Believe it or not but this is how its done in most cases. If you take a closer look at history (more and more people should do that IMHO) you will see that a lot of great inventions were started by a group of people who were trying something knowing where they wanted to go yet could not focus on it. It takes money, a lot of money but it will gain you enormous expertise on the subject and, if the people working on it are really motivated and all, will get great results.
Heck, even multinationals as Phillips had such research teams. Basicly they gave people a lab. with the resources to "go their way". The result? Well, one of them was the CD player as we know it today. And what to think of MS ? Even seen the programmers there getting all the room they want to go their own way?
Sadly these tactics aren't possible in most cases due to the enourmas raise of wages and all (not every person qualifies for this setup, a lot will abuse their freedom). A bad thing since tactics like this will eventually lead to true innovation.
I'm somewhat surprised at the mild approach of both candidates. 'Somewhat' because they can't afford to 'hurt' a large amount of people and loose votes. Yet despite this fact both make it quite clear that they are against 'the violation of copyright'. I don't see any negative comments on Napster here, just illegal activities.
Being unfamiliar with the American elections I can't go into much details (just that I don't give these comments much credit since the candidates mostly tell you what you would like to hear) but it does remind me of an earlier/. article concerning shortage of people within the IT sector. Isn't it true that mp3's are wildely spread within this sector? If you want to be able to access them you'll need to know something about it or be influenced by it. Which makes me wonder; did these candidates just tell us that there is indeed a sense of truth in the stories about the shortage? Maybe I'm seeing things that aren't there, allways a good option, but just think of it; would a country of which its highest political 'leader' speaks heavily against the small things which make life & work more comfterble (I know, should grab the dictionary:/) (I like listening to internet radio at work) appeal to you? Dunno about you guys but if I'd hear that (and take the possible acitons into consideration) I'd think it over before going there armed with my mp3 player filled with some nice JPop / Anime tunes.
Hehe, I totally agree with you there. If you can choose between, say, a virtual reality kit or some race car model for GP3 and yet you choose this for a setup then you truly are hopeless;-))
I allways disliked the idea of working inside a small cube (most recent example seen in The Matrix;)) and this doesn't make things any better. Granted; it looks like you can easily work with the computer. But stuff like checking manuals, writing documents and still then trying to keep the Unix bible from crashing off your table seems like nearly impossible there. A small desk for papers and such before they keyboard and a somewhat larger one behind your back?
Dunno about you guys but when I grab the FM I'd like to check those examples and thingies while I'm reading (at least at work). IMHO this design sucks for system administrators (that would be me;)), programmers, site art designers, financial managers (don't know the right verb), application managers, and maybe even directors / managers themselves (there is hardly any space to talk with customers). So whats left? IMHO the ordinary secretaries and the people behind the desk, but I doubt if they would like a design such as this;)
IMHO people should concentrate on how you can use this kind of stuff. NOT how it looks.
Haven't we been arging all aong that ISP's should be considered Commmon Carries
I think that heavily depends on the service which is offered by the provider. When talking email contents I think it should be indeed included in the carrier 'rules' but when websites are concerned its a totally different issue IMHO.
it seems that Jeff Merkey had told MS
about his work on NTFS, and MS had explicitly OKed this work
Yet they are now withdrawing that OK for reasons which are not shared with us. In fact; we got to see a (very?) small part of the letter these guys received from MS and in that letter I picked up some parts which I found 'odd'. IMHO you simply can't judge MS by these small parts of information.
Well, this is surely not meant to be one... This is such a twisted troll that it's hard to know where to start. Since when do you need to buy a liscence to reverse engineer?
First it isn't allways legal. 2nd; if they reverse engineered it, why did they appeal for a license and are making such a fuss over loosing it?
Frankly I don't think MS is at fault here. If you take a closer look at the first paragraph: we have dissolved our NTFS licensing agreements with Microsoft in response to their demands that cease to support Linux development. Microsoft demanded that we delete any and all NTFS tools we had been providing to customers based on their intellectual property.
