They fuckin' ripped all their IP from Blizzard Entertainment
The Warcraft line of game was initially intended to be a Warhammer game, but they didn't get the IP. Those guys were around a long time before Blizzard existed. Blizzard's so famous IP is a Warhammer clone.
Given the "realistic" requirements, an EvE game (minus the PeeVeePee, since that would be unpalatable to the Gov.) wouldn't work.
What you can imagine is however a kind of simulation of some "near future" solar system. Kids (since that's aimed at kids and youngsters, remember) can pursue all kind of professions, and navigate around the system up to the Oort Cloud, specialise in pseudo-engineering (improving efficiency of designs of all kind of modular stuff), space industry (production of the aforementioned designs), research (producing tech data that is used in those engineering), and so on. You build with your buddies (guild/school/whatever) your own outpost, try to make it attractive. Regular competitions and the best offering gets to host a Big Contract (your plutonian geosynchronous station got selected to host the Andromeda High Resolution Telescope) to increase your notoriety.
But yes, there's a couple elements - only a couple - from EvE that could work.
Most industry insiders report that World of Warcraft has a relatively low churn rate. About 4 to 5% montly. If you started playing at launch on Nov. 2004, you have a 20% chance of still playing.
The billions wasted on finding water on Mars could be spent on purifying water in Africa.
Except it wont. About every space critic has always been saying this "money spent in space could be spent solving X, Y or Z" (insert here worthy causes). But it wouldn't be. Every penny siphoned out of NASA's budget would end up in making another frigate for a task force here or another Homeland Security bypass of constitution, or something that is already being done.
Health? The insurance lobby will not let you spend on making universal health coverage. Homeless? Where's the housing industry lobby... ahhh, there's little groups large enough to lobby actively on the building industry, and those large enough are interested in making big 2x8-lanes bridges, not making cheap houses.
At least, with NASA funding, you sometimes get worthy fallout industries, rather than useless boondoggles that prop this or that congressman's county for the next 4 years, until they go bankrupt as the federal funding shifts.
People usually focus on charge reversal for particle-anti particle opposition; charge reversal is a consequence of anti-particle formation, not a cause. If a given particle has, say, 3 specific quarks, its anti-particle is the one with the 3 anti-quarks of them. If the sum of the quarks yield a charge, then by nature, the anti-particle will have the opposite charge, but if the total charge is 0, then the anti-particle is also neutral - but not equivalent.
It's not going to be for free. The expectations are that you're going to earn income from the MMO subscriptions - like any other (quite frankly, if your MMO is free of charge, you're going to get vandals first, players after. Besides, it's going to be easier for Joe Schmuck to ask mother about some cash to play the NASA game rather than trying to persuade her that decapitation and pierced nipples in Age of Conan make for a good education).
As for the complex physics simulator, it does need to be complex. It needs to be semi-realistic. You set the course of your ship from the Ceres Stock Exchange Central to the Pluto Very Large Aperture Telescope; it's going to draw a correct curve, move a dot around for 6-8mn while a small window next to the flat system map shows a "view" of the system as you move, and bingo. Remember: you're trying to inspire the high-school/college crowd some inspiration, not to train them as real astronauts who wouldn't pilot their ships anyway (that part will come after... if you're successful).
No but, they can trademark their names/logos/etc. You cannot slap NASA's logo everywhere without obtaining permission. You can use NASA's data (mission reports, etc), but trying to claim you're NASA/NASA-sponsored will probably land you in big trouble. And that's what they're selling (plus, of course, free access to in-house scientific and engineering expertise to build your realistic models)
You're assuming they need to make a completely new game from scratch. In the same way that LOTR Online just reskinned World of Warcraft, why can't this NASA game just reskin EVE Online?
Unfortunately, there's lots of additional constraints. You need a game that is educational chiefly - I highly suspect that having a game where the primary focus is slaughtering your human opponents across the solar system is going to be... less than warmly received by the higher-ups at NASA. The kids may love it, but the NASA?
And EvE's tied chiefly in the whole PvP experience. As a PvE game, it's... not awful. But lacking, definitively lacking.
Someone posted about A Tale in the Desert. Now, there's a game that can work as model. An economic/discovery simulation, where people have to cooperate, and simultaneously compete, all the while learning the ropes of the solar system (don't forget guys: "realistic physics". You dont' have FTL, you don't have warp drives. You can cheat on travel times around, because travel boredom is awful, but forget it).
