That 'reduction' also comes with a price. Higher development and testing costs. One of the advantages of producing for a known hardware set is you can put those resources into further developing the game rather then making it work across a wider range of configurations. Support for multiple resolutions alone can cause costs to balloon and gets even messier when you give the ability to switch particular types of graphics off an on. Each of those configurations needs to be tested and bugs only present in one or two types need to be fixed. Keeping behavior uniform often involves going down into the underlying engine and altering that, which requires regression testing the whole mess. It can turn a '99% done game' into months of development hell.....
"Innovation" is one of the reasons I hope he failed. With consoles, the developers know exactly what constraints they need to work within, and gamers know that if they buy a title for their console it WILL work, and work consistently.
Move away from console, and programmers start getting lazy. Why bother making the memory management more efficient when you can just change the 'minimum requirements' and put the burden on the consumer. Take away constraints, and they do not 'innovate', they just get lazy then drool over all the big numbers their super awesome game 'requires'.
And of course, if the game does not run for some reason, you can always blame the customer. Maybe they have some other app instealled, maybe their video card is just kinda the wrong model, maybe their processor does not implement some optional instructions.. maybe their swap latency is to high (heaven forbid PC programmers lock in memory and ignore swap, that might make their requirements unsexy!). There are dozens of little variation or interactions on a PC that can cause problems.... this is actually why I moved away from PC gaming. Game doesn't work? Too bad.
Or even worse.... one ends up being paid based of actual sales rather then convincing some executive how much you are worth ahead of time. That seemed to be his big beef.
Symbian is the example of why I raise an eyebrow at people talking about how 'evil' Apple is because iPhones are locked down or have a restricted app store. Compared to desktops, sure, they are restrictive. Compared to cell phones before it? Amazingly open.
I can recall working on cell phone app kiosk a number of years back. The number of apps that the system carried could probably be measured in dozens or hundreds, and they required specialized developments that were in a single language with a single development environment... and do not even think about putting interpreters on there. It was more like developing for a console then anything else.
Years ago I worked on jukeboxes that had RJ45 based audio connections.... oh the network cards we blew out when those cables got crossed.. and we were actually TRYING not to mix them up.
Because our government, over and over, harps that marriage is a religious institution, and not everyone is comfortable faking it in order to get a tax break. There used to be systems in place to get marriage benefits without marriage but those have been slowly removed over the years as states worry about 'the gays' sneeky getting benefits through them. So marriage benifits have become even more linked to religious institutions over the last 30 years...
It seems a bit much to claim that any enumeration is automatically 'the number of the beast'. Even within their own mythos, the idea is that said enumeration is bad because of who is doing it. I guess they must already believe that India's government is ruled by satan? eh... that would not surprise me actually.
Though I have to say, every time I hear a group talk about being ready to be persecuted, it reminds me of the masochist in little shop of horrors... I am not sure it really counts if you go out of your way to misbehave just to get punished. Even SAMs know that.
Copyright prevents non-profit archiving and redistribution of the unprofitable works. There is a huge gap between 'not work printing more' and 'no one wants'. For a trivial example, look at all the torrents (or for that matter, ebay auctions) for TV shows that the owners do not consider worth reprinting but the viewers consider valuable enough to obtain and distribute themselves... or even make bootlegs and sell them on ebay. It is not hard to find instances where economic demand exists but the rights owners still do not consider it profitable enough to redirrect their limited resources into.
Daria was the same way. After many years they finally released the series on DVD, but they stripped out all the music and cut an entire episode. Originals are still floating around the torrents though.
It is kinda sad when the 'free' version is not only cheaper but is actually a superior product.
I do not know about books, but in video this is actually pretty common. The author does not sit on works, but the studio that bankrolled the video often does. They have a few different reasons they site... one is that 'someday' it might be valuable thus they do not want to dilute it by making it available (i.e. pent up demand).... another is that it can be a career destroying embarrassment to let a work slip out and become more successful under someone else's control. Executives would rather see a movie/series/universe die in the vaults then let someone else potentially upstage them.
