I'm really not sure if google pays flash licensing fees. If they do, the fees may not decrease if X% use open standard players and 100-X% use flash. Until google can cut flash loose, those flat rate fees may not decrease. (I.E. Adobe says "Google, pay me $250K per year and I'll let you use all the flash you want").
However, adobe may not charge for flash applet generation and google may not pay a single penny to adobe for the flash portion. If that is the case (which is more likely as a "free" media standard would make flash the ubiquitous "standard" it is to day), Google may only offer the firefox HTML standard flash player as an option.
It looks like firefox is supporting the new standard faster than most other browsers, hence it possibly being a firefox story, but this story doesn't appear to be branded firefox, it looks to be branded linux,/media, which is really weird because firefox probably has more windows installs than linux ones, but it is open source and as we all know "open source = linux". (not really)
Yup, seeing as he already put some top RIAA lawyers into top DOJ spots, who's surprised? Really, raise your hand if you're surprised at Obama's copyright preferences. Come on, we won't laugh... Hard
But a flying squirrel has glide flaps, not wings. I have a pretty good imagionation, but have a hard time imagining a flying squirrel flapping its glide flaps hard enough to fly, there's a reason why plane wings are much longer side to side than they are horizontally: Drag. A flying squirrel has a surface that would turn it into a square which is sub optimal for flight, if you look at a bat's wing span, it trades robust arms (which flying squirrels have) for a gossamer wing membrane stretched over tiny bones. It seems like that a flying squirrel has a nice trade-off mix for ground/air combo, but a bat would be at a severe disadvantage on the ground if it couldn't take off. (yes, i know little birds would be worse off, but ground based birds run faster, swim (penguins) or have other methods of evading predators).
A bat without the pecs to effectively make use of its frail arms and fragile wing-skin would probably be the evolutionary equivalent of fast food.
So, you, like TFS (which is sort of what i was criticizing with my original post), only debunk, what's your theory as to why long necked dinosaurs had long necks?
Since I couldn't get to the article (still can't), I was extrapolating the posture of living long necked animals. Off hand, I can't think of any long necked animals that don't keep it in a vertical configuration, it seems like it'd be a waste to have a long neck without the defensive/food advantages that go along with it. It'd be like bats evolving wings, but not having the pectoral muscles to flap them enough to fly.
So they looked at a giraffe and decided that the giraffe may be a suitable long-necked living animal? Unfortunately TFS only says that the horizontal configuration is incorrect, and I can't get to the article to see how they posit that long-necked animals posture themselves. So, I'm suggesting that the long neck is held vertically as a way of gaining extra height for food reach, reaching the ground, and longer range vision without the increased bulk of longer legs, taller body, etc.
not quite true. Since the fall of the soviet union, he moved to the united states and formed the tetris company which holds all rights and gets money from every tetris game made since 1991 or so. While the wikipedia says he didn't profit, thats just because he didn't profit from the NES or gameboy versions.
I had a drive where the file system was shredded, so I loaded the drive into FTK Imager (its free, about halway down the page), did a search of the raw space of the drive for the file name I needed, found the relevant $i30 reference (its in there), jumped to the relevant sectors on the disk using ftk imager's goto command , carved out the hex with ftk imager's copy hex command, dumped it into a hex editor, and saved the file under the extension. It worked perfectly.
Uphill, both ways, in the snow.
This is the ultimate last resort if you absolutely, have to, get a file back.
I like it, my computer upgrades last longer. I don't want to have to sink $1000 every year into computer upgrades, instead, I can upgrade at about the midpoint of the console cycles and play everything but system-rapers designed to keep people like you happy...
This is what happened to Battlefield 2. EA killed their BF community by splitting it between the old bf2 players and the new bf2142 people. When BF2142 came out, some BF2 people bought it, some people tried to stay with BF2, but BF2142 wasn't worth the "upgrade" cost over BF2 so the veterans continued to play, but without the influx of new people, the community is still dieing a slow death. Right before bf2142 was announced, BF2 still sold for $50USD. After the announcement? The price dropped dramatically. BF2 had a reign from June 2005-October 2006, in winter of 2006-2007, the community fizzled, hard.
