only one is really simple. I think my 1.5 year old son would love to see a big rabbit on TV that would simply replicate his every move. Not much of a game, but a cool tech demo, as well as something for my son to enjoy.
The other (much more ambitious) idea, is to mix it with an HTML 5 demo I already was considering. I'd need some way to turn Kinect events into mouse events, I guess. Something that a browser can handle, in any case, so I think that means mouse events. Something multitouchy would be nice, but I don't think browsers support that, do they?
Java is three different and increasingly separate things:
* The Java programming language
* The JVM
* The Java libraries
The JVM can run many languages that are not Java. Many of those languages can use Java libraries. There can be compilers that compile code in the Java language to something other than JVM-bytecode. Dalvik is a VM, but not a JVM. You can compile Java, but also other languages to Dalvik bytecode. Harmony is (as far as I understand) a re-implementation of Java libraries, and they're available to any language running on Dalvik.
As far as I understand, compiling Java code to Dalvik bytecode is not the issue. What is an issue is whether Dalvik violates patents and/or requires a JVM license. Also an issue might be whether Harmony violated copyright by copying code from Java libraries.
Note: I'm no legal expert, nor do I know all that much about this case, but this is what it seems to be about to me.
It's a clever move. Both sides have quite a bit of experience with cases like these. Having them both on your side is pretty useful.
It sounds like they're fighting the validity of software patents in general. Or at leas the "I have this obvious idea" kind. It'd be really awesome if they won that one.
So why is Google being sued then?
Oracle is concerned about Google's unique combination of high profile, database experience in relation to their search and similar businesses, expansive business strategy and collection of high profile friends and business partners.
More than that, Oracle is concerned about Google having a lot of cash that is not in Oracle's wallet.
let me get this straight: it's okay to kill people but it's not okay to be creative and innovative?
Of course. Creation is where the money is, so that needs to be monopolized and exploited.
It is not a Star Trek replicator, no matter how hard nerds wish it to be so.
It's just a matter of time before 3D printers come with a supply of Earl Grey molecules.
They don't really need to compete on licenses (though I don't doubt it's commercially attractive for them). Their bricks are of much higher quality than those of the competition. I doubt there's any other toy that's produced with that kind of precision, whereas competitors' models fall apart when you look at them.
Actually games workshop encourages the use of self made models in their games... And modified models (They even have a competition for best made and painted models that does not favor their own stock models) so I don't think you will see the big objection from there...
Don't fool yourself. GW has rules that you're only allowed to use their models in tournaments. Even when playing the game with friends, in fact, but they can't really enforce that in any way.
What they encourage people to do, is for people to buy several of their models, cut them up, and turn them into one really awesome and unique model. They call them conversions, because they convert an existing model into something new. But truly home-made stuff is heavily frowned upon. They only approve of stuff that brings your money to their pocket.
You could probably print up something fairly similar to a LEGO brick right now. Or, if not LEGO, then a DUPLO certainly. And there's definitely money to be had there. I don't know that you could really make money printing your own bricks and selling them... But you could probably save some money by printing your own bricks instead of buying them.
Do you have any idea of the accuracy of the manufacturing process for lego bricks? There are competing companies that sell compatible bricks (they're not allowed to call them LEGO, nor can they include the logo, but everything else is fair), and those bricks suck in comparison. They're either too loose, or they fit so tightly you can't separate them anymore. I really doubt a home 3D printer can get anywhere near the micrometer accuracy of LEGO or even their competitors, and I also doubt you'll be able to compete with them on price. After all, professional printers are also still in business, despite the fact that everybody has their own ink jet.
Still, might be useful if you just need one particular piece. Especially when it's a piece that doesn't even exist yet!
You could also probably use a 3D printer to generate a mold out of plastic or wax or something, and then cast something inside it. Imagine being able to turn out your own lead/plastic/pewter/whatever miniatures. Games Workshop would pitch a fit.
They would. And their stuff is so incredibly overpriced that I think printing your own army would be economically very attractive. I don't doubt you can sell them at a tidy profit too. Until GW finds out and sues you into bankruptcy, which they will.
But really, making your own designs and sharing them with others, is where the real fun is, if you ask me.
I've got a son that's 1.5 years old. If he wants to go outside, I'd have to go too, and that's not always an option. I don't want to park him behind some DVD movie either. But I think he'd really enjoy watching for example a big rabbit on TV that copied his every move (but with long ears swaying around a bit more).
Maybe I need to start writing some Linux kinect children games.
Or basically "creating a driver is not what we call tampering".
That, and "don't expect any support from us". Which is entirely fair.
When was the last time people were excited and impressed about something new from Microsoft?
Windows 7?
Not me. Kinect is the first time in my life that I'm honestly excited about something from Microsoft. I might even want to give them my money, despite my vow from very long ago to never do that.
I rarely trust commercial reviews. I do trust user reviews, but then too I want to read more than one. A single review doesn't mean much.
It's interesting to see how DLC is detested in computer games. In boardgames, expansions are popular and sell like wildfire, even if they tend to hurt the game experience (the basic game is often sleek and elegant, and expansions add lots of extra crap). But when people love a game, they love to pay to get even more of it. In RPGs it's even worse: a game is considered unsupported if there's not a regular schedule of source books and other stuff prying money out of our wallets. But here, more stuff usually gives the game more viability. The basic rules are nice to get you going, but we want more setting, more adventures, more careers/classes/abilities/spells, etc.
There's no real reason for it. There are lots of excellent games that have a complete and very enjoyable game in a single package, but the big sellers are the ones that keep releasing more and more stuff.
Why wouldn't this work for computer games? A big part of it is of course the way in which the game is released. If the basic game is broken and no fun at all, you'd be crazy to spend money to get more. Releasing an incomplete game and finishing it in DLC is a terrible idea. But releasing a small but fun complete game for a reasonable price, and then selling expansions and more content to those who love it so much they want to get more out of the game, that sounds like a very sensible approach. A company might make the last game you'll ever need, and live from continued support, expansions and new ideas for that game, and of course the new customers that are attracted to such a well-supported game. But yes, it needs to be about honest support, and not merely teasing some extra money out of your customers' wallet.
I think there's also a collector's itch at work with boardgames and RPGs, though. That's probably less the case with computer games, simply because they're not physical products.
Is this kind of thing legal? This really sounds a lot like explicit corporate sponsorship. If he'd just said they'd get a mobile tablet, it'd be fine.
Also, do you want Apple to control what kind of software your health care system can use?
I'm not an expert on this, but apparently Java is quite a lot faster at allocating memory. And it can take advantage of runtime optimalization, which can make many common operations a bit faster in some situations.
Copying data around is probably going to be slower however, simply because of the memory overhead.