Going back to books, the problem with demand is that the cost of publishing and distribution is fairly large, thus it has to be a fairly high demand. Not only that, but it requires someone internal to the publishing house advocating the works, so even books that have demand get skipped over because there is no way to communicate the real level of demand the publisher. Looking at how active used book selling is, it is trivial to find demand for various books, but it often is not enough to call for a reprint.
Not really. Part of the point of classifying information is so you can punish people who talk about it. There is a small amount that really does need to be kept out of the public domain, but the vast majority is either classified 'by default' or because it is politicly dangerous to powerful people's jobs. Part of the problem is there is minimal oversight and massive misuse of the classified system that has been spiraling out of control over the last 50 years to the point 'classified information' is almost meaningless except as a legal tool to stop whistle blowing.
Yeah, but it represents a very asymetric situation. It takes a huge percentage of voters to override the influence of what is essentially a few hundred people. Esp when those few hundred people ALSO control the primary mechanisms at raising awareness/urgency of an issue, i.e. media access.
AP and Reuters represent an indirect effect. Both organizations sell their content to downstream providers like many of the sub companies owned by NBC. As NBC/Comcast become more powerful, they become larger consumers of what AP/Reuters put out. Once a downstream becomes powerful enough, they can start exerting pressure upward on content and focus, or potentially (if they find another source they prefer) cut them out and reduce their exposure, which reduces their funding/strength, which results in worse services. So while they do not directly effect you, the merger effects companies that you do interact with.
The rules change when you are talking about monopolies and other powerful companies. People tend to not worry about Valve's integration because they are small enough to not need to worry about. Comcast and NBC on the other hand are two very large companies with significant power behind them. When you get to that scale, they start behaving more like landless states then private companies, and thus governments need to treat them as such.
The only regulations in the US cover how you market the device and what saftey features it must have if installed in the workplace. In the past, the manufacturers of high powered lasers generally would not sell to average people, but that was voluntary regulation.
The restriction generally tends to be on the manufacture (or conversion) of new automatic weapons. You can buy existing ones, but you generally can not build new ones for civilian use.
Ahm.. has the meaning of this term changed? Last time I heard the term it referred to syncing a drive and it's controller, and thus fell out of usage with the rise of IDE disks.
Stories like this make me increasingly wish the FCC would, indeed, move broadband providers back under common carrier rules. Competition would do wonders here. Though I did find it amusing that their FAQ talked about how 40 HD movies would nearly hit the limit, which I think is a good example of how keeping alternative download services off their network is probably the big motivation here. I highly doubt they apply this cap if you buy Comcast brand movies on demand.
This sounds a lot less like 'google calls open source into question' and more 'google calls OSI into question'. I am not immediately seeing anything in this license that makes it sound non-OSS, all it seems to be lacking is the rubber stamp of a particular group within OSS, which is not the same thing. Especially since google's complaints about OSI do not seem to be related to software but instead to process.
If I had mod points, this should really be bumped up. He could have shown prior art if he published, but he did not. I disagree that the results were fair (I never liked the 'first to the patent office' rule), but there was something the guy could have done.
Looks like both groups were developing it at the same time. In cases where you have two groups going after the same research, the first one to patent gets the rights. So I am guessing we can not call prior art on this one.
We are not talking about desktop applications that someone grabs off TBP. The two situations are you describe are completely differnt ends of the process.... end user pirating software and upstream developer exerting control over a downstream product. What we have in the original situation was a downstream hobbist wanting access to the internal development tools of an upstream developer based off someone upstream from that company being FOSS, but wanting tools that were not FOSS. Or more specificly, someone bought a device that was closed (but used some open components) and then wants to edit the device, but wants the upstream company's help doing it (i.e. releasing their development tools). That produces not only MUCH more work for the company (build enviroments are not something that can be trivially packaged up if they are not designed to be), but also produces a horrible PR situation since, no matter how much tinkerers claim otherwise, the original company still ends up getting the blame when user modifications break the product. I got really, really sick of dealing with those support issues over time.
