"Pay yourself first." Absolutely correct. Save and invest wisely and keep it protected. Find a retirement calculator online and commit to putting that money away. Retirement may seem far away but it isn't when you're looking backwards over the years.
I understand the romantic notion of the perenially broke artist working for nothing out of pure passion for his craft but this hardly applies here. Google's dev price is hardly prohibitive unlike the big 3 console makers. Not only is the cost of the dev unit high but the big 3 don't sell them to just anyone willing to fork over the cash. The high cost also helps insure that those they sell them to will keep track of them and not let them fall into what they feel is the wrong hands. Still these units are up for sale on the grey market all the time. And there are sites devoted to community support for these unofficial developers.
Back to the point, the idea of getting a developer to pay a small premium for an additional unit should be offset by the whole idea the reason he is doing it is to make an app which he will sell for profit.
This is really a pittance to pay. Game console developers have to pay $5K, $10K and even $20K for a devkit and still be locked out of production unit features. For example, a PS3 dev unit cannot play blu-ray movie discs. Google probably would like to insure that those who sign up for development are say, going to actually do development.
This story is rather comical in light of the earlier Slashdot article today on Google Chrome. 'The web is becoming an integral part of the computer and the basic distinction between the OS and the browser doesn't matter very much any more.' -- Lars Bak, head of Chrome's Javascript.
If development heads would only check with the lawyers before making statements to the press...
Now, now the French have had many glorious naval victories. Like the sinking of the Greenpeace vessel Rainbow Warrior. This will just be recorded in French history books as one more. Now, who else wants to sign the Marsellaise?
This has nothing to do with Open Source. It sounds more like a publicity spin on an Open Beta or Public Beta, something not uncommon in the gaming world. It is particularly common on games that rely on an online community. Game manufacturers know that to release a game that relies on an online community and not have that game tried by a portion of that community prior to launch day can be suicide. Even highly anticipated games must have public trials even if they are limited by number of sign-ups. Feedback prior to launch is crucial.
Having public trials of software is nothing new. You can download beta versions of a slew of Microsoft products, Windows 7, Server 2008, Songsmith but one would hardly label them as having Open Source Design.
The "noise" which is the main thing that killed this event was the thousands of fan-boys that didn't belong there. This wasn't supposed to be the "Who Loves Videogames, Come On Down!" event that it became, it was always meant to be private, industry only. When such a huge percentage are not the media, buyers, or developers, basically anyone who can help your business other than buying your stuff retail then you end up having to cast a fairly large net to get the people you want. Your playing to a different and larger audience and have to take different tactics to get attention because the media will always follow the crowd.
E3 really started because video games started becoming too big for CES. CES doesn't seem to be going out of business, yet it uses the exact same business model. Trade shows are always zoos. But dealing with the zoo when you have so little return for it doesn't make sense. And E3 staff was mainly temp and all clueless of the business they were in.
The L.A. Convention Center was too small for it from the very beginning. Dealing with downtown L.A. traffic and parking, and zero options for alternatives from crappy overpriced convention food and a horrendous line just to eat your turkey sandwich sitting on the floor is going to make some very irritable unhappy campers. This doesn't make for a receptive audience.
I've done similar things but over gigabit ethernet. And the Windows overhead of multiple files is still the killer. As a side note, the brand and model of gigabit card makes a difference too.
However I am dubious of the time in compressing to one file and transferring to the other computer and decompressing, even with minimal or no compression is actually a time saver. Has anyone actually verified this? This seems particurly wasteful when compressing and decompressing to the same drive. It's the equivalent of copying the file 3 times. Twice locally and once over the wire.
Instead of XCOPY, I would recommend ROBOCOPY also from MS. This command line util was also written by Microsoft and does several things including retries from an MS sharing bug as well as ETAs and exclusion lists. I believe it is or was included in their free PowerToys but I recall having a hard time locating an XP version of it on the MS site the last time I needed it.
PDF? Why pick this abysmal format when there are other open formats widely available to everyone? They might as well have picked Word Perfect format. Switching to Open Office is progress but switching from one proprietary format to another isn't.
Testing is really not the issue. It's lack of testing. Although there hasn't been a way to test for "mad cow" in the past that doesn't mean the tests will be done when a test is available.
There are tests for HIV but they are not done on donated blood. The reason is cost. The American Red Cross decide years ago that it was cheaper to deal with lawsuits over infected blood than to test the blood. If tests begin for one disease people will demand tests for all. Considering the odds of each, which would you rather have blood you received tested for, mad cow or HIV?
Currently the American Red Cross relies on self reporting. They know many people are pressured into donating when blood drives are held at offices and organizations. They know people who know they should not donate may do so to prevent drawing attention to themselves and being forced to give the reason. The blood is tagged and numbered, a person may later phone anonymously and give the ID of their blood and ask it be discarded. That is the most they are willing to do for a safe blood supply.
