More resources can solve pressing needs. Space is a large space - the sooner we start using it the more things we can do to solve those pressing needs.
They could have gone so may directions with an opensolaris platform, but now they are kicking it the curb because it does not generate revenue, or rather they don't see any real way to monetize it.
Actually it's the opposite in my opinion - EVE is more opportunist's paradise - what you can't buy you can steal, what you can't steal, you can bribe. A small dedicated crew can do a lot in this game, if focused on a goal or two. It's not like WoW where everyone is after just plain and simple boss drops and the only way to get them is to cooperating in perfect unison like some kind of convoluted ball dance. Sure wow has pvp, but that's not it's focus - I could get more pvp action out of guild wars. WoW is all about pressured cooperation for mutual benefit (once you max level, most participate in raiding or PvP), there is no artificial pressure in EVE - yes, it would benefit you to join a corp, yes you get some kind of benefit out of traveling in a group. But the artificial pressure of obtaining better gear is not an issue in this game, and that's how some people prefer it.
Also I would like to add the purpose behind free software is that you can freely modify, change and update the code as you see fit, the fact you didn't get paid to create the software is another issue that is separate.
No one forces you to release free software - some people purport that it an idealogical struggle so by releasing software they are fighting against a future owned by corporations that create for profit software. Others do it just because the see a niche need for software they would like so they create and give it away. How you decide to release software is mostly a personal decision, but in some rare cases some business decide it would better to release the source code to some product so they no longer have to actively maintain it. So in your 'unpaid employee' example, nobody is forcing you to make updates, or commit to churning out new code. If you feel taken advantage of, the by all means don't bother really. It's not hard to do. But if your feeling moody because someone else took your work that you freely gave away and made it popular, well maybe you shouldn't have gave it away in the first place, no?
Well to be honest, Shuttleworth decided to take something that was sorta good, and then involve private corporations just like how Microsoft does it. I love Ubuntu! I used to use Debian but they were so slow to update their software, and were not focused on the desktop end user. Their main focus was stability - the server users. Open source folks have to get used to the idea not everything in a popular OS / distribution needs to be open for it be usable for the masses. The use of software is not really idealogical struggle, and personally I wish people would really stop framing it in that fashion. At the end of the day some people would / will want to be paid for their effort for creating software for your use. Other people believe that everything should open and free for everyone which very awesome, but looking at the material history of the world has never really occurred as everything created has some intrinsic value. All that free software is worth something and someone, somewhere is going to capitalize on it - i.e. Apple for example. IMO the only way that Linux or another open source OS will get big is when they accept that for somethings, you have to pay to have someone create them. Sure there will be some good hearted souls out there that will give stuff away, but you shouldn't really rely on that if you want better software variety and wide adoption. This is one of the driving reason IMO there is no AAA games for Linux, as well as other popular niche applications that are huge industries. On that tangent, if Linux is truly going to take significant market share from other OS's the ability to use other OS's programs flawless or nearly flawlessly will be key in that, as being able to run a vast library of almost anything for costing nothing is a huge advantage. I have been saying this years, if Microsoft was really wise, they would dump whatever OS they are making and like apple, and take some Linux distro and wine and make it work and then slowly phase out the old while embracing Linux as the future.
I quoth:
"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
Thou art truly craven! What is to live without the light of Liberty? I shall tell thee: Tyranny!
Just looking at that makes me want to be able to buy that for my uncle that has MS. And because it's new, if widely adopted, improvements will undoubtedly make it cheaper to build and more affordable for the common person.
I don't think it really matters - if developers can (for once) say upfront we will make x amount of DLC minimum, I for one would be all about it, just as long as they do in fact release the amount of content that they promised and perhaps make avaik. I don't care if they have to raise the price to cover costs, just as long as it's fair for what I get. Now, that being said, what I hate the most is that developers that over promise, and the game turns out to be either nothing like it was described to be, or bug ridden to the point it's not really playable or they never deliver on.