The article itself states that they asked MS for a license which allowed them to use the NTFS specs. An fs which was completely stolen^H^Hdeveloped by MS:) But thats not the issue; iirc MS has licensed NTFS and they own the specs. If you want to use it in another way then accessing the available NT routines you'll need a licence. Like it or not; thats MS decision and you can only respect it.
The way I see it these folks decided to break the agreement (see quote) and therefor also threw away their right to make use of the MS specifications and routines which allowed them to access the NTFS internals. So? Is MS evil just because they are defending their product here? Sure, MS usually takes actions which are highly controversial, their development of NTFS is right among those IMHO (remember hpfs?). But that does not mean that every action taken by MS is evil/monopolistic/unfair/dictating/ by default. Besides, please do not forget that we only see 1 side of the story here. We didn't even get to see the entire letter send by MS.
Anyway; these people should stop whining IMHO. If they want to develop NTFS based programs and don't want to be restricted by the will of MS they should do what other did before them; buy the appropiate MS development tools which gives them the right to use the NTFS specs in their own software. Whether that software is Linux or Windows based is irrelevant.
The article starts off promising (IMHO) but it all boils down, as usual, to that very specific factor which needs to be changed yet, in the real world, never will be changed. I quote:
The elimination of Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability requires that the Server defers any per-connection resource commitment until the Client's remote IP address has been "authenticated".
Surprisingly, the existing TCP protocol can accommodate these changes at the Server, without requiring any alteration in the Client's operation.
Correct me if I'm wrong but DoS attacks can be stopped at this very moment. The only thing we need to do is to make sure that those servers, which need to be altered anyway according to this article, get some tighter security. In many (most?) cases the servers used for DoS attacks don't have very much prevention to attacks (break in attempts) and aren't very well monitored... So what makes you think you can prevent it by implementing this modification while other, earlier, solutions failed due to the ignorance of most server operators?
Anyway; I'm not a tcp/ip crack myself but as far as I can tell this looks very promising. If you can manage to pour this into a form which can be easily implemented by your regular careless administrator (the primary target anyway) then it could be a very good think IMO. Any solid attempts to stop the fl00d crap deserves all the attention it can get IMO. I wonder... MS seems to be good at altering allready settled protocols like kerberos and such. If they are truly focused on end user protection and such then I'm really curious how long it will take them to implement modifications like this into their NT server. It would surely put them a bit higher on the lists of truly innovating people IMHO (credit where credits due).
``We want people to have the choice to accessorize themselves with technology,'' Charmed Technology co-founder Katrina Barillova told Reuters.
``People are afraid technology will turn them into cyborgs and make them lose their privacy and humanity. But the way to prevent the cyborg thing is to make it fashionable,'' she said.
Is this woman blond by any change? I don't think people are afraid to look like The Borg(tm). In fact, I think they are, like myself, afraid to get involved in a nasty accident. Looking with one eye can be very unhandy in traffic. Using the other eye for playing UT can be very distractive. And the result can be very messy. (hmm, on the other hand... live UT effects....).
Honestly, do you really think that that is worse ? As a European, I'm very glad that I don't have to re-subscribe for (say) my cellphone service
Same here. But that system is more open for abuse. Once someone is tricked into something its very likely it'll go on for some time while the chances are more slim in the US.
A well known trick was to try and get anyone at the company to sign a contract... a usual ruse being find the cleaner on duty and say we've got a delivery for this photocopier, would you mind signing for it.
Now the poor cleaner had been tricked into thinking they were signing for a delivery, as we all no people don't usually read what their signining.
Thats why we have contracts:-) In the cleaners contract there should be a small passage stating that he has no authorety what so ever to approve aquisitions for the company he's working for. Knowing that its not his business what so ever, I'm sure he will point the salesmen toward the right person. So basicly it still comes down to well setup contracts and reading them.
Not only do these contracts limit individuals, they limit our society as a whole.
