If you read that document and you still feel that a "win" for Microsoft isn't the worst thing that could happen to the computer industry, then I feel bad for you, your children, and society as a whole for raising you to think that it's a good thing.
The only "win" that would be beneficial to the world would be for Microsoft to quit playing these legal games and release the patents, open the spec up for input from the community and quit trying to "own" everything. They won't do that because they still have the patents up their sleeves and by not releasing the rights in full only shows me that they intend to use it if they suddenly see their monopoly hold start to dip below recovery.
They want to maintain control over the standard so they can always be ahead of everyone else. They keep the language under a veil of legal battles to discourage anyone from doing anything constructive with it. If the Linux/Mac desktop becomes dependent on.NET, you can kiss them goodbye. Why would anyone want to use the substandard protocols legally available to those systems if they can get first party cutting edge tech on Windows? That's what they want, and that's why I won't install Mono on my Linux machine until all patents are off or nullified by the courts. This is the same for Office document standards, the same for SQL standards, the same for Web standards...
That's why a "win" for Microsoft is a bad thing in this case. A majority market holder should not also be the standards designator. It's asking for antitrust violations out the wazoo. It doesn't matter what the credentials of the language are. It's solely on the credentials of the organizer.
I prefer halogen at low power. I have some of those "evil" upward facing variable halogens that were discontinued years ago. I buy a 300 watt halogen bulb to put in it and leave the adjustment just above the "initiation" point where the light comes on. It's an orange/yellow light and to me it's soothing on the eyes whether reading or using the computer.
No way! Warp drive has been proven to cause birth defects in cattle on the moon near the initiation point of the warp bubble. Now just think about what it's doing to the human children here on Earth!
As I read in the antitrust documents, Microsoft feels that a "win" in the "war" is for the competition to use their standards. In several email messages and presentations given at MS, they outline this philosophy. They compare it to owning the competition by making them play the game by their rules.
The fact that they worded it "Microsoft provides assurance that it will not assert its Necessary Claims" still freaks me out. It's either open, or it's your claim. It' can't be both.
Sony has demonstrated facial recognition and object recognition before. Not exactly a baseball bat, but you could draw objects on paper and the EyeToy would implement it into a game.
Personally, I think software patents are stupid anyway. You can copyright software, but you shouldn't be able to patent it. Software is like a book. It tells you how to do something or it can entertain. If you could patent ideas on how that should happen or what it looks like (as in software) you will have publishing companies that patent character types in books (orcs, detectives, housewives), methods of page alignment, location of copyright, titles, separation of chapters or volumes, and all kinds of stupid things. Could you imagine if a book company could patent a method of aligning pages so that the numbers increment from 1 to X? What if they could patent the idea of a book about an ancient medieval castle, knights, and a horses...
Either make the lightsaber automatically activate when opponents are nearby, or just leave it active all the time...
That doesn't sound like much of a game to me - much of the fun is turning the thing on and off! In fact I have to say, that I'd prefer a game where you simply turn lightsabers on and off to some Star Wars games we've had over the years...
Yeah, talk about a mood killer when you're walking down a dark hallway and your lightsaber turns itself on telling you that there's an enemy nearby. Or how about walking up to a door first to see if there's an enemy behind it before opening it. Sounds lame to me. When did Jedi Sense ever automatically turn on the sabers? What if it's a more powerful Sith hiding behind the wall and it's blocking the force?
If you read my post: "... as soon as you run the distribution update..."
apt includes a little feature called dist-upgrade that resolves those dependencies and installs any additional software.
apt-get dist-upgrade
I don't know however if you can do that with yum, but you could upgrade in FC using RPMs and it will tell you you need new versions of whatever it needs.
I'm willing to bet that since Windows 7 LOOKS like Vista, it will be a hard sell either way. MS would have been better off giving it a whole new facelift.
That's because as soon as you run the distribution update, it becomes FC10 or 11, or whatever it is now. Linux distributions are really only a snapshot of files of a particular version at any range in time. If you want to compare it to Windows, it would be like running Windows update in NT3.5 and getting Windows 7. You'd upgrade the Kernel, the HAL, the services, DLLS, and all the files on the computer individually making it the latest build of Windows.
But that's not how Windows works. It's not as robust as the Linux versioning and if Microsoft can keep it that way, they can keep you purchasing the latest snapshot build they create and burn on disc instead of letting you update your system with all the latest fixes. They'll make claims that they are starting from scratch, but that's just ludicrous. I'm willing to bet they have a version server that they patch on a regular basis and their "built from the ground up" only means that they checked out the whole tree and built all the files again.
It was 1996 or 1997, I can't remember exactly, and it wasn't something people just wrote about then. The proliferation of the Internet was just getting started and there were no blogs or archives to speak of, so no. I have no evidence in the form of a link or a story you could just bring up and read. I'm sure there's one out there for another school that went through the same deal. I thought it was a raw deal the school was given, but that's how it was.