However, unlike valve, EA did an awesome job of the post-release upkeep with new maps, good patches, and an expansion. I'd rather see this as an expansion for l4d where they add new maps and weapons, or at least add the something back into l4d. In a multiplayer game, the value of the game lies in large part with the community, when you split players like this, you hurt the community, and the value of the game. If you release a new multiplayer "chapter" each year and tell people up front (like ut2k3, then ut2k4 or madden 200X) that there will be more on a yearly bases, no owners of the first installment take issue when a new game comes out the next year, but I'm thinking that some people may have bought l4d hoping for the same great post-release support that TF2 people currently enjoy where by now there might be a new campaign or two in addition to the survival mode. However, this announcement pretty much means that l4d1 will exist for all eternity pretty much as it is now with little UI tweaks and such that come about as a result of the work happening on l4d2 (like the matchmaking lobby update that someone mentioned above).
Also, I think that releasing a sequel a year after a game is in bad taste. I like to pretend that whenever I walk around in public, companies don't see me only as a wad of walking disposable income to be swindled away.
Couple of things: Microsoft is a major shareholder in apple, there's less of a difference than those Mac vs. PC Ads would have you believe. Also, Apple is a publicly traded company with shareholders and a need to turn a profit. Shareholders and a need to turn a profit come before a company's conscience.
All I'm saying is that Apple is less than generous with its service packs and OS upgrades and when faced with making money or not making money, any business with shareholders and a need to turn a profit will make the obvious choice, because they can.
Here's the idea: A pay as you go phone. Pay for a small amount of minutes that you put in her backpack and keep the phone off. Make sure it is off and nobody knows about it (Don't want it stolen or confiscated). Then, when she gets "misplaced", she can call you or somebody she knows.
why are you withholding it from my 'Motherboard' which I purchased?
Because its a motherboard, not ram, and I don't ever remember ram coming standard with individual motherboards from ASUS, DFI, or Gigabyte (or other makers), ever. Bad analogy, try again.
Here I was thinking that because games had a fixed price ($50 or $60USD) and gamers had a fixed amount of money to spend, they might try to get the most value for their buck. If a sizable portion of a game's design budget goes into content that isn't part of the release or cost of the game, why pay full price for that game? (Yes, most console games that release DLC still cost $60, and the budget that goes into the making of that DLC comes from the pool of sales, its not like they set aside the marketplace profits soley for the creation of paid DLC).
While yes, I am aware that expecting a company to try to please its consumers can be construed as entitlement, once upon a time, if something was developed for a game by the devs and they could fit it in, they tried to put it in, or released it later with a patch (Like multiplayer maps for quake 2). Unlike your bad Mobo/ram analogy, once upon a time, the $50 cost of admission was (and in some cases, like the orange box, still is) enough to cover everything that was created for a game that was polished, rather than having to charge for simply because someone says they have to.
If the devs say that they've moved on after release and don't want to release anything new, that's cool too, I'm not expecting companies to better their product after release, just not knee-cap it prior to release.
By the way, I know that nobody is forcing me to buy DLC, and in a lot of cases, I don't, but in halo 3, its getting harder to play online because I don't have all the new paid content, so the value of my game is decreasing because I refuse to pay its upkeep (being the flashing name in a party with the text "The following players do not have the content required" gets old). So while they're not "forcing" me to pay more, it would be nice if they didn't rub my nose in it and heavily imply that if I wanted to continue to enjoy the game fully and not be a party pariah, I should fork out more money.
I guess this goes back to the initial arguments against microtransations on pc/console games: "If you can be arsed to make the model and skin it, why are you withholding it from my "Full Game" which I purchased?"
How long until we start seeing "lite" apps with all the buttons, but there's a tiny bit of text at the bottom "If you would like to click this button, you agree to pay $.25"./tinfoilhat
Back to reality though, I really like that the iphone app store was once a place where dev's could make a halfway decent program based on a really cool idea and make money as a reward. It also felt like the golden days of the old shareware scene before it got stale and people started depending on it and expecting it to pay their bills. While I have yet to pay for an app on the itouch, there are a few I might have if I had an iphone with it's mobile connection and gps (the geocaching app would be the first on my list).
However, I really don't like the idea of a microtransaction for iphone gaming. I think that the microtransaction system in gaming implies that someone has a heavy emotional attachment to the game and the majority of microtransaction items are prestige items. In order for those two criteria to work, you need two criteria: A game that someone will play for more than a few hours before buying another $1.00 game and persistent multiplayer. I.E. Why buy a coat for a character that you will play on a plane flight and never again? Especially if the only way that people will see it is if you show them the character on your iphone. ("Oh, that's nice, you paid extra for him to be lime green!"). By the way, if you're thinking of buying extra levels, how many labyrinth lite instances have you seen on iphones? How many full versions? The only difference is more levels, but I haven't met anybody that felt the need to buy more levels for a novelty game.