WOW didn't trailblaze with that, SWG did, justified as recouping the development costs. Sure they make more money off sub's - that's the point, but in order to generate more income, those upfront dollars are great just make sure they have enough money to keep the servers on until the server population stabilizes.
While you may feel that way, he did put in work to get the site popular, and convenient. Sure people are upset about the privacy, but the whole point of the site was in fact to gather data on other people. A lot of people just don't get that - of course he wants to invade your privacy, he wants more data to mine and sell! It's a business, just because people don't pay to make an account and login doesn't mean Facebook is not allow to make money, they have to just too, just keep the service running and the employees paid. And frankly, before the privacy debacle, anyone was on there was a google search away from finding out whatever dirt they themselves posted on that site. I think people are getting bent about it because they feel violated that someone has access to data that they themselves and their buddies dumped on the website. To be upset that someone put in some hard work to be successful with a social web project from the get go that was (and still is!) about data mining, is very much like crying over spilled milk. Get over it.
Why is it on slashdot, we get more and better arguments about the founding documents of the United States of America, but the politicians, the people we trust to run our goverment appear not to know didily squat about it. The lack of understanding of our so call Representatives is so appalling. Why can they just simply outlaw lobbies to government ? Why does the government consistently eschew its responsibility to it constituents? It as if we wish for leaders, but what we get instead or people of poor quality and small of mind. Congress should be ashamed of it's poor quality.
I've played EVE for a while, and my major gripes is for the population of players, the game universe is too big. In addition to that there is no real way to interact with people beyond joining a corp/alliance that is active and political. A large portion of the low sec area are not even used, the resources are not valuable, and you risk being blown up by very experienced pvp players. Even learning to pvp is a difficult thing - there are so many things that you have to learn and know most of them not conveniently placed in the ui somewhere. Most people give up well before they are able to do anything of significance, and I don't blame them. It's a hard game to play and feed back reward is low.
Personally, if ISP's in the united states are going back to the early 1990's with bandwidth caps, and on top that of traffic inspection based on what they deem acceptable, the internet is going to be a dull boring place like television is these days (disclaimer: I do not watch television). True most people today will not use that kind of bandwidth, but folks like myself do use enormous amounts of it. It irritates me that companies will quickly cut off high usage users and not offer some kind of reasonable pricing structure knowing they have users that do consume that much. People such as I, would gladly pay for an all you can eat service at a reasonable cost instead of just saying - 250 that's it. Even worse they fail to give users proper tools to determine how much they are using so they can self moderate, allowing them to cast off customers they don't want: people that use the service to the fullest, consuming bandwidth that they may have over sold. Sure it's not as bad as using cellphone based access but hot damn bandwidth limits are annoying (and stupid).
This whole tragedy is going to cost dearly in terms of ecological damage, economic damage and monetary damage. However, what I am really wondering is if someone is going to politically capitalize on this and push strongly for nuclear or other alternate energy production methods. It seems almost ridiculous that we are still focusing on acquiring more fossil fuels when we should be building something else before it runs out.
I would support something like this - if it was fair. Give me a DRM scheme that allows me to register my devices (computers, players, etc.) that allows for unlimited copying & play back on devices that originally did not or cannot support it, it would be awesome. Of course such a scheme would make one song ballon up to double or triple the size of a normal mp3/aac/ogg file... but I digress...
That may be so but the main point of this method is it's potential to be stealthy - you would have to set this up years or months in advance, it's not ment to be quick. Combine this with an electronic attack on the various detection systems and its pretty much a done deal. It's low risk, high damage potential. A falling asteroid in your nations backyard (it doesn't matter where) will fuck shit up for them. Hell even after planetfall you can launch your ICBM's to complete the deal. Orbital mechanics has advanced enough I would think that they can predict the planetfall of a major strike to at least to the general region.
Slashdot Mirror
More resources can solve pressing needs. Space is a large space - the sooner we start using it the more things we can do to solve those pressing needs.
I honestly thought they were talking about gnu/hurd and wondered why they were suing HP of all people.