The problem of calculating the gravitational effects of _all_ bodies that affect trajectory is well, astronomical. The earth, sun, moon and mars are the major contributing factors. Once these are calculated it's enough to do the trip. Space agencies know this isn't accurate and would miss the target but they are close enough. At one or more points on the way they calculate the difference between their actual position and the calculated one, factor in the difference and their back on course. We couldn't even go to the moon our nearest neighbor without doing this.
To calculate more bodies takes an incredible amount of computing power. That kind of processing power didn't exist decades ago when probes to mars and beyond began. So, NASA did what mariners have done for centuries, plot your best course and then fix it on the way to get where you're going.
The idea of the "better world" in many religions is belief that their world will and must come about and will exclude all persons of any other belief system. And the problem is with those that believe they must take a hand in making that world come about through force of law or violence.
This is what most Christians in the world believe. The real problem with the issue is that when most hear of Creationism they do not equate it with the far-out literal 6 day interpretation of a small group of fanatics. Most think of Creation as the Big Bang brought about by their deity.
This is an American problem. Not just that it is mainly confined in the U.S. but the fact that most Americans do not ever take the time to get the facts before voicing their opinion.
Need proof? Take a quick poll yourself. Ask someone their opinion on stem cell research. Then ask them to tell you exactly what stem cell research is.
Most comments here seem to be missing the point. Any group of people that can be categorized is a potential market. If you can name a large demographic then there are advertising campaigns and products that target them.
It's not about whether you would play such a game or even what you think about the people that would play one. It's about who is going to be the first to successfully tackle that market.
In the article the response from Microsoft and Nintendo was non-committal. A "no plans at this time" response merely means they will see if Sony's move costs them sales first.
From your post it seems that game sales in Canada may be done quite differently from the US. Here, major retailers will discount a new title $10-$15 in the first week since that is it's sales peak. Or they may choose not to lower the price but do a value added promotion such as giving away the hint book with it. Not only do they make up the difference in volume, but since they sell more than just games they can rely on other purchases as well simply because the customer is in the store. Waiting a month generally means you've missed the sale price and are paying full list price.
Slashdot Mirror
"Pay yourself first." Absolutely correct. Save and invest wisely and keep it protected. Find a retirement calculator online and commit to putting that money away. Retirement may seem far away but it isn't when you're looking backwards over the years.
I understand the romantic notion of the perenially broke artist working for nothing out of pure passion for his craft but this hardly applies here. Google's dev price is hardly prohibitive unlike the big 3 console makers. Not only is the cost of the dev unit high but the big 3 don't sell them to just anyone willing to fork over the cash. The high cost also helps insure that those they sell them to will keep track of them and not let them fall into what they feel is the wrong hands. Still these units are up for sale on the grey market all the time. And there are sites devoted to community support for these unofficial developers.
Back to the point, the idea of getting a developer to pay a small premium for an additional unit should be offset by the whole idea the reason he is doing it is to make an app which he will sell for profit.
This is really a pittance to pay. Game console developers have to pay $5K, $10K and even $20K for a devkit and still be locked out of production unit features. For example, a PS3 dev unit cannot play blu-ray movie discs. Google probably would like to insure that those who sign up for development are say, going to actually do development.
This story is rather comical in light of the earlier Slashdot article today on Google Chrome. 'The web is becoming an integral part of the computer and the basic distinction between the OS and the browser doesn't matter very much any more.' -- Lars Bak, head of Chrome's Javascript.
If development heads would only check with the lawyers before making statements to the press...
Now, now the French have had many glorious naval victories. Like the sinking of the Greenpeace vessel Rainbow Warrior. This will just be recorded in French history books as one more. Now, who else wants to sign the Marsellaise?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
This has nothing to do with Open Source. It sounds more like a publicity spin on an Open Beta or Public Beta, something not uncommon in the gaming world. It is particularly common on games that rely on an online community. Game manufacturers know that to release a game that relies on an online community and not have that game tried by a portion of that community prior to launch day can be suicide. Even highly anticipated games must have public trials even if they are limited by number of sign-ups. Feedback prior to launch is crucial.
Having public trials of software is nothing new. You can download beta versions of a slew of Microsoft products, Windows 7, Server 2008, Songsmith but one would hardly label them as having Open Source Design.
IIRC from Driver's Ed, the vehicle to the right has the right of way.
No, it's anti-sham-itism. I am currently boycotting all shams.
Well for starters, how about all the lawyers?
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/
3 Reasons
The "noise" which is the main thing that killed this event was the thousands of fan-boys that didn't belong there. This wasn't supposed to be the "Who Loves Videogames, Come On Down!" event that it became, it was always meant to be private, industry only. When such a huge percentage are not the media, buyers, or developers, basically anyone who can help your business other than buying your stuff retail then you end up having to cast a fairly large net to get the people you want. Your playing to a different and larger audience and have to take different tactics to get attention because the media will always follow the crowd.
E3 really started because video games started becoming too big for CES. CES doesn't seem to be going out of business, yet it uses the exact same business model. Trade shows are always zoos. But dealing with the zoo when you have so little return for it doesn't make sense. And E3 staff was mainly temp and all clueless of the business they were in.