That and the other major types of apps that i've seen IT and casual people use are information access type apps (urban spoon, website readers like for fmylife, directories, directions, recipes, etc) and resource access type apps (ssh, remote login, and other IT based monitoring/remote tools), nobody is going to pay a quarter every time they want to look up directions or login to thier server, and they'll probably just buy the full app and expense it or eat the cost for making their lives "easier". So the only thing I can see is a feature list a la carte, i.e. if you look at the list of features that differentiate a lite and full version of an app, and you only charge a small amount per feature, you might get more money in the long run due to people not wanting everything, but only picking out what suits them.
but people still manage to feed, clothe and house themselves far better in a market like ours where there's a plethora of consumer advertising, than in a planned economy where nearly all advertising is government propaganda.
So the lack of quality advertising caused the product scarcity in the soviet block and the downfall of communism? Please sir, tell me more.
Or by far better do you mean that the women run around in skimpy mini skirts and pushup bras? (Cause that's totally better than frumpy clothes on the eyes).:)
I reject your reality and substitute my own! /mythbuster
or/Wallstreet broker, whichever, really. This also reminds me of a quote I read as someone's signature in a forum somewhere: "If your car doesn't run 12's, shorten the track"
In all seriousness, this does not sound like a field that needs saving from itself. If its common practice (which its not) for aeronautical engineers to tweak the fundamental laws of physics simply because they need them to make a non-working design work, maybe its time to get rid of all of the AE's in the field, and possibly the field itself. Something doesn't get to be common practice unless a good portion of the field believes that it is good to do so, or at the very least, not harmful.
For the final part of my post, I shall now ignore the second part of the summary involving the testing of financial models and the entirety of TFA. Thank you.
Send out something like a video where you're recording your family and make like a UFO or monster attack. Since you have no problem with copyright, steal scenes from a cloverfield or war of the worlds dvd. Melt the cases a little and put in a manila envelope along with a letter from a fake law firm "In case of death".
At the end of the video, show your dead bodies, laying in christmas sweaters on the ground with bits of fire all around and superimpose the text "Merry Christmas 2009!"
Slashdot Mirror
I'm really not sure if google pays flash licensing fees. If they do, the fees may not decrease if X% use open standard players and 100-X% use flash. Until google can cut flash loose, those flat rate fees may not decrease. (I.E. Adobe says "Google, pay me $250K per year and I'll let you use all the flash you want").
However, adobe may not charge for flash applet generation and google may not pay a single penny to adobe for the flash portion. If that is the case (which is more likely as a "free" media standard would make flash the ubiquitous "standard" it is to day), Google may only offer the firefox HTML standard flash player as an option.
It looks like firefox is supporting the new standard faster than most other browsers, hence it possibly being a firefox story, but this story doesn't appear to be branded firefox, it looks to be branded linux,/media, which is really weird because firefox probably has more windows installs than linux ones, but it is open source and as we all know "open source = linux". (not really)
Yup, seeing as he already put some top RIAA lawyers into top DOJ spots, who's surprised? Really, raise your hand if you're surprised at Obama's copyright preferences. Come on, we won't laugh... Hard
traded for fast running speed and overall size.
But a flying squirrel has glide flaps, not wings. I have a pretty good imagionation, but have a hard time imagining a flying squirrel flapping its glide flaps hard enough to fly, there's a reason why plane wings are much longer side to side than they are horizontally: Drag. A flying squirrel has a surface that would turn it into a square which is sub optimal for flight, if you look at a bat's wing span, it trades robust arms (which flying squirrels have) for a gossamer wing membrane stretched over tiny bones. It seems like that a flying squirrel has a nice trade-off mix for ground/air combo, but a bat would be at a severe disadvantage on the ground if it couldn't take off. (yes, i know little birds would be worse off, but ground based birds run faster, swim (penguins) or have other methods of evading predators).
A bat without the pecs to effectively make use of its frail arms and fragile wing-skin would probably be the evolutionary equivalent of fast food.
So, you, like TFS (which is sort of what i was criticizing with my original post), only debunk, what's your theory as to why long necked dinosaurs had long necks?
Since I couldn't get to the article (still can't), I was extrapolating the posture of living long necked animals. Off hand, I can't think of any long necked animals that don't keep it in a vertical configuration, it seems like it'd be a waste to have a long neck without the defensive/food advantages that go along with it. It'd be like bats evolving wings, but not having the pectoral muscles to flap them enough to fly.
So they looked at a giraffe and decided that the giraffe may be a suitable long-necked living animal? Unfortunately TFS only says that the horizontal configuration is incorrect, and I can't get to the article to see how they posit that long-necked animals posture themselves. So, I'm suggesting that the long neck is held vertically as a way of gaining extra height for food reach, reaching the ground, and longer range vision without the increased bulk of longer legs, taller body, etc.
