Writer obtains a following through free distribution. Writer wants to make money with future works. Having written a new work, writer freely distributes samples of this work. Writer then sets a contribution bounty, for fair compensation of his time and effort. Once the set amount is reached, the work is then released for free distribution.
The only way to control the flow of copyrighted information (intrusive law enforcement and DRM notwithstanding) is to not distribute in the first place.
Telecommunications and digital electronics have demonstrated that bits of information do not behave like physical object, which are subject to property laws because they are naturally scarce. Why, then, are we trying to make information even more into property?
This is the dialog which the powers-that-be do not wish to enter into. There was no opposition to the original Berne Convention (can I hear a "Fuck you, Victor Hugo"?), nor could there have been. But some of us believe that we now know better. They will fail to acknowledge any discussion, because businesses built on idea-as-property, having grown very large and influential with nearly all politicians, have everything to lose and nothing to gain.
Of course, this is all talk right now, because there is no opportunity for demonstration, thanks to these treaties.
rt2x00 is on the way to future kernel inclusion. In the meantime, the drivers derived from Ralink's code, which is in turn derived from their NDIS sources, are more than usable.
Wait until symptoms manifest. We don't know how to effectively stop non-neutrality before it happens, and either way, we can't know what the side effects of our actions will be.
It's just that we have to continually remind ourselves, the telcos, and Congress that certain pricing policies are blatantly unacceptable, in addition to the multitude of other issues that we track.
From talking to my friend the cross platform stuff just needs a lot of simplification and unification. He claims it takes much less effort to make something work in DirectX than OpenGL and that everything in DirectX, be it 2D, 3D, input, sound, etc is all done in the same way.
So I think what needs to be done first is to out slick DirectX. Produce a unified API that does everything, and does it easier than DX does. You have a leg up in that regard as you aren't shackled to any legacy designs. Make it so that, even if they don't plan on porting, developers want to use it because it is so much better. Port the API to everything, Windows, Mac, Liunx, the consoles, and so on. Then it becomes much easier to make the port argument "Well if you are going to use AwesomeAPI anyhow it takes very little time to port cross platform."
What about SDL? It seems to try to ease some of OpenGL's banalities. SDL performs the same functionality as DirectX; it essentially translates into DirectX calls when compiled for Windows anyway.
Convince more game devs to use OpenGL, libSDL, OpenAL, and other cross-platform libraries, lest they settle with straight DirectX. Ports become very easy (and presumably less expensive) to do, making it more likely that a port will turn a profit. And we all know how the suits love a profit.
If a coprocessor that can do the same kind of mass calculation that a DSP or a GPU can do is incorporated into an architecture, I wonder if even more speedup can be had for all kinds of tasks in general.
If I create a GPL-licensed program to emulate the hardware, I can use both the emulator and the GPLed driver together, for any purpose. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but I can't say that I find your logic for the appropriateness of closed drivers useful.
I think that while chip and hardware designers are under no obligation to release open drivers, they ought not withhold the ISA in any way. If a piece of hardware cannot be documented for the purpose of creating drivers without revealing the hardware's RTL or other deep internals, that's pretty awful of them (especially in a technical sense).
Speaking of which, how much money would it cost to get information like that released for free redistribution? Everything has a price, and knowing the what and why of that price would be a move (however small) towards freeing that information.
No, it's not. As is repeatedly demonstrated with other genres and other media, just because something is popular doesn't mean that it's not tripe.
and it's not THAT great.
Yes, NGE isn't that great. However, it does have the ability to appeal to a wide range of people. I related to it because I empathize with Shinji; I understand the mindfuck at the end. That doesn't mean that I think it's the best or even really that good.
Even if they were to release the souce you probably couldn't use it unless they granted some kind of license to use the patented algorithms freely. And they haven't done that to date despite lobbying by various people (including Alan Cox).
I know that I'm comparing apples to oranges, but it's that kind of attitude that has created for us this big shitstorm over illegal immigration: People want to work in this country, and our companies are willing to hire them over American workers, and they aren't going to take no for an answer, so you might as well let them have what they want, but on your terms.
Slashdot Mirror
Writer obtains a following through free distribution. Writer wants to make money with future works. Having written a new work, writer freely distributes samples of this work. Writer then sets a contribution bounty, for fair compensation of his time and effort. Once the set amount is reached, the work is then released for free distribution.
The only way to control the flow of copyrighted information (intrusive law enforcement and DRM notwithstanding) is to not distribute in the first place.
Telecommunications and digital electronics have demonstrated that bits of information do not behave like physical object, which are subject to property laws because they are naturally scarce. Why, then, are we trying to make information even more into property?
This is the dialog which the powers-that-be do not wish to enter into. There was no opposition to the original Berne Convention (can I hear a "Fuck you, Victor Hugo"?), nor could there have been. But some of us believe that we now know better. They will fail to acknowledge any discussion, because businesses built on idea-as-property, having grown very large and influential with nearly all politicians, have everything to lose and nothing to gain.