The problem, of course, with A Tale in the Desert is that it attracts chiefly mature/older players. No kidding (joke).
Which results in the current conundrum: Any game that is highly likely to convince NASA is highly unlikely to attract kids (and thus, return on your OWN PRIVATE investment), and any game that is going to attract lots of kids and pay you back is probably not going to be good enough for NASA. Unless someone manages a miracle.
the on line gambling represent the sovereignty of the nation and isn't subject to an outside country demanding laws.
Actually, it is. Your country voluntary entered into an international treaty organisation (the WTO), which indicates that your country accepted the obligations set forth in the treaty.
Provisions of that treaty is non-discrimination: if specifics goods and services are legal in your country, and a private US company or organisation can legally provide these goods and services in the US, then a non-US company or organisation is allowed, by the terms of the treaty the US signed, to import those goods and services to the US market.
And that's the whole Antigua gambling mess. On-line gambling is allowed in the US (or parts of). Therefore, on-line gambling can be provided by Antigua companies. Legislation to the contrary is incompatible with the WTO treaty, and offer your government only two choice: alter your legislation to conform to your treaty obligations, or forgeoing the treaty. Your government as indicated that it wants to keep its incompatible legislation, but that carries a penalty: you cannot pick and choose which parts of a treaty apply. You do not comply with the treaty obligations, you cannot ask for the treaty's protection.
It is not piracy - what Antigua is doing is perfectly legal in the framework that your country accepted. Embargoing Antigua or blockading Antigua would be an entirely illegal action, and an act of war. Of course, being Antigua, and you being the US, you can declare war on Antigua anytime you want. Might makes right, and given the current might, the US can put all the pressure it wants, about anywhere. Any country can do whatever it wants - if they want to pay the price that comes with it. Escalating its violations of its treaties which were mostly written by the US anyway is always an option. I'm not so sure that the US' best interests lie in breaking out of the WTO.
Vivendi owns Blizzard. When Vivendi and Activision merged, they called the joint gaming division "Activision Blizzard".
To be exact: Vivendi Universal owns 100% of Vivendi Universal Games who owns 100% of Blizzard Entertainment. The merger is between Vivendi Universal Games and Activision, which tacks on the Blizzard name due to brand recognition, although Blizzard Entertainment remains a quasi-autonomous entity in the new structure as well. The resulting operation is that Vivendi Universal will own 52 to 68% of the new entity, which will be publically traded.
And the merger was announced; it's not yet final (SEC may object to some of the terms, since it's a publically traded copmpany that's involved - Activision - but that's considered unlikely).
I'm certain many people who are "subscribed" are inactive, the numbers don't tell us how active the subscribers are on an individual basis.
Most of the growth of the accounts is from Asia, because Asia uses a different model. In China, WoW players pay hourly, not a monthly flat rate. Due to this accounting method, and the fact that the software itself is free (you don't have to buy a box), chinese players have the habit of opening one account per character. Where, in the US or europe, a player would have one account, with five characters on it, a chinese player will have no problem having five accounts, with one character each. It doesn't matter, the cost is the same. Having multiple accounts is helpful, if you ever want to log two characters at the same time for whatever reason. Net result: the chinese player makes "five subscribers", not one. The9, who operates WoW china will tag as inactive accounts that don't have had activity, but if you log in your post office mule once a month for 5mn, you're still a subscriber.
That way, they can never say you don't have a contract, aren't a full-time employee,...
That depends on the legal system, but, here in France, we do have a provision called "implicit contract". The simple fact that you provide a paycheck assumes that you do have in fact a contract. If there's none in writing, there are default provisions in the labor code that automatically apply. Notably, you are automatically assumed to be a full-time employee unless there is a specific clause specifying the contrary in a written contract.
Accepting to pay an employee without a signed contract is... stupidity personified from the company.
Are you kidding me? MS is doing nothing new. I have had the same issues with cell phone companies/utilities/etc. Hi we are changing XYZ and if you don't like it please leave.
Hmmm, not exactly. Details differ from place to place, but the basics in most countries are as follow:
Contracts are established for a duration. Optionally, they are auto-renewed at the end of that period, usually for the same duration.
Whenever one of the parties wants a change in the contract, they have to ask the other party for their consent on the change.
If the other party agrees, contract is updated and everyone's happy.
If the other party disagrees, the contract must go on under the originally agreed terms until expiration. At expiration, the contract can be renewed under the new terms, or formally ended.