If only they stopped with the semi-legal wrangling in the late 90's...
not quite true. Since the fall of the soviet union, he moved to the united states and formed the tetris company which holds all rights and gets money from every tetris game made since 1991 or so. While the wikipedia says he didn't profit, thats just because he didn't profit from the NES or gameboy versions.
I had a drive where the file system was shredded, so I loaded the drive into FTK Imager (its free, about halway down the page), did a search of the raw space of the drive for the file name I needed, found the relevant $i30 reference (its in there), jumped to the relevant sectors on the disk using ftk imager's goto command , carved out the hex with ftk imager's copy hex command, dumped it into a hex editor, and saved the file under the extension. It worked perfectly.
Uphill, both ways, in the snow.
This is the ultimate last resort if you absolutely, have to, get a file back.
I like it, my computer upgrades last longer. I don't want to have to sink $1000 every year into computer upgrades, instead, I can upgrade at about the midpoint of the console cycles and play everything but system-rapers designed to keep people like you happy...
that it is a possibility that l4d would be included with l4d2
If they had been watching TF2's post-game support, L4D2 would be included with l4d.
This is what happened to Battlefield 2. EA killed their BF community by splitting it between the old bf2 players and the new bf2142 people. When BF2142 came out, some BF2 people bought it, some people tried to stay with BF2, but BF2142 wasn't worth the "upgrade" cost over BF2 so the veterans continued to play, but without the influx of new people, the community is still dieing a slow death. Right before bf2142 was announced, BF2 still sold for $50USD. After the announcement? The price dropped dramatically. BF2 had a reign from June 2005-October 2006, in winter of 2006-2007, the community fizzled, hard.
However, unlike valve, EA did an awesome job of the post-release upkeep with new maps, good patches, and an expansion. I'd rather see this as an expansion for l4d where they add new maps and weapons, or at least add the something back into l4d. In a multiplayer game, the value of the game lies in large part with the community, when you split players like this, you hurt the community, and the value of the game. If you release a new multiplayer "chapter" each year and tell people up front (like ut2k3, then ut2k4 or madden 200X) that there will be more on a yearly bases, no owners of the first installment take issue when a new game comes out the next year, but I'm thinking that some people may have bought l4d hoping for the same great post-release support that TF2 people currently enjoy where by now there might be a new campaign or two in addition to the survival mode. However, this announcement pretty much means that l4d1 will exist for all eternity pretty much as it is now with little UI tweaks and such that come about as a result of the work happening on l4d2 (like the matchmaking lobby update that someone mentioned above).
Also, I think that releasing a sequel a year after a game is in bad taste. I like to pretend that whenever I walk around in public, companies don't see me only as a wad of walking disposable income to be swindled away.
Couple of things: Microsoft is a major shareholder in apple, there's less of a difference than those Mac vs. PC Ads would have you believe. Also, Apple is a publicly traded company with shareholders and a need to turn a profit. Shareholders and a need to turn a profit come before a company's conscience.
All I'm saying is that Apple is less than generous with its service packs and OS upgrades and when faced with making money or not making money, any business with shareholders and a need to turn a profit will make the obvious choice, because they can.
Here's the idea: A pay as you go phone. Pay for a small amount of minutes that you put in her backpack and keep the phone off. Make sure it is off and nobody knows about it (Don't want it stolen or confiscated). Then, when she gets "misplaced", she can call you or somebody she knows.
I apologize for that. Here's the proper link.
why are you withholding it from my 'Motherboard' which I purchased?
Because its a motherboard, not ram, and I don't ever remember ram coming standard with individual motherboards from ASUS, DFI, or Gigabyte (or other makers), ever. Bad analogy, try again.
Here I was thinking that because games had a fixed price ($50 or $60USD) and gamers had a fixed amount of money to spend, they might try to get the most value for their buck. If a sizable portion of a game's design budget goes into content that isn't part of the release or cost of the game, why pay full price for that game? (Yes, most console games that release DLC still cost $60, and the budget that goes into the making of that DLC comes from the pool of sales, its not like they set aside the marketplace profits soley for the creation of paid DLC).
While yes, I am aware that expecting a company to try to please its consumers can be construed as entitlement, once upon a time, if something was developed for a game by the devs and they could fit it in, they tried to put it in, or released it later with a patch (Like multiplayer maps for quake 2). Unlike your bad Mobo/ram analogy, once upon a time, the $50 cost of admission was (and in some cases, like the orange box, still is) enough to cover everything that was created for a game that was polished, rather than having to charge for simply because someone says they have to.