This whole article seems to focus on the negative side off there contracts and I don't really agree with that. Sure; when taking the 28k8 modem into consideration it is bad when you sign that to last for 6 years and after 5 years you still run on 28k8. Or is it? What happens if that speed changes? Lets say that I'm very happy with 28k8 (I'm happy with my 56k6 at the moment so it IS possible:)) and I'm not interested in all those upgrades. Due to the immense developments this company sells 56k6 connections and I see my 28k8 drop to 14k4. Yikes!
But... Hold on.... Didn't I sign a contract stating that this company promised me a clear 28k8 connection? Sure, contracts can limit people and companies but they can also insure your rights very clearly.
Besides; I think that Europeans (at least we in Holland) will (/ are) suffer(ing) more then the people in the US. I've noticed this from the very first moment when I read an American magazine; you guys have to re-new your subscriptions and such (every 1 - year) while we can sign up papers which state that the subscriptions will go on untill I tell them I don't want it anymore. And yes; this also exists in contract form.
And what about the rest of the world (outside of the US)? Can we follow it too by realvideo or something or is that a bit too much to ask? (on the other hand; media in transvision, the name sounds right for it IMHO).
The use of words like "secure system" mislead the public into thinking that such things exist
If people are fooled by names like that then they have no business within the security sector and should not bother with it IMVHO. After all; rule one is knowing what you are talking about, and this isn't just the case for security issues.
Looking at the problem as one of risk management, detection and response are far more effective security tools than prevention can ever be. And Managed Security Monitoring is the most cost-effective way, as well as the most effective way, to reduce the risk of financial losses due to network attacks.
Sounds nice if you stay within the range of companies this article is focused on. But it sure will not do for every organisation out there. Allthough he stated this himself (For example, it makes no sense to purchase a $10,000 safe to secure $1000 diamond...) I'm surprised to see this in his final conclusion. For a small business the costs to maintain a M.S.M. system is far more expensive and has much more overhead then a solution based on prevention. Lets take this into 'normal proportions' and try some real life examples...
M.S.M. would take a system to track the entire stuff, a network operator (or more offcourse) to monitor the readings and take action once something is happening. Perhaps he can do this besides his normal work but that would reduce the whole effectiveness I guess. Is this effective? Sure, but don't look at the costs of this solution. To put it blunt; if I wanted something like this I'd go broke very soon.
When I compare this to setting up a masquing proxy & firewall with some "low-end" solution like ipchains (prevention), making regular backups (even more prevention) and finally having some very good insurances it becomes quite clear which is the best solution for SOHO's and up. When an attack is made it sure took 'm some time to breach my firewall. If that happens and I loose data I got backups and when they fail (unlikely) I'm still way off from going broke since my immediate costs to reduce the damage are covered as well.
Therefor I think that globally concluding that M.S.M. is the most cost-effective way, by standard, is not true.
And now the only thing we can do is hope that this paint is also waterproof. I'd hate to see all those crying kids who's stuffed animals are being taken away because there wasn't a trace of paint to be found in the pouring rain.
I really doubt that they can lift the (wrong grammar:) central spinning force (?). The earth is rotating. We don't feel any of this because gravity prevents us from being slinged into space. But the further you go from the centre the higher these forces will become....
Personally I doubt that they will be able to do this in 50 years. The main reason being the fact that I've allready read stories about this +/- 15 years ago stating that in 20 years from now....
Games developers, and individuals are designing new inovitive games, but publishers won't fund the development of anything that their market drones don't understand
I agree and also slightly disagree;). True; there has to be a market for a certain (type off) game otherwise you'll be throwing out money. On the other hand; you can make more money out of a completely new sort off game then making a re-run. Reruns get boring; and if everyone is doing it people will hardly notice you. Question remains; who has to persuade the publisher?:) Anyway, I agree with you there.
But then weve gone it a circle, and basically, its the publics fault again. So I ask you - when did you last buy an origanal, inovative game?