They could have gone so may directions with an opensolaris platform, but now they are kicking it the curb because it does not generate revenue, or rather they don't see any real way to monetize it.
Actually it's the opposite in my opinion - EVE is more opportunist's paradise - what you can't buy you can steal, what you can't steal, you can bribe. A small dedicated crew can do a lot in this game, if focused on a goal or two. It's not like WoW where everyone is after just plain and simple boss drops and the only way to get them is to cooperating in perfect unison like some kind of convoluted ball dance. Sure wow has pvp, but that's not it's focus - I could get more pvp action out of guild wars. WoW is all about pressured cooperation for mutual benefit (once you max level, most participate in raiding or PvP), there is no artificial pressure in EVE - yes, it would benefit you to join a corp, yes you get some kind of benefit out of traveling in a group. But the artificial pressure of obtaining better gear is not an issue in this game, and that's how some people prefer it.
These only can be truly mobile with nuclear powered generators and dedicated satellite for each boat. Good luck with that!
Or rather in the old EVE adage: Don't fly (or cargo) what you can't afford to replace!
Also I would like to add the purpose behind free software is that you can freely modify, change and update the code as you see fit, the fact you didn't get paid to create the software is another issue that is separate.
No one forces you to release free software - some people purport that it an idealogical struggle so by releasing software they are fighting against a future owned by corporations that create for profit software. Others do it just because the see a niche need for software they would like so they create and give it away. How you decide to release software is mostly a personal decision, but in some rare cases some business decide it would better to release the source code to some product so they no longer have to actively maintain it. So in your 'unpaid employee' example, nobody is forcing you to make updates, or commit to churning out new code. If you feel taken advantage of, the by all means don't bother really. It's not hard to do. But if your feeling moody because someone else took your work that you freely gave away and made it popular, well maybe you shouldn't have gave it away in the first place, no?
Well to be honest, Shuttleworth decided to take something that was sorta good, and then involve private corporations just like how Microsoft does it. I love Ubuntu! I used to use Debian but they were so slow to update their software, and were not focused on the desktop end user. Their main focus was stability - the server users. Open source folks have to get used to the idea not everything in a popular OS / distribution needs to be open for it be usable for the masses. The use of software is not really idealogical struggle, and personally I wish people would really stop framing it in that fashion. At the end of the day some people would / will want to be paid for their effort for creating software for your use. Other people believe that everything should open and free for everyone which very awesome, but looking at the material history of the world has never really occurred as everything created has some intrinsic value. All that free software is worth something and someone, somewhere is going to capitalize on it - i.e. Apple for example. IMO the only way that Linux or another open source OS will get big is when they accept that for somethings, you have to pay to have someone create them. Sure there will be some good hearted souls out there that will give stuff away, but you shouldn't really rely on that if you want better software variety and wide adoption. This is one of the driving reason IMO there is no AAA games for Linux, as well as other popular niche applications that are huge industries. On that tangent, if Linux is truly going to take significant market share from other OS's the ability to use other OS's programs flawless or nearly flawlessly will be key in that, as being able to run a vast library of almost anything for costing nothing is a huge advantage. I have been saying this years, if Microsoft was really wise, they would dump whatever OS they are making and like apple, and take some Linux distro and wine and make it work and then slowly phase out the old while embracing Linux as the future.
Too bad, This would be something I would buy for office meetings :)
I quoth: "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin Thou art truly craven! What is to live without the light of Liberty? I shall tell thee: Tyranny!
Just looking at that makes me want to be able to buy that for my uncle that has MS. And because it's new, if widely adopted, improvements will undoubtedly make it cheaper to build and more affordable for the common person.
I don't think it really matters - if developers can (for once) say upfront we will make x amount of DLC minimum, I for one would be all about it, just as long as they do in fact release the amount of content that they promised and perhaps make avaik. I don't care if they have to raise the price to cover costs, just as long as it's fair for what I get. Now, that being said, what I hate the most is that developers that over promise, and the game turns out to be either nothing like it was described to be, or bug ridden to the point it's not really playable or they never deliver on.