Of course, this is all talk right now, because there is no opportunity for demonstration, thanks to these treaties.
rt2x00 is on the way to future kernel inclusion. In the meantime, the drivers derived from Ralink's code, which is in turn derived from their NDIS sources, are more than usable.
Wait until symptoms manifest. We don't know how to effectively stop non-neutrality before it happens, and either way, we can't know what the side effects of our actions will be.
It's just that we have to continually remind ourselves, the telcos, and Congress that certain pricing policies are blatantly unacceptable, in addition to the multitude of other issues that we track.
Depending on the definition of "science", one could argue that Bush does promote some science---the science of making things go boom.
If it were "Captain IP", then you'd have
Go IP!
-1) I'm not the one who would be doing the convincing.
:) I don't know many specifics about programming with media like 3D graphics and sound.
0) This entire discussion is predicated on the ravings and unsubstantiated speculation of a fanboy. Apple probably isn't going to do anything.
1) Does SDL lack certain high-level constructs? Anybody want to add them? Should the OpenGL ones go into a separate utility library?
That's all I got.
From talking to my friend the cross platform stuff just needs a lot of simplification and unification. He claims it takes much less effort to make something work in DirectX than OpenGL and that everything in DirectX, be it 2D, 3D, input, sound, etc is all done in the same way.
So I think what needs to be done first is to out slick DirectX. Produce a unified API that does everything, and does it easier than DX does. You have a leg up in that regard as you aren't shackled to any legacy designs. Make it so that, even if they don't plan on porting, developers want to use it because it is so much better. Port the API to everything, Windows, Mac, Liunx, the consoles, and so on. Then it becomes much easier to make the port argument "Well if you are going to use AwesomeAPI anyhow it takes very little time to port cross platform."
What about SDL? It seems to try to ease some of OpenGL's banalities. SDL performs the same functionality as DirectX; it essentially translates into DirectX calls when compiled for Windows anyway.
Convince more game devs to use OpenGL, libSDL, OpenAL, and other cross-platform libraries, lest they settle with straight DirectX. Ports become very easy (and presumably less expensive) to do, making it more likely that a port will turn a profit. And we all know how the suits love a profit.
Since when did Windows endanger someone's life?
(Death-by-Balmer doesn't count.)
If a coprocessor that can do the same kind of mass calculation that a DSP or a GPU can do is incorporated into an architecture, I wonder if even more speedup can be had for all kinds of tasks in general.
Why are you assuming that the use of OpenGL excludes the use of non-Direct3D DirectX components?
Nobody uses the default Windows OpenGL drivers for game-capable cards anyway, so the OpenGL-via-Direct3D won't matter.
If I create a GPL-licensed program to emulate the hardware, I can use both the emulator and the GPLed driver together, for any purpose. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but I can't say that I find your logic for the appropriateness of closed drivers useful.
I think that while chip and hardware designers are under no obligation to release open drivers, they ought not withhold the ISA in any way. If a piece of hardware cannot be documented for the purpose of creating drivers without revealing the hardware's RTL or other deep internals, that's pretty awful of them (especially in a technical sense).
Speaking of which, how much money would it cost to get information like that released for free redistribution? Everything has a price, and knowing the what and why of that price would be a move (however small) towards freeing that information.
And since when have you been obligated to care about what I say? I do not control you. Listen to whomever the fuck you want to.
Apple sells hardware and services. MS sells software.
I do not recognize software as a product, not without coersive laws and terms of agreement making it so. At best, software is a service. At best.
The Chinese government has no right to do that under any circumstances.
It is my impression that one has every right to fork Wikipedia or otherwise imitate it.
Now, restricting access to one site over the other is a completely different story.
This is one of the best series anime has to offer
No, it's not. As is repeatedly demonstrated with other genres and other media, just because something is popular doesn't mean that it's not tripe.
and it's not THAT great.
Yes, NGE isn't that great. However, it does have the ability to appeal to a wide range of people. I related to it because I empathize with Shinji; I understand the mindfuck at the end. That doesn't mean that I think it's the best or even really that good.
Obviously, they were burned by Hot Coffee.
Even if they were to release the souce you probably couldn't use it unless they granted some kind of license to use the patented algorithms freely. And they haven't done that to date despite lobbying by various people (including Alan Cox).
Sigh.
When does the patent expire?
They want animated vector graphics. SVG will provide that, but it's not ready yet. Flash will have to do for now.
With these something-else-plus-depression cases, the depression is always just icing on the cake.
Those "they"s in the last three clauses is supposed to refer to the workers, not the companies, though I guess it works for both.
I know that I'm comparing apples to oranges, but it's that kind of attitude that has created for us this big shitstorm over illegal immigration: People want to work in this country, and our companies are willing to hire them over American workers, and they aren't going to take no for an answer, so you might as well let them have what they want, but on your terms.
I don't think that three is a sufficiently large sample to reach many conclusions in general.