The L.A. Convention Center was too small for it from the very beginning. Dealing with downtown L.A. traffic and parking, and zero options for alternatives from crappy overpriced convention food and a horrendous line just to eat your turkey sandwich sitting on the floor is going to make some very irritable unhappy campers. This doesn't make for a receptive audience.
MS announced it today. Must be pure coincidence.t .mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/defaul
I've heard it doesn't totally suck anymore.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=95
I've done similar things but over gigabit ethernet. And the Windows overhead of multiple files is still the killer. As a side note, the brand and model of gigabit card makes a difference too.
However I am dubious of the time in compressing to one file and transferring to the other computer and decompressing, even with minimal or no compression is actually a time saver. Has anyone actually verified this? This seems particurly wasteful when compressing and decompressing to the same drive. It's the equivalent of copying the file 3 times. Twice locally and once over the wire.
Instead of XCOPY, I would recommend ROBOCOPY also from MS. This command line util was also written by Microsoft and does several things including retries from an MS sharing bug as well as ETAs and exclusion lists. I believe it is or was included in their free PowerToys but I recall having a hard time locating an XP version of it on the MS site the last time I needed it.
The entire article must immediately be marked - 5 Troll/Flamebait.
-5 Critical of Apple
-5 Trolling for MacBigots
-5 Flamebait, facts do not praise Apple
+5 Interesting
+5 Informative
Final Score:
-5 Balsphemous
This post: -1 Redundant, everyone knows this already.
When? Oh wait, Khoi must be responsible for its "Skip this ad" home page and pop up.
PDF? Why pick this abysmal format when there are other open formats widely available to everyone? They might as well have picked Word Perfect format. Switching to Open Office is progress but switching from one proprietary format to another isn't.
Testing is really not the issue. It's lack of testing. Although there hasn't been a way to test for "mad cow" in the past that doesn't mean the tests will be done when a test is available.
There are tests for HIV but they are not done on donated blood. The reason is cost. The American Red Cross decide years ago that it was cheaper to deal with lawsuits over infected blood than to test the blood. If tests begin for one disease people will demand tests for all. Considering the odds of each, which would you rather have blood you received tested for, mad cow or HIV?
Currently the American Red Cross relies on self reporting. They know many people are pressured into donating when blood drives are held at offices and organizations. They know people who know they should not donate may do so to prevent drawing attention to themselves and being forced to give the reason. The blood is tagged and numbered, a person may later phone anonymously and give the ID of their blood and ask it be discarded. That is the most they are willing to do for a safe blood supply.
So that's what's in Burger King's Soylent Chicken.
The problem of calculating the gravitational effects of _all_ bodies that affect trajectory is well, astronomical. The earth, sun, moon and mars are the major contributing factors. Once these are calculated it's enough to do the trip. Space agencies know this isn't accurate and would miss the target but they are close enough. At one or more points on the way they calculate the difference between their actual position and the calculated one, factor in the difference and their back on course. We couldn't even go to the moon our nearest neighbor without doing this.
To calculate more bodies takes an incredible amount of computing power. That kind of processing power didn't exist decades ago when probes to mars and beyond began. So, NASA did what mariners have done for centuries, plot your best course and then fix it on the way to get where you're going.
People in general want the same basic things because the list of basic needs is the same for everyone.
f _needs
d s5.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_o
http://www.businessballs.com/maslowhierarchyofnee
The idea of the "better world" in many religions is belief that their world will and must come about and will exclude all persons of any other belief system. And the problem is with those that believe they must take a hand in making that world come about through force of law or violence.
This is what most Christians in the world believe. The real problem with the issue is that when most hear of Creationism they do not equate it with the far-out literal 6 day interpretation of a small group of fanatics. Most think of Creation as the Big Bang brought about by their deity.
This is an American problem. Not just that it is mainly confined in the U.S. but the fact that most Americans do not ever take the time to get the facts before voicing their opinion.
Need proof? Take a quick poll yourself. Ask someone their opinion on stem cell research. Then ask them to tell you exactly what stem cell research is.
And why should I or anyone care? Anyone so desparate for validation that needs or wants this is no one I want to know.
Most comments here seem to be missing the point. Any group of people that can be categorized is a potential market. If you can name a large demographic then there are advertising campaigns and products that target them.
It's not about whether you would play such a game or even what you think about the people that would play one. It's about who is going to be the first to successfully tackle that market.
No no no. It's just that moderators are randomly selected from the common people, the salt of the earth, the common clay, you know... morons.
In the article the response from Microsoft and Nintendo was non-committal. A "no plans at this time" response merely means they will see if Sony's move costs them sales first.
From your post it seems that game sales in Canada may be done quite differently from the US. Here, major retailers will discount a new title $10-$15 in the first week since that is it's sales peak. Or they may choose not to lower the price but do a value added promotion such as giving away the hint book with it. Not only do they make up the difference in volume, but since they sell more than just games they can rely on other purchases as well simply because the customer is in the store. Waiting a month generally means you've missed the sale price and are paying full list price.