I agree on complacency, but it's shady business that let Microsoft in on the ground floor of that complacency.
And you're obviously going to have to get a yahoo.com id if you want to switch, but that's a trivial event. It's nothing like having to compile wine with some patch to get "Application X" to work.
I do run Linux exclusively, except when I can't. (at work, and games that are brand new that my friend wants to play.)
I even bought X3 from LGP recently even though I haven't had time to install it or play, just to offer that bit of support to Linux gaming. I want publishers to support it more then the next guy, but you have to be aware of the brick wall of DirectX that MS put up. Wine just isn't there yet.
If you knew anything of the history of Microsoft and their business practices...
Yes, it's their fault.
I remember a huge controversy in my college a few years back where MS would not allow the school to purchase copies of it's software to educate the students at educational rates (the same rates other schools got) unless the college removed all Macromedia software from every computer on campus. I don't see Google telling you you can't search the internet with Bing if you want faster access to Google.
I don't use Google's Ad Service, but I don't see anything about a termination fee and there are enough advertising services on the net to engulf the entire Asian continent. Just because they don't work as hard as Google keeping the ads relevant and minimal doesn't reflect poorly on Google.
Can you watch video on Hulu or any of the other major video sites without installing Google software on your PC? Yes. Just because they own the domain name doesn't mean you are tied to use their service. You can always use one of the other online document services as well. You are not bound by the fact that you have to run Google specific software to operate competitively in this world.
Right. The difference between Google's market share and Microsoft's share is that I can take my email elsewhere, I can search another site, and I can go to any of 50 video sites. I never have to look at another Google app the rest of my life and I'm not going to have to suffer to pay rent. With Microsoft, you can't just pack up your Games, Office applications/Exchange app, and development suites and move to Linux. You can't work in the business world without having to support Microsoft in one way or another... or find a job that has nothing to do with computers.
It's a matter of being able to leave if you don't like the service. Anyone can leave Google in an hour if they wanted. Even though I use Linux daily, I still have to use Windows at work and at home if I want to play the latest game.
Yes, because obviously the most selling item is the highest quality item with the best return on investment. (See: Big Mac, Britney, Titanic)
People don't know what they want. They think they want to have action 24/7. They think they want to push the limits of effects and all the new things that have come out... then within a few weeks they are complaining that the game is boring or they are off to a new thing. I suppose as a game designer, that works great for you since you will always have a job replacing the last game you made that didn't keep the player's attention. So let me know when you make a game that keeps the attention of players for more than a year... or does that violate the business model? So you can shove your elitist attitude of, "I'm a game designer, so therefore I must know better" because it's not helping your argument in my eyes. Electronic Arts and their developer mills must be heaven in your eyes since they ship all kinds of games.
RE, Game Density: That's fine if you are making a game that requires you build up a town and defend it from enemies. (ie: Dwarf Fortress, try building a fort where there are no goblins. Boring!) but if you are playing in a World then instant teleports only make that world smaller, artificially. I'm sure the SWG instant transport was added because people completely missed the point of having a game world or really only want to play a FPS game with character development instead playing in a game world.
If you want to play with your friends, how about conversing with them. Communication really helps bring your game enjoyment up a level. If you are the type of player who decides to jump to the other side of the world leaving your friends behind, then you deserve to have to run back to them to play.
Quit trying to bring single player tactics to multiplayer games. If you solely want to play with your friends, then why even play an MMO? Why not attempt to invite people that aren't your friend to a group to take that enemy? You might find that there are some skilled players out there. Instead, you want the developer to dumb down the game and make it easier so you don't have to play with others? Makes sense.:rolleyes:
Slashdot Mirror
I think you underestimate the number of "non-tech" people that kill time on the Internet...
At least it's not an IE commercial.
If you read that document and you still feel that a "win" for Microsoft isn't the worst thing that could happen to the computer industry, then I feel bad for you, your children, and society as a whole for raising you to think that it's a good thing.
The only "win" that would be beneficial to the world would be for Microsoft to quit playing these legal games and release the patents, open the spec up for input from the community and quit trying to "own" everything. They won't do that because they still have the patents up their sleeves and by not releasing the rights in full only shows me that they intend to use it if they suddenly see their monopoly hold start to dip below recovery.
They want to maintain control over the standard so they can always be ahead of everyone else. They keep the language under a veil of legal battles to discourage anyone from doing anything constructive with it. If the Linux/Mac desktop becomes dependent on .NET, you can kiss them goodbye. Why would anyone want to use the substandard protocols legally available to those systems if they can get first party cutting edge tech on Windows? That's what they want, and that's why I won't install Mono on my Linux machine until all patents are off or nullified by the courts. This is the same for Office document standards, the same for SQL standards, the same for Web standards...