That's why, when utilities want to change your contract, they can't pressure you to accept immediately. You always have a grace period, during which the original services must remain available under the original fee structure. They can tell you to go away, but they can't tell you to sign right now, or they shut you down immediately. You always have a minimum duration, or a specific end date before they shut you down.
The patent doesn't seem to include the concept of duration into the - implicit - contract required in claim 1. And that's where it probably breaks down: you are not allowed to unilaterally break the contract (deny access to the application) until the contract reaches its renewal date. Cheesing your way by stating the contract is renegociated every time you access the application is probably of dubious legal value (IANAL, of course).
Actually, we can unplug them. If we're willing to live with the consequences, that is. But, you know, some people might be inconvenienced. I mean, their iTunes might breakdown, or something.
The code you're writing and putting into production has the potential to last for decades.
Truth. Years ago, in 1991, I wrote in Borland Pascal a program to manage competitions and national-scale ranking for the game Diplomacy in face-to-face (well, face-to-6-other-faces, in that case). I haven't been involved in the game for over 10 years, but I recently heard from the crowd again, and, well, the program is still in use. Nobody has the source anymore, it runs exclusively in DOS mode, and I expect it to be virtualized soon because it doesn't like Vista. But it is still gaining adopters, 14 years after the last version.
because it springs from the conscious desire of a free person, to give their possessions onto another person.
Not just another person, but, more specifically, a person of your blood, and no one else. But you haven't answered my question. Why is giving your offspring your personal wealth ok, but giving your offspring your personal political power not ok?
And the answer is, of course, because we nationalized political power! Political power is not a possession of an individual, it's a possession of the State. Away with nationalisation! Put back political power in the private sector!
Inheritance taxes aren't some anti-aristocratic tool, but a basic insult to the concept of economic and personal freedom in its most basic senses.
Inheritance taxes are no more an insult to your economic freedom than income taxes are. In all cases, earning some money/possession entails taxes. The origin of the income should not make a difference.
Of course, if you also oppose income taxes, then your position on inheritance taxes is perfectly sound.
while preventing competition from moving up from the bourgeois class.
If you believe suppressing the income taxes would allow the middle class bourgeois heirs to catch up with their inheritance those heirs of immense wealth, I've got a very large steel tower for sale, conveniently located in a major european touristic city, a very good opportunity for the astute investor. And your heirs will inherit it as well!
The people who are taxed are not the dead people but their heir.
Exactly. And, as long as you have an income tax, why would be the income from your parents be treated any differently than the income from your employer.
As for France, the inheritance tax law has multiple purposes. One of them is that your heirs should "inherit" early, when they're starting in life, and that money would help, rather than at your death, when usually one's heirs are middle aged, with established situations and own's fortunes. For one, you can give your children money, and it's completely tax free. All you have to do is to give them money early, not hold on it until it's no longer of use to you.
The problem of aristocracy isn't inheritance per se, it's the idea that people can be property. Serfdom is an evil thing, whether it's inflicted by a nobleman or by an elected legislature.
Don't mistake serfdom (where people are linked to their places) with slavery, where people can be property. Serfs couldn't be sold, traded, or exchanged in any way. Medieval noblemen didn't own serfs, they owned land, and the serfs were "part" of the land.
If you believe, as most on the Right would, that wealth is the fruits of one's labor (or one's ancestors' labor) and one's heirs have a duty to maintain and grow that wealth,...
To resurrect an old and out of fashion style, that's the difference between capitalistic and bourgeois. I don't have a problem to get people enjoying the fruit of their labors. But one ancestor's labors? What made you earn the right to those fruits... beside being born in the right family (and not having too many siblings to share it with).
The idea of inheritance is at the root of one of the oldest of human institutions, that of aristocracy. The idea that, being born of your father (or mother, lets not be sexist), you have an inalienable right to whatever your father enjoyed. Power, lands, wealth. No matter what you are personally. It took us millenia to get right of - most of - aristocracy's power inheritance (and we've had only partial success, a surprising number of the "powerful" of this world are still found among families where political power wasn't uncommon among their ancestors... it's just that you can now enter that club without all of your ancestors since the last coup/revolution having been there). If inheritable political power is such a bad thing, why is inheritable financial power any better?
One of the longstanding blocking points - for me - with NeoOffice was the spreadsheet. The 2.1 solved almost all of my problems with it.