Slashdot Mirror
That 'reduction' also comes with a price. Higher development and testing costs. One of the advantages of producing for a known hardware set is you can put those resources into further developing the game rather then making it work across a wider range of configurations. Support for multiple resolutions alone can cause costs to balloon and gets even messier when you give the ability to switch particular types of graphics off an on. Each of those configurations needs to be tested and bugs only present in one or two types need to be fixed. Keeping behavior uniform often involves going down into the underlying engine and altering that, which requires regression testing the whole mess. It can turn a '99% done game' into months of development hell.....
You would be surprised at how far 512MB goes when you do not have all the extra stuff a PC does running in the background.
Actually it did. Up to 8 players on a LAN ^_^
"Innovation" is one of the reasons I hope he failed. With consoles, the developers know exactly what constraints they need to work within, and gamers know that if they buy a title for their console it WILL work, and work consistently.
Move away from console, and programmers start getting lazy. Why bother making the memory management more efficient when you can just change the 'minimum requirements' and put the burden on the consumer. Take away constraints, and they do not 'innovate', they just get lazy then drool over all the big numbers their super awesome game 'requires'.
And of course, if the game does not run for some reason, you can always blame the customer. Maybe they have some other app instealled, maybe their video card is just kinda the wrong model, maybe their processor does not implement some optional instructions.. maybe their swap latency is to high (heaven forbid PC programmers lock in memory and ignore swap, that might make their requirements unsexy!). There are dozens of little variation or interactions on a PC that can cause problems.... this is actually why I moved away from PC gaming. Game doesn't work? Too bad.
Or even worse.... one ends up being paid based of actual sales rather then convincing some executive how much you are worth ahead of time. That seemed to be his big beef.
Eh, I doubt money has anything to do with this. Choosing a new 'state rock' will not get the current one declared toxic.
Symbian is the example of why I raise an eyebrow at people talking about how 'evil' Apple is because iPhones are locked down or have a restricted app store. Compared to desktops, sure, they are restrictive. Compared to cell phones before it? Amazingly open.
I can recall working on cell phone app kiosk a number of years back. The number of apps that the system carried could probably be measured in dozens or hundreds, and they required specialized developments that were in a single language with a single development environment... and do not even think about putting interpreters on there. It was more like developing for a console then anything else.
This is why I need mod points.
Years ago I worked on jukeboxes that had RJ45 based audio connections.... oh the network cards we blew out when those cables got crossed.. and we were actually TRYING not to mix them up.
Because our government, over and over, harps that marriage is a religious institution, and not everyone is comfortable faking it in order to get a tax break. There used to be systems in place to get marriage benefits without marriage but those have been slowly removed over the years as states worry about 'the gays' sneeky getting benefits through them. So marriage benifits have become even more linked to religious institutions over the last 30 years...
It seems a bit much to claim that any enumeration is automatically 'the number of the beast'. Even within their own mythos, the idea is that said enumeration is bad because of who is doing it. I guess they must already believe that India's government is ruled by satan? eh... that would not surprise me actually.
Though I have to say, every time I hear a group talk about being ready to be persecuted, it reminds me of the masochist in little shop of horrors... I am not sure it really counts if you go out of your way to misbehave just to get punished. Even SAMs know that.
Ahm,... no.
Copyright prevents non-profit archiving and redistribution of the unprofitable works. There is a huge gap between 'not work printing more' and 'no one wants'. For a trivial example, look at all the torrents (or for that matter, ebay auctions) for TV shows that the owners do not consider worth reprinting but the viewers consider valuable enough to obtain and distribute themselves... or even make bootlegs and sell them on ebay. It is not hard to find instances where economic demand exists but the rights owners still do not consider it profitable enough to redirrect their limited resources into.
Daria was the same way. After many years they finally released the series on DVD, but they stripped out all the music and cut an entire episode. Originals are still floating around the torrents though.
It is kinda sad when the 'free' version is not only cheaper but is actually a superior product.
I do not know about books, but in video this is actually pretty common. The author does not sit on works, but the studio that bankrolled the video often does. They have a few different reasons they site... one is that 'someday' it might be valuable thus they do not want to dilute it by making it available (i.e. pent up demand).... another is that it can be a career destroying embarrassment to let a work slip out and become more successful under someone else's control. Executives would rather see a movie/series/universe die in the vaults then let someone else potentially upstage them.