That's why a "win" for Microsoft is a bad thing in this case. A majority market holder should not also be the standards designator. It's asking for antitrust violations out the wazoo. It doesn't matter what the credentials of the language are. It's solely on the credentials of the organizer.
I prefer halogen at low power. I have some of those "evil" upward facing variable halogens that were discontinued years ago. I buy a 300 watt halogen bulb to put in it and leave the adjustment just above the "initiation" point where the light comes on. It's an orange/yellow light and to me it's soothing on the eyes whether reading or using the computer.
No way! Warp drive has been proven to cause birth defects in cattle on the moon near the initiation point of the warp bubble. Now just think about what it's doing to the human children here on Earth!
As I read in the antitrust documents, Microsoft feels that a "win" in the "war" is for the competition to use their standards. In several email messages and presentations given at MS, they outline this philosophy. They compare it to owning the competition by making them play the game by their rules.
http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03096.pdf
The fact that they worded it "Microsoft provides assurance that it will not assert its Necessary Claims" still freaks me out. It's either open, or it's your claim. It' can't be both.
Sony has demonstrated facial recognition and object recognition before. Not exactly a baseball bat, but you could draw objects on paper and the EyeToy would implement it into a game.
Personally, I think software patents are stupid anyway. You can copyright software, but you shouldn't be able to patent it. Software is like a book. It tells you how to do something or it can entertain. If you could patent ideas on how that should happen or what it looks like (as in software) you will have publishing companies that patent character types in books (orcs, detectives, housewives), methods of page alignment, location of copyright, titles, separation of chapters or volumes, and all kinds of stupid things. Could you imagine if a book company could patent a method of aligning pages so that the numbers increment from 1 to X? What if they could patent the idea of a book about an ancient medieval castle, knights, and a horses...
Patents should only apply to physical objects.
Either make the lightsaber automatically activate when opponents are nearby, or just leave it active all the time...
That doesn't sound like much of a game to me - much of the fun is turning the thing on and off! In fact I have to say, that I'd prefer a game where you simply turn lightsabers on and off to some Star Wars games we've had over the years...
Yeah, talk about a mood killer when you're walking down a dark hallway and your lightsaber turns itself on telling you that there's an enemy nearby. Or how about walking up to a door first to see if there's an enemy behind it before opening it. Sounds lame to me. When did Jedi Sense ever automatically turn on the sabers? What if it's a more powerful Sith hiding behind the wall and it's blocking the force?
You have a released product that shows this technology in action?
If you read my post: "... as soon as you run the distribution update..."
apt includes a little feature called dist-upgrade that resolves those dependencies and installs any additional software.
apt-get dist-upgrade
I don't know however if you can do that with yum, but you could upgrade in FC using RPMs and it will tell you you need new versions of whatever it needs.
I'm willing to bet that since Windows 7 LOOKS like Vista, it will be a hard sell either way. MS would have been better off giving it a whole new facelift.
Generally speaking:
That's because as soon as you run the distribution update, it becomes FC10 or 11, or whatever it is now. Linux distributions are really only a snapshot of files of a particular version at any range in time. If you want to compare it to Windows, it would be like running Windows update in NT3.5 and getting Windows 7. You'd upgrade the Kernel, the HAL, the services, DLLS, and all the files on the computer individually making it the latest build of Windows.
But that's not how Windows works. It's not as robust as the Linux versioning and if Microsoft can keep it that way, they can keep you purchasing the latest snapshot build they create and burn on disc instead of letting you update your system with all the latest fixes. They'll make claims that they are starting from scratch, but that's just ludicrous. I'm willing to bet they have a version server that they patch on a regular basis and their "built from the ground up" only means that they checked out the whole tree and built all the files again.
It was 1996 or 1997, I can't remember exactly, and it wasn't something people just wrote about then. The proliferation of the Internet was just getting started and there were no blogs or archives to speak of, so no. I have no evidence in the form of a link or a story you could just bring up and read. I'm sure there's one out there for another school that went through the same deal. I thought it was a raw deal the school was given, but that's how it was.
No BS. Take it or leave it.
I agree on complacency, but it's shady business that let Microsoft in on the ground floor of that complacency.
And you're obviously going to have to get a yahoo.com id if you want to switch, but that's a trivial event. It's nothing like having to compile wine with some patch to get "Application X" to work.
I do run Linux exclusively, except when I can't. (at work, and games that are brand new that my friend wants to play.)
I even bought X3 from LGP recently even though I haven't had time to install it or play, just to offer that bit of support to Linux gaming. I want publishers to support it more then the next guy, but you have to be aware of the brick wall of DirectX that MS put up. Wine just isn't there yet.
If