I imagine Sun can do the same job, but I fail to see why they should. Alas, license problems have caused more than a fork for OS projects in the past, and I imagine it can do the same again.
From what I could gather, the game seemed to be recursive resource gathering/building
That's only part of the game.
If you pursue the path of Body, almost everything requires zero resources. Instead, you will have to travel across all of the game world, to find people/items/locations. Or Worship (does the alignment test still exists? That one require you to find 4 other people "astrally aligned" with you)
Then, you have the "basic resources" which is the highly repetitive part - but also the part that every player can do, regardless of their abilities (as a player, not as a character).
Then you have whack-a-mole resources (from very simple whackamole like Flax, to barley or glassmaking).
Then you have puzzle resources (gemcutting. You have a 6x6x6 block with random holes, and you need to cut sides until you get a specific 3d shape from the block. Require good 3D perception, and each gem is different).
And the, you arrive into the various "artistic". Using the same resources as everyone, you need to make something that people will judge better than the others'.
Basically, you've judged the game from the newbie game. However, unlike Eq-esque games (like WoW), the game changes dramatically once you find a niche to play (the game is all about various niches which you can choose) where fantasy RPGs basically play the same from level 1 to 60, with just different weapons, items and spells.
And that was what was hurting Airbus a lot.
Even if the market for the 380 is "small", it was needed.
Airbus salesman: "yes, we have a very nice and competitive set of planes for your medium carriers, buy them"
Boeing salesman: "well, we can make you a good price on the 747 you want, but if you take this and that, and that one as well"
Basically, Boeing was leveraging its dominant position in the large carrier market to keep sales in the more competitive market. So, Airbus had to put out a big honkin' plane to have a complete offer.
That's the 380.
Slashdot Mirror
The Warcraft line of game was initially intended to be a Warhammer game, but they didn't get the IP. Those guys were around a long time before Blizzard existed. Blizzard's so famous IP is a Warhammer clone.
Given the "realistic" requirements, an EvE game (minus the PeeVeePee, since that would be unpalatable to the Gov.) wouldn't work.
What you can imagine is however a kind of simulation of some "near future" solar system. Kids (since that's aimed at kids and youngsters, remember) can pursue all kind of professions, and navigate around the system up to the Oort Cloud, specialise in pseudo-engineering (improving efficiency of designs of all kind of modular stuff), space industry (production of the aforementioned designs), research (producing tech data that is used in those engineering), and so on. You build with your buddies (guild/school/whatever) your own outpost, try to make it attractive. Regular competitions and the best offering gets to host a Big Contract (your plutonian geosynchronous station got selected to host the Andromeda High Resolution Telescope) to increase your notoriety.
But yes, there's a couple elements - only a couple - from EvE that could work.
Most industry insiders report that World of Warcraft has a relatively low churn rate. About 4 to 5% montly. If you started playing at launch on Nov. 2004, you have a 20% chance of still playing.
Health? The insurance lobby will not let you spend on making universal health coverage. Homeless? Where's the housing industry lobby... ahhh, there's little groups large enough to lobby actively on the building industry, and those large enough are interested in making big 2x8-lanes bridges, not making cheap houses.
At least, with NASA funding, you sometimes get worthy fallout industries, rather than useless boondoggles that prop this or that congressman's county for the next 4 years, until they go bankrupt as the federal funding shifts.
People usually focus on charge reversal for particle-anti particle opposition; charge reversal is a consequence of anti-particle formation, not a cause. If a given particle has, say, 3 specific quarks, its anti-particle is the one with the 3 anti-quarks of them. If the sum of the quarks yield a charge, then by nature, the anti-particle will have the opposite charge, but if the total charge is 0, then the anti-particle is also neutral - but not equivalent.
Hey! Why did this post my message (above) anonymously! I'm no Anonymous Coward!
It's not going to be for free. The expectations are that you're going to earn income from the MMO subscriptions - like any other (quite frankly, if your MMO is free of charge, you're going to get vandals first, players after. Besides, it's going to be easier for Joe Schmuck to ask mother about some cash to play the NASA game rather than trying to persuade her that decapitation and pierced nipples in Age of Conan make for a good education).
As for the complex physics simulator, it does need to be complex. It needs to be semi-realistic. You set the course of your ship from the Ceres Stock Exchange Central to the Pluto Very Large Aperture Telescope; it's going to draw a correct curve, move a dot around for 6-8mn while a small window next to the flat system map shows a "view" of the system as you move, and bingo. Remember: you're trying to inspire the high-school/college crowd some inspiration, not to train them as real astronauts who wouldn't pilot their ships anyway (that part will come after... if you're successful).