Going back to books, the problem with demand is that the cost of publishing and distribution is fairly large, thus it has to be a fairly high demand. Not only that, but it requires someone internal to the publishing house advocating the works, so even books that have demand get skipped over because there is no way to communicate the real level of demand the publisher. Looking at how active used book selling is, it is trivial to find demand for various books, but it often is not enough to call for a reprint.
Not really. Part of the point of classifying information is so you can punish people who talk about it. There is a small amount that really does need to be kept out of the public domain, but the vast majority is either classified 'by default' or because it is politicly dangerous to powerful people's jobs. Part of the problem is there is minimal oversight and massive misuse of the classified system that has been spiraling out of control over the last 50 years to the point 'classified information' is almost meaningless except as a legal tool to stop whistle blowing.
Yeah, but it represents a very asymetric situation. It takes a huge percentage of voters to override the influence of what is essentially a few hundred people. Esp when those few hundred people ALSO control the primary mechanisms at raising awareness/urgency of an issue, i.e. media access.
AP and Reuters represent an indirect effect. Both organizations sell their content to downstream providers like many of the sub companies owned by NBC. As NBC/Comcast become more powerful, they become larger consumers of what AP/Reuters put out. Once a downstream becomes powerful enough, they can start exerting pressure upward on content and focus, or potentially (if they find another source they prefer) cut them out and reduce their exposure, which reduces their funding/strength, which results in worse services. So while they do not directly effect you, the merger effects companies that you do interact with.
The rules change when you are talking about monopolies and other powerful companies. People tend to not worry about Valve's integration because they are small enough to not need to worry about. Comcast and NBC on the other hand are two very large companies with significant power behind them. When you get to that scale, they start behaving more like landless states then private companies, and thus governments need to treat them as such.
The only regulations in the US cover how you market the device and what saftey features it must have if installed in the workplace. In the past, the manufacturers of high powered lasers generally would not sell to average people, but that was voluntary regulation.
The restriction generally tends to be on the manufacture (or conversion) of new automatic weapons. You can buy existing ones, but you generally can not build new ones for civilian use.
Ahm.. has the meaning of this term changed? Last time I heard the term it referred to syncing a drive and it's controller, and thus fell out of usage with the rise of IDE disks.
Stories like this make me increasingly wish the FCC would, indeed, move broadband providers back under common carrier rules. Competition would do wonders here. Though I did find it amusing that their FAQ talked about how 40 HD movies would nearly hit the limit, which I think is a good example of how keeping alternative download services off their network is probably the big motivation here. I highly doubt they apply this cap if you buy Comcast brand movies on demand.
This sounds a lot less like 'google calls open source into question' and more 'google calls OSI into question'. I am not immediately seeing anything in this license that makes it sound non-OSS, all it seems to be lacking is the rubber stamp of a particular group within OSS, which is not the same thing. Especially since google's complaints about OSI do not seem to be related to software but instead to process.
If I had mod points, this should really be bumped up. He could have shown prior art if he published, but he did not. I disagree that the results were fair (I never liked the 'first to the patent office' rule), but there was something the guy could have done.
Looks like both groups were developing it at the same time. In cases where you have two groups going after the same research, the first one to patent gets the rights. So I am guessing we can not call prior art on this one.
We are not talking about desktop applications that someone grabs off TBP. The two situations are you describe are completely differnt ends of the process.... end user pirating software and upstream developer exerting control over a downstream product. What we have in the original situation was a downstream hobbist wanting access to the internal development tools of an upstream developer based off someone upstream from that company being FOSS, but wanting tools that were not FOSS. Or more specificly, someone bought a device that was closed (but used some open components) and then wants to edit the device, but wants the upstream company's help doing it (i.e. releasing their development tools). That produces not only MUCH more work for the company (build enviroments are not something that can be trivially packaged up if they are not designed to be), but also produces a horrible PR situation since, no matter how much tinkerers claim otherwise, the original company still ends up getting the blame when user modifications break the product. I got really, really sick of dealing with those support issues over time.