Hey, nothing wrong with HL2DM! I can tell you have a chipshoulder about a particular bug, or peculiarity which people have learned to exploit to whup you. Do go on. (I'm partially joshing with you, but at the same time I'm genuinely interested if you've found something glaring)*
* If it's the gravygun thing, I've tried reporting it.
One of them is the indescribably wank* HLDM:Source, the other I'm guessing is a gametype I already have from one of my packs or the back catalog. episode 1 can be standalone, so it'd make sense to have HL2DM in there as well but that's speculation on my part.
* remember how big a letdown HL:Source was? with exactly the same low-poly everything, and only new shiny water and breaking glass as the improvements? HLDM:Source is worse.
Always remember, however, that free software is easy to use despite the best intentions of the developers. Found a UI bug that, if fixed, would triple mainstream uptake? tough, because the programmers are only writing it for themselves.
They took the pre-existing definition of a second, and measured how many cycles happened in that second, then rounded that to the nearest integer and said "new definition which is only dependant on quantum mechanics".
I'm confused and hurt, like a kicked puppy or a rape victim. Why aren't you using this obscure and inferior technology which is similar only in that the press releases share words?
Cool! so does that mean that $favourite_scifi_cliche will become true within 5 years? If not, why do you hate me personally?
Nvidia spokespeople have stated that a lot of the IP is in the software, and only some on the chip. Whilst I feel that this is a bit cheap (oy, stop doing everything on my cpu, you thieving gypsies!) it is within their right. Remember hardware modems vs. software modems? Not to mention the parts of the code which didn't come from nvidia.
It's not like a child who wants a helicopter for christmas. You don't take someone aside and gently explain to them in short words why what they want is impossible IF what they want is very possible but conflicts with your personal philosophy. the appropriate answer to "you told me that linux would be a good replacement for windows, now how do I play 3d games" is NOT "maybe you should consider other avenues of your free time"
Indeed. The way I understand it is that an LGPL header (or a header under a more permissive license) can be #include'd and then dynamically linked to create code with no GPL obligations that Works Properly. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.
oh PLEASE. The main argument against security cameras and ubiqitous surveillance is that the goverment consists of NORMAL PEOPLE. When (if) I'm captured on film going into an adult bookstore, the less likely possibility is that the right-wing christian goverment of the future will come for me. The more likely possibility is that my mother-in-law will be working at security camera HQ. Shenannigans ensue.
I heard it was called (and this is not inflammatory, I'm quoting) "fuck you money". Money for the explicit and sole purpose of replacing your regular income for a few months, to give you the freedom to say "fuck you" to your boss at any time.
Distribution charges may include, say, downloads. Consider linspire. You can quite happily charge $200 or $2000 for a CD containing binaries and source. HOWEVER you cannot prevent them from then selling it on to someone else.
Has it ever ocurred to you that people release things under the GPL for precisely those reasons? I'm a selfish bastard, and I don't want people making money off what I do unless I get a cut or get to see what modifications they made, so I can compete directly with them if neccesary.
These are the people who made the gamecube, by far the hardest console to pirate games for (read: execute homebrew games or mods). Not gonna happen. Unless the game makers leave the option open, but somehow I doubt it.
It was more of an argument against people who are arrogant enough to have opinions like "my idea for a mars rover is better than nasa's, let's just stick xeons in it" or something. People who don't even consider the possibility that the entity they are criticising has already thought of whatever they propose and dismissed it.
I was aiming to point out logical inconsistencies in a person's own subjective world view. How can you reconcile "my idea is great" with "they are not using my idea" other than to assume logical inconsistences (such as: a large rich company with excellent R&D didn't think of it) and/or unlikely assumptions (such as: I'm better than them, that's why they didn't hire me) ?
Consider the world. Consider your picture of the world. If they are different, your picture is wrong.
Money is flowing into quantum crypto because courier-based kex is insufficient. Also, QC is intrinsically point-to-point since there's no current way to reliably switch photons. This allows you to take two black boxes and connect them with a cable 20 miles long, and you're 100% guaranteed to be able to get information from A to B without anyone being able to find it out. Could be good for, say, teleconferencing between the white house and the pentagon.
Just because the cost per unit is zero, doesn't mean that the creators forfeit all rights to a ROI. It still cost money to make the damn thing, cover the losses from all the shit music people don't buy. I propose a scale of decreasing cost over time, with the work becoming public domain after a certain amount of revenue.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also fan-made and not done yet. It's what everyone was expecting valve to do in the first place.
Never been somewhere with that problem before. Is this with one particular map being on for hours or does it happen on rotation?
Hey, nothing wrong with HL2DM! I can tell you have a chipshoulder about a particular bug, or peculiarity which people have learned to exploit to whup you. Do go on. (I'm partially joshing with you, but at the same time I'm genuinely interested if you've found something glaring)*
* If it's the gravygun thing, I've tried reporting it.