No but, they can trademark their names/logos/etc. You cannot slap NASA's logo everywhere without obtaining permission. You can use NASA's data (mission reports, etc), but trying to claim you're NASA/NASA-sponsored will probably land you in big trouble. And that's what they're selling (plus, of course, free access to in-house scientific and engineering expertise to build your realistic models)
And EvE's tied chiefly in the whole PvP experience. As a PvE game, it's... not awful. But lacking, definitively lacking.
Someone posted about A Tale in the Desert. Now, there's a game that can work as model. An economic/discovery simulation, where people have to cooperate, and simultaneously compete, all the while learning the ropes of the solar system (don't forget guys: "realistic physics". You dont' have FTL, you don't have warp drives. You can cheat on travel times around, because travel boredom is awful, but forget it).
The problem, of course, with A Tale in the Desert is that it attracts chiefly mature/older players. No kidding (joke).
Which results in the current conundrum: Any game that is highly likely to convince NASA is highly unlikely to attract kids (and thus, return on your OWN PRIVATE investment), and any game that is going to attract lots of kids and pay you back is probably not going to be good enough for NASA. Unless someone manages a miracle.
Provisions of that treaty is non-discrimination: if specifics goods and services are legal in your country, and a private US company or organisation can legally provide these goods and services in the US, then a non-US company or organisation is allowed, by the terms of the treaty the US signed, to import those goods and services to the US market.
And that's the whole Antigua gambling mess. On-line gambling is allowed in the US (or parts of). Therefore, on-line gambling can be provided by Antigua companies. Legislation to the contrary is incompatible with the WTO treaty, and offer your government only two choice: alter your legislation to conform to your treaty obligations, or forgeoing the treaty. Your government as indicated that it wants to keep its incompatible legislation, but that carries a penalty: you cannot pick and choose which parts of a treaty apply. You do not comply with the treaty obligations, you cannot ask for the treaty's protection.
It is not piracy - what Antigua is doing is perfectly legal in the framework that your country accepted. Embargoing Antigua or blockading Antigua would be an entirely illegal action, and an act of war. Of course, being Antigua, and you being the US, you can declare war on Antigua anytime you want. Might makes right, and given the current might, the US can put all the pressure it wants, about anywhere. Any country can do whatever it wants - if they want to pay the price that comes with it. Escalating its violations of its treaties which were mostly written by the US anyway is always an option. I'm not so sure that the US' best interests lie in breaking out of the WTO.
And the merger was announced; it's not yet final (SEC may object to some of the terms, since it's a publically traded copmpany that's involved - Activision - but that's considered unlikely).
Most of the growth of the accounts is from Asia, because Asia uses a different model. In China, WoW players pay hourly, not a monthly flat rate. Due to this accounting method, and the fact that the software itself is free (you don't have to buy a box), chinese players have the habit of opening one account per character. Where, in the US or europe, a player would have one account, with five characters on it, a chinese player will have no problem having five accounts, with one character each. It doesn't matter, the cost is the same. Having multiple accounts is helpful, if you ever want to log two characters at the same time for whatever reason. Net result: the chinese player makes "five subscribers", not one. The9, who operates WoW china will tag as inactive accounts that don't have had activity, but if you log in your post office mule once a month for 5mn, you're still a subscriber.
That depends on the legal system, but, here in France, we do have a provision called "implicit contract". The simple fact that you provide a paycheck assumes that you do have in fact a contract. If there's none in writing, there are default provisions in the labor code that automatically apply. Notably, you are automatically assumed to be a full-time employee unless there is a specific clause specifying the contrary in a written contract.
Accepting to pay an employee without a signed contract is... stupidity personified from the company.
An EVE/E&B rip-off, Blizzard style.
- Contracts are established for a duration. Optionally, they are auto-renewed at the end of that period, usually for the same duration.
- Whenever one of the parties wants a change in the contract, they have to ask the other party for their consent on the change.
- If the other party agrees, contract is updated and everyone's happy.
- If the other party disagrees, the contract must go on under the originally agreed terms until expiration. At expiration, the contract can be renewed under the new terms, or formally ended.
That's why, when utilities want to change your contract, they can't pressure you to accept immediately. You always have a grace period, during which the original services must remain available under the original fee structure. They can tell you to go away, but they can't tell you to sign right now, or they shut you down immediately. You always have a minimum duration, or a specific end date before they shut you down.The patent doesn't seem to include the concept of duration into the - implicit - contract required in claim 1. And that's where it probably breaks down: you are not allowed to unilaterally break the contract (deny access to the application) until the contract reaches its renewal date. Cheesing your way by stating the contract is renegociated every time you access the application is probably of dubious legal value (IANAL, of course).
Actually, we can unplug them. If we're willing to live with the consequences, that is.
But, you know, some people might be inconvenienced. I mean, their iTunes might breakdown, or something.
Truth. Years ago, in 1991, I wrote in Borland Pascal a program to manage competitions and national-scale ranking for the game Diplomacy in face-to-face (well, face-to-6-other-faces, in that case). I haven't been involved in the game for over 10 years, but I recently heard from the crowd again, and, well, the program is still in use. Nobody has the source anymore, it runs exclusively in DOS mode, and I expect it to be virtualized soon because it doesn't like Vista. But it is still gaining adopters, 14 years after the last version.
because it springs from the conscious desire of a free person, to give their possessions onto another person.
Not just another person, but, more specifically, a person of your blood, and no one else. But you haven't answered my question. Why is giving your offspring your personal wealth ok, but giving your offspring your personal political power not ok?
And the answer is, of course, because we nationalized political power! Political power is not a possession of an individual, it's a possession of the State. Away with nationalisation! Put back political power in the private sector!
Inheritance taxes aren't some anti-aristocratic tool, but a basic insult to the concept of economic and personal freedom in its most basic senses. Inheritance taxes are no more an insult to your economic freedom than income taxes are. In all cases, earning some money/possession entails taxes. The origin of the income should not make a difference.
Of course, if you also oppose income taxes, then your position on inheritance taxes is perfectly sound.
while preventing competition from moving up from the bourgeois class.
If you believe suppressing the income taxes would allow the middle class bourgeois heirs to catch up with their inheritance those heirs of immense wealth, I've got a very large steel tower for sale, conveniently located in a major european touristic city, a very good opportunity for the astute investor. And your heirs will inherit it as well!
The people who are taxed are not the dead people but their heir. Exactly. And, as long as you have an income tax, why would be the income from your parents be treated any differently than the income from your employer.
As for France, the inheritance tax law has multiple purposes. One of them is that your heirs should "inherit" early, when they're starting in life, and that money would help, rather than at your death, when usually one's heirs are middle aged, with established situations and own's fortunes. For one, you can give your children money, and it's completely tax free. All you have to do is to give them money early, not hold on it until it's no longer of use to you.
The problem of aristocracy isn't inheritance per se, it's the idea that people can be property. Serfdom is an evil thing, whether it's inflicted by a nobleman or by an elected legislature.
Don't mistake serfdom (where people are linked to their places) with slavery, where people can be property. Serfs couldn't be sold, traded, or exchanged in any way. Medieval noblemen didn't own serfs, they owned land, and the serfs were "part" of the land.
The idea of inheritance is at the root of one of the oldest of human institutions, that of aristocracy. The idea that, being born of your father (or mother, lets not be sexist), you have an inalienable right to whatever your father enjoyed. Power, lands, wealth. No matter what you are personally. It took us millenia to get right of - most of - aristocracy's power inheritance (and we've had only partial success, a surprising number of the "powerful" of this world are still found among families where political power wasn't uncommon among their ancestors... it's just that you can now enter that club without all of your ancestors since the last coup/revolution having been there). If inheritable political power is such a bad thing, why is inheritable financial power any better?
One of the longstanding blocking points - for me - with NeoOffice was the spreadsheet. The 2.1 solved almost all of my problems with it.
I imagine Sun can do the same job, but I fail to see why they should. Alas, license problems have caused more than a fork for OS projects in the past, and I imagine it can do the same again.
You mean chimputers, right?
Get enough of these, and you'll produce any guideline you need!
And that was what was hurting Airbus a lot. Even if the market for the 380 is "small", it was needed. Airbus salesman: "yes, we have a very nice and competitive set of planes for your medium carriers, buy them" Boeing salesman: "well, we can make you a good price on the 747 you want, but if you take this and that, and that one as well" Basically, Boeing was leveraging its dominant position in the large carrier market to keep sales in the more competitive market. So, Airbus had to put out a big honkin' plane to have a complete offer. That's the 380.