Check my original story; a few months back I got Shogun, total war. Which uses a completely new concept.
But you have to consider the advantages that a unionized IT labor force would have. Perhaps union is to loaded a word, how about a professional giuld of IT workers.
When companies are told to hire people instead of getting them judged on capabilities then that'll be the end of the whole IT industry. Without cutting edge compatition there will be no innovation. Pardon me for saying but I think its a horrible idea. Taken things even more drastic; how about M$ using his influence to "advice" this institute that Linux based companies are a pefect place for senior programmers. They really need and like to code 18 hours in one day. Gimme a break...
Now that games are ontopic I wonder how you guys feel about the going ons lately. I've been playing & buying games for quite some time now and I'm visiting my local computer store quite regulary to see if something new & nice came out. Unfortunatly it seems that game developers are unable to come up with anything new lately. Every game which you can buy nowadays seems based, or is a follow up, of games types which have been invented for quite some time now. It seems that games companies now focus more on "how to bring in the cash" then "how to entertain the public". One of the best examples are, IMHO offcourse, Eidos, ID software and Westwood.
Eidos, to begin with, made some pretty lame and crap games (talking real innovation they did prior to TR1 is gone so it seems. In a way thats quite unfortunate.
ID software & Westwoord... ID set the perfect standard for shoot 'm ups. If it wasn't for ID we never got games like Quake and even Unreal / Unreal Tournament. They set a perfect standard (Wolfenstein, Spear, Doom, Quake) and this concept got perfectly copied by others (Unreal, Half Life, etc.). But sometimes it allmost seems that all these others aren't capable of doing anything else!! Take a look at Command & Conquer, also one of my favorites. Now we finally got the last (?) chapter Tiberian Sun. But meanwhile; take a closer look at what the rest did with the whole C&C concept? Starcraft comes to mind as well as a lot of other games.
But even despite the fact that some 'copies / clones / etc.' are even better then the original; what did these game companies really contribute? IMHO absolutely nothing; they just started a search for more money. Due to the simple fact that they didn't have to invent the wheel, that has allready been done for 'm, they could easily move on where the original game had to stop (you can't keep developing a game forever).
And now we seem trapped in a games market where companies have lost the knowledge on how to innovate alltogether. The last real new idea which I encountered was "Shogun, the art of War". A game focused on fudal Japan. Even though my story is based on the PC market I'm sure this is the case for other platforms as well. I guess the only thing we can do is to wait and see if anything new will come up...
Ironically, this important discovery (or possible discovery) comes weeks before the collider used to make it is scheduled to be shut down. Can you say "the dilemma of prior investment"?
I don't think it will have to come to that, the dilemma I mean. After reading the story I get the impression that both devices work on a allmost identical scale yet this one, suddenly, discovers something that may proof to be the upcoming Higgs allthough it can't seem to provide any hard evidence to back up this theory. I allways get an eerie feeling when reading such stories. Sure, its a very random factor we are dealing with, no doubts there. But I do have the impression that their timing on providing us with the "if... maybe... money... close down" news wasn't coincedence in any way. Neither would I be surprised if the upcoming Higgs isn't going to be discovered in this machine between now and December.
Bottom line; it is people we are dealing with and normally people like to keep their jobs. Being a scientist doesn't change this fact. I'm a little disappointed that the article didn't give us any more "inside" information on that subject; what are these scientists going to do when the device shuts down? Any other projects they can work on? Are they going to the States to help these guys out? Or do they get the 'sack' in a "everyone for himself" situation? Once you know the answer to these questions you have a little more insight on the question 'is this for real'. In this case this article is mere decoration IMHO; no real news value.
Slashdot Mirror
Galaxies, black holes, clouds my ass. Its perfectly clear to me; Unicron has awakened and is now coming to get us.
Heck, even multinationals as Phillips had such research teams. Basicly they gave people a lab. with the resources to "go their way". The result? Well, one of them was the CD player as we know it today. And what to think of MS ? Even seen the programmers there getting all the room they want to go their own way?