If the devs say that they've moved on after release and don't want to release anything new, that's cool too, I'm not expecting companies to better their product after release, just not knee-cap it prior to release.
By the way, I know that nobody is forcing me to buy DLC, and in a lot of cases, I don't, but in halo 3, its getting harder to play online because I don't have all the new paid content, so the value of my game is decreasing because I refuse to pay its upkeep (being the flashing name in a party with the text "The following players do not have the content required" gets old). So while they're not "forcing" me to pay more, it would be nice if they didn't rub my nose in it and heavily imply that if I wanted to continue to enjoy the game fully and not be a party pariah, I should fork out more money.
I don't think that the slashdotters are afraid of individual dev's abusing the power, but instead when apple (which is a company with shareholders and a responsibiltiy to share holders and has a history of wishing to turn a profit) decides that they want to follow other content market administrators and limit what dev's can give away for free.
I guess this goes back to the initial arguments against microtransations on pc/console games: "If you can be arsed to make the model and skin it, why are you withholding it from my "Full Game" which I purchased?"
How long until we start seeing "lite" apps with all the buttons, but there's a tiny bit of text at the bottom "If you would like to click this button, you agree to pay $.25". /tinfoilhat
Back to reality though, I really like that the iphone app store was once a place where dev's could make a halfway decent program based on a really cool idea and make money as a reward. It also felt like the golden days of the old shareware scene before it got stale and people started depending on it and expecting it to pay their bills. While I have yet to pay for an app on the itouch, there are a few I might have if I had an iphone with it's mobile connection and gps (the geocaching app would be the first on my list).
However, I really don't like the idea of a microtransaction for iphone gaming. I think that the microtransaction system in gaming implies that someone has a heavy emotional attachment to the game and the majority of microtransaction items are prestige items. In order for those two criteria to work, you need two criteria: A game that someone will play for more than a few hours before buying another $1.00 game and persistent multiplayer. I.E. Why buy a coat for a character that you will play on a plane flight and never again? Especially if the only way that people will see it is if you show them the character on your iphone. ("Oh, that's nice, you paid extra for him to be lime green!"). By the way, if you're thinking of buying extra levels, how many labyrinth lite instances have you seen on iphones? How many full versions? The only difference is more levels, but I haven't met anybody that felt the need to buy more levels for a novelty game.
That and the other major types of apps that i've seen IT and casual people use are information access type apps (urban spoon, website readers like for fmylife, directories, directions, recipes, etc) and resource access type apps (ssh, remote login, and other IT based monitoring/remote tools), nobody is going to pay a quarter every time they want to look up directions or login to thier server, and they'll probably just buy the full app and expense it or eat the cost for making their lives "easier". So the only thing I can see is a feature list a la carte, i.e. if you look at the list of features that differentiate a lite and full version of an app, and you only charge a small amount per feature, you might get more money in the long run due to people not wanting everything, but only picking out what suits them.
I love mavis beacon. 45WPM by the 2nd grade!
but people still manage to feed, clothe and house themselves far better in a market like ours where there's a plethora of consumer advertising, than in a planned economy where nearly all advertising is government propaganda.
So the lack of quality advertising caused the product scarcity in the soviet block and the downfall of communism? Please sir, tell me more.
:)
Or by far better do you mean that the women run around in skimpy mini skirts and pushup bras? (Cause that's totally better than frumpy clothes on the eyes).
I reject your reality and substitute my own!
/Wallstreet broker, whichever, really. This also reminds me of a quote I read as someone's signature in a forum somewhere: "If your car doesn't run 12's, shorten the track"
/mythbuster
or
In all seriousness, this does not sound like a field that needs saving from itself. If its common practice (which its not) for aeronautical engineers to tweak the fundamental laws of physics simply because they need them to make a non-working design work, maybe its time to get rid of all of the AE's in the field, and possibly the field itself. Something doesn't get to be common practice unless a good portion of the field believes that it is good to do so, or at the very least, not harmful.
For the final part of my post, I shall now ignore the second part of the summary involving the testing of financial models and the entirety of TFA. Thank you.
Send out something like a video where you're recording your family and make like a UFO or monster attack. Since you have no problem with copyright, steal scenes from a cloverfield or war of the worlds dvd. Melt the cases a little and put in a manila envelope along with a letter from a fake law firm "In case of death".
At the end of the video, show your dead bodies, laying in christmas sweaters on the ground with bits of fire all around and superimpose the text "Merry Christmas 2009!"
And yet they host a forum and probably have more e-friends than me :(