One of them is the indescribably wank* HLDM:Source, the other I'm guessing is a gametype I already have from one of my packs or the back catalog. episode 1 can be standalone, so it'd make sense to have HL2DM in there as well but that's speculation on my part.
*
remember how big a letdown HL:Source was? with exactly the same low-poly everything, and only new shiny water and breaking glass as the improvements? HLDM:Source is worse.
take the subset of games you don't dislike because of the premise or gameplay, then take the subset of that which doesn't suck.
If every shadow you see is a burgling addict that deserves to be shot, I hate to think what you do to the milkman if he doesn't phone ahead.
It's the job of critics and engineers to say things like that constantly and then land a newspaper deal when (if) it happens.
Always remember, however, that free software is easy to use despite the best intentions of the developers. Found a UI bug that, if fixed, would triple mainstream uptake? tough, because the programmers are only writing it for themselves.
Disclaimer, I'm a developer and I do this.
They took the pre-existing definition of a second, and measured how many cycles happened in that second, then rounded that to the nearest integer and said "new definition which is only dependant on quantum mechanics".
Yes, because of all the hundreds of high-performance game titles developed exclusively for BeOS.
I'm confused and hurt, like a kicked puppy or a rape victim. Why aren't you using this obscure and inferior technology which is similar only in that the press releases share words?
Cool! so does that mean that $favourite_scifi_cliche will become true within 5 years? If not, why do you hate me personally?
Nvidia spokespeople have stated that a lot of the IP is in the software, and only some on the chip. Whilst I feel that this is a bit cheap (oy, stop doing everything on my cpu, you thieving gypsies!) it is within their right. Remember hardware modems vs. software modems? Not to mention the parts of the code which didn't come from nvidia.
It's not like a child who wants a helicopter for christmas. You don't take someone aside and gently explain to them in short words why what they want is impossible IF what they want is very possible but conflicts with your personal philosophy. the appropriate answer to "you told me that linux would be a good replacement for windows, now how do I play 3d games" is NOT "maybe you should consider other avenues of your free time"
Indeed. The way I understand it is that an LGPL header (or a header under a more permissive license) can be #include'd and then dynamically linked to create code with no GPL obligations that Works Properly. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.
Aah, so the person I heard it off (who was talking about advice from his "dad") is a thieving gypsy.
oh PLEASE. The main argument against security cameras and ubiqitous surveillance is that the goverment consists of NORMAL PEOPLE. When (if) I'm captured on film going into an adult bookstore, the less likely possibility is that the right-wing christian goverment of the future will come for me. The more likely possibility is that my mother-in-law will be working at security camera HQ. Shenannigans ensue.
I heard it was called (and this is not inflammatory, I'm quoting) "fuck you money". Money for the explicit and sole purpose of replacing your regular income for a few months, to give you the freedom to say "fuck you" to your boss at any time.
God damn you're dumb. That's a parody list designed to make fun of slashdot users.
Has it ever ocurred to you that people release things under the GPL for precisely those reasons? I'm a selfish bastard, and I don't want people making money off what I do unless I get a cut or get to see what modifications they made, so I can compete directly with them if neccesary.
These are the people who made the gamecube, by far the hardest console to pirate games for (read: execute homebrew games or mods). Not gonna happen. Unless the game makers leave the option open, but somehow I doubt it.
It was more of an argument against people who are arrogant enough to have opinions like "my idea for a mars rover is better than nasa's, let's just stick xeons in it" or something. People who don't even consider the possibility that the entity they are criticising has already thought of whatever they propose and dismissed it.
I was aiming to point out logical inconsistencies in a person's own subjective world view. How can you reconcile "my idea is great" with "they are not using my idea" other than to assume logical inconsistences (such as: a large rich company with excellent R&D didn't think of it) and/or unlikely assumptions (such as: I'm better than them, that's why they didn't hire me) ?
Consider the world. Consider your picture of the world. If they are different, your picture is wrong.
Money is flowing into quantum crypto because courier-based kex is insufficient. Also, QC is intrinsically point-to-point since there's no current way to reliably switch photons. This allows you to take two black boxes and connect them with a cable 20 miles long, and you're 100% guaranteed to be able to get information from A to B without anyone being able to find it out. Could be good for, say, teleconferencing between the white house and the pentagon.
Just because the cost per unit is zero, doesn't mean that the creators forfeit all rights to a ROI. It still cost money to make the damn thing, cover the losses from all the shit music people don't buy. I propose a scale of decreasing cost over time, with the work becoming public domain after a certain amount of revenue.
With this new patent-free formula, any old company can knock up generic tamiflu and undercut HLR. GSK, I'm looking at you.