Sadly these tactics aren't possible in most cases due to the enourmas raise of wages and all (not every person qualifies for this setup, a lot will abuse their freedom). A bad thing since tactics like this will eventually lead to true innovation.
What else can I say... Takenori-san; Doomo arigatoo gozaimasu.
Being unfamiliar with the American elections I can't go into much details (just that I don't give these comments much credit since the candidates mostly tell you what you would like to hear) but it does remind me of an earlier /. article concerning shortage of people within the IT sector. Isn't it true that mp3's are wildely spread within this sector? If you want to be able to access them you'll need to know something about it or be influenced by it. Which makes me wonder; did these candidates just tell us that there is indeed a sense of truth in the stories about the shortage? Maybe I'm seeing things that aren't there, allways a good option, but just think of it; would a country of which its highest political 'leader' speaks heavily against the small things which make life & work more comfterble (I know, should grab the dictionary :/) (I like listening to internet radio at work) appeal to you? Dunno about you guys but if I'd hear that (and take the possible acitons into consideration) I'd think it over before going there armed with my mp3 player filled with some nice JPop / Anime tunes.
Hehe, I totally agree with you there. If you can choose between, say, a virtual reality kit or some race car model for GP3 and yet you choose this for a setup then you truly are hopeless ;-))
Dunno about you guys but when I grab the FM I'd like to check those examples and thingies while I'm reading (at least at work). IMHO this design sucks for system administrators (that would be me ;)), programmers, site art designers, financial managers (don't know the right verb), application managers, and maybe even directors / managers themselves (there is hardly any space to talk with customers). So whats left? IMHO the ordinary secretaries and the people behind the desk, but I doubt if they would like a design such as this ;)
IMHO people should concentrate on how you can use this kind of stuff. NOT how it looks.
I think that heavily depends on the service which is offered by the provider. When talking email contents I think it should be indeed included in the carrier 'rules' but when websites are concerned its a totally different issue IMHO.
Yet they are now withdrawing that OK for reasons which are not shared with us. In fact; we got to see a (very?) small part of the letter these guys received from MS and in that letter I picked up some parts which I found 'odd'. IMHO you simply can't judge MS by these small parts of information.
First it isn't allways legal. 2nd; if they reverse engineered it, why did they appeal for a license and are making such a fuss over loosing it?
The article itself states that they asked MS for a license which allowed them to use the NTFS specs. An fs which was completely stolen^H^Hdeveloped by MS :) But thats not the issue; iirc MS has licensed NTFS and they own the specs. If you want to use it in another way then accessing the available NT routines you'll need a licence. Like it or not; thats MS decision and you can only respect it.
The way I see it these folks decided to break the agreement (see quote) and therefor also threw away their right to make use of the MS specifications and routines which allowed them to access the NTFS internals. So? Is MS evil just because they are defending their product here? Sure, MS usually takes actions which are highly controversial, their development of NTFS is right among those IMHO (remember hpfs?). But that does not mean that every action taken by MS is evil/monopolistic/unfair/dictating/ by default. Besides, please do not forget that we only see 1 side of the story here. We didn't even get to see the entire letter send by MS.
Anyway; these people should stop whining IMHO. If they want to develop NTFS based programs and don't want to be restricted by the will of MS they should do what other did before them; buy the appropiate MS development tools which gives them the right to use the NTFS specs in their own software. Whether that software is Linux or Windows based is irrelevant.
The elimination of Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability requires that the Server defers any per-connection resource commitment until the Client's remote IP address has been "authenticated". Surprisingly, the existing TCP protocol can accommodate these changes at the Server, without requiring any alteration in the Client's operation.
Correct me if I'm wrong but DoS attacks can be stopped at this very moment. The only thing we need to do is to make sure that those servers, which need to be altered anyway according to this article, get some tighter security. In many (most?) cases the servers used for DoS attacks don't have very much prevention to attacks (break in attempts) and aren't very well monitored... So what makes you think you can prevent it by implementing this modification while other, earlier, solutions failed due to the ignorance of most server operators?
Anyway; I'm not a tcp/ip crack myself but as far as I can tell this looks very promising. If you can manage to pour this into a form which can be easily implemented by your regular careless administrator (the primary target anyway) then it could be a very good think IMO. Any solid attempts to stop the fl00d crap deserves all the attention it can get IMO. I wonder... MS seems to be good at altering allready settled protocols like kerberos and such. If they are truly focused on end user protection and such then I'm really curious how long it will take them to implement modifications like this into their NT server. It would surely put them a bit higher on the lists of truly innovating people IMHO (credit where credits due).
``People are afraid technology will turn them into cyborgs and make them lose their privacy and humanity. But the way to prevent the cyborg thing is to make it fashionable,'' she said.
Is this woman blond by any change? I don't think people are afraid to look like The Borg(tm). In fact, I think they are, like myself, afraid to get involved in a nasty accident. Looking with one eye can be very unhandy in traffic. Using the other eye for playing UT can be very distractive. And the result can be very messy. (hmm, on the other hand... live UT effects....).
Same here. But that system is more open for abuse. Once someone is tricked into something its very likely it'll go on for some time while the chances are more slim in the US.
Thats why we have contracts :-) In the cleaners contract there should be a small passage stating that he has no authorety what so ever to approve aquisitions for the company he's working for. Knowing that its not his business what so ever, I'm sure he will point the salesmen toward the right person. So basicly it still comes down to well setup contracts and reading them.
This whole article seems to focus on the negative side off there contracts and I don't really agree with that. Sure; when taking the 28k8 modem into consideration it is bad when you sign that to last for 6 years and after 5 years you still run on 28k8. Or is it? What happens if that speed changes? Lets say that I'm very happy with 28k8 (I'm happy with my 56k6 at the moment so it IS possible :)) and I'm not interested in all those upgrades. Due to the immense developments this company sells 56k6 connections and I see my 28k8 drop to 14k4. Yikes!
But... Hold on.... Didn't I sign a contract stating that this company promised me a clear 28k8 connection? Sure, contracts can limit people and companies but they can also insure your rights very clearly.
Besides; I think that Europeans (at least we in Holland) will (/ are) suffer(ing) more then the people in the US. I've noticed this from the very first moment when I read an American magazine; you guys have to re-new your subscriptions and such (every 1 - year) while we can sign up papers which state that the subscriptions will go on untill I tell them I don't want it anymore. And yes; this also exists in contract form.
And what about the rest of the world (outside of the US)? Can we follow it too by realvideo or something or is that a bit too much to ask? (on the other hand; media in transvision, the name sounds right for it IMHO).
If people are fooled by names like that then they have no business within the security sector and should not bother with it IMVHO. After all; rule one is knowing what you are talking about, and this isn't just the case for security issues.
Sounds nice if you stay within the range of companies this article is focused on. But it sure will not do for every organisation out there. Allthough he stated this himself (For example, it makes no sense to purchase a $10,000 safe to secure $1000 diamond...) I'm surprised to see this in his final conclusion. For a small business the costs to maintain a M.S.M. system is far more expensive and has much more overhead then a solution based on prevention. Lets take this into 'normal proportions' and try some real life examples...
M.S.M. would take a system to track the entire stuff, a network operator (or more offcourse) to monitor the readings and take action once something is happening. Perhaps he can do this besides his normal work but that would reduce the whole effectiveness I guess. Is this effective? Sure, but don't look at the costs of this solution. To put it blunt; if I wanted something like this I'd go broke very soon.
When I compare this to setting up a masquing proxy & firewall with some "low-end" solution like ipchains (prevention), making regular backups (even more prevention) and finally having some very good insurances it becomes quite clear which is the best solution for SOHO's and up. When an attack is made it sure took 'm some time to breach my firewall. If that happens and I loose data I got backups and when they fail (unlikely) I'm still way off from going broke since my immediate costs to reduce the damage are covered as well.
Therefor I think that globally concluding that M.S.M. is the most cost-effective way, by standard, is not true.
And now the only thing we can do is hope that this paint is also waterproof. I'd hate to see all those crying kids who's stuffed animals are being taken away because there wasn't a trace of paint to be found in the pouring rain.
Personally I doubt that they will be able to do this in 50 years. The main reason being the fact that I've allready read stories about this +/- 15 years ago stating that in 20 years from now....
Not even a wireless LAN? Hm, is the 150km extension cord also included?
I agree and also slightly disagree ;). True; there has to be a market for a certain (type off) game otherwise you'll be throwing out money. On the other hand; you can make more money out of a completely new sort off game then making a re-run. Reruns get boring; and if everyone is doing it people will hardly notice you. Question remains; who has to persuade the publisher? :) Anyway, I agree with you there.
But then weve gone it a circle, and basically, its the publics fault again. So I ask you - when did you last buy an origanal, inovative game?
Check my original story; a few months back I got Shogun, total war. Which uses a completely new concept.
When companies are told to hire people instead of getting them judged on capabilities then that'll be the end of the whole IT industry. Without cutting edge compatition there will be no innovation. Pardon me for saying but I think its a horrible idea. Taken things even more drastic; how about M$ using his influence to "advice" this institute that Linux based companies are a pefect place for senior programmers. They really need and like to code 18 hours in one day. Gimme a break...
Eidos, to begin with, made some pretty lame and crap games (talking real innovation they did prior to TR1 is gone so it seems. In a way thats quite unfortunate.
ID software & Westwoord... ID set the perfect standard for shoot 'm ups. If it wasn't for ID we never got games like Quake and even Unreal / Unreal Tournament. They set a perfect standard (Wolfenstein, Spear, Doom, Quake) and this concept got perfectly copied by others (Unreal, Half Life, etc.). But sometimes it allmost seems that all these others aren't capable of doing anything else!! Take a look at Command & Conquer, also one of my favorites. Now we finally got the last (?) chapter Tiberian Sun. But meanwhile; take a closer look at what the rest did with the whole C&C concept? Starcraft comes to mind as well as a lot of other games.
But even despite the fact that some 'copies / clones / etc.' are even better then the original; what did these game companies really contribute? IMHO absolutely nothing; they just started a search for more money. Due to the simple fact that they didn't have to invent the wheel, that has allready been done for 'm, they could easily move on where the original game had to stop (you can't keep developing a game forever).
And now we seem trapped in a games market where companies have lost the knowledge on how to innovate alltogether. The last real new idea which I encountered was "Shogun, the art of War". A game focused on fudal Japan. Even though my story is based on the PC market I'm sure this is the case for other platforms as well. I guess the only thing we can do is to wait and see if anything new will come up...
I don't think it will have to come to that, the dilemma I mean. After reading the story I get the impression that both devices work on a allmost identical scale yet this one, suddenly, discovers something that may proof to be the upcoming Higgs allthough it can't seem to provide any hard evidence to back up this theory. I allways get an eerie feeling when reading such stories. Sure, its a very random factor we are dealing with, no doubts there. But I do have the impression that their timing on providing us with the "if ... maybe ... money ... close down" news wasn't coincedence in any way. Neither would I be surprised if the upcoming Higgs isn't going to be discovered in this machine between now and December.
Bottom line; it is people we are dealing with and normally people like to keep their jobs. Being a scientist doesn't change this fact. I'm a little disappointed that the article didn't give us any more "inside" information on that subject; what are these scientists going to do when the device shuts down? Any other projects they can work on? Are they going to the States to help these guys out? Or do they get the 'sack' in a "everyone for himself" situation? Once you know the answer to these questions you have a little more insight on the question 'is this for real'. In this case this article is mere decoration IMHO; no real news value.