WOW didn't trailblaze with that, SWG did, justified as recouping the development costs. Sure they make more money off sub's - that's the point, but in order to generate more income, those upfront dollars are great just make sure they have enough money to keep the servers on until the server population stabilizes.
While you may feel that way, he did put in work to get the site popular, and convenient. Sure people are upset about the privacy, but the whole point of the site was in fact to gather data on other people. A lot of people just don't get that - of course he wants to invade your privacy, he wants more data to mine and sell! It's a business, just because people don't pay to make an account and login doesn't mean Facebook is not allow to make money, they have to just too, just keep the service running and the employees paid. And frankly, before the privacy debacle, anyone was on there was a google search away from finding out whatever dirt they themselves posted on that site. I think people are getting bent about it because they feel violated that someone has access to data that they themselves and their buddies dumped on the website. To be upset that someone put in some hard work to be successful with a social web project from the get go that was (and still is!) about data mining, is very much like crying over spilled milk. Get over it.
The bush was weed. That would account for everything.
Thanks - Never heard of Juno Reactor till today :)
Why is it on slashdot, we get more and better arguments about the founding documents of the United States of America, but the politicians, the people we trust to run our goverment appear not to know didily squat about it. The lack of understanding of our so call Representatives is so appalling. Why can they just simply outlaw lobbies to government ? Why does the government consistently eschew its responsibility to it constituents? It as if we wish for leaders, but what we get instead or people of poor quality and small of mind. Congress should be ashamed of it's poor quality.
I've played EVE for a while, and my major gripes is for the population of players, the game universe is too big. In addition to that there is no real way to interact with people beyond joining a corp/alliance that is active and political. A large portion of the low sec area are not even used, the resources are not valuable, and you risk being blown up by very experienced pvp players. Even learning to pvp is a difficult thing - there are so many things that you have to learn and know most of them not conveniently placed in the ui somewhere. Most people give up well before they are able to do anything of significance, and I don't blame them. It's a hard game to play and feed back reward is low.
Personally, if ISP's in the united states are going back to the early 1990's with bandwidth caps, and on top that of traffic inspection based on what they deem acceptable, the internet is going to be a dull boring place like television is these days (disclaimer: I do not watch television). True most people today will not use that kind of bandwidth, but folks like myself do use enormous amounts of it. It irritates me that companies will quickly cut off high usage users and not offer some kind of reasonable pricing structure knowing they have users that do consume that much. People such as I, would gladly pay for an all you can eat service at a reasonable cost instead of just saying - 250 that's it. Even worse they fail to give users proper tools to determine how much they are using so they can self moderate, allowing them to cast off customers they don't want: people that use the service to the fullest, consuming bandwidth that they may have over sold. Sure it's not as bad as using cellphone based access but hot damn bandwidth limits are annoying (and stupid).
This whole tragedy is going to cost dearly in terms of ecological damage, economic damage and monetary damage. However, what I am really wondering is if someone is going to politically capitalize on this and push strongly for nuclear or other alternate energy production methods. It seems almost ridiculous that we are still focusing on acquiring more fossil fuels when we should be building something else before it runs out.
Where's my ARM netbooks damn it ?!
I would basicly design and network around using mini macs as thin clients for such a roll out.
I would support something like this - if it was fair. Give me a DRM scheme that allows me to register my devices (computers, players, etc.) that allows for unlimited copying & play back on devices that originally did not or cannot support it, it would be awesome. Of course such a scheme would make one song ballon up to double or triple the size of a normal mp3/aac/ogg file... but I digress...
That may be so but the main point of this method is it's potential to be stealthy - you would have to set this up years or months in advance, it's not ment to be quick. Combine this with an electronic attack on the various detection systems and its pretty much a done deal. It's low risk, high damage potential. A falling asteroid in your nations backyard (it doesn't matter where) will fuck shit up for them. Hell even after planetfall you can launch your ICBM's to complete the deal. Orbital mechanics has advanced enough I would think that they can predict the planetfall of a major strike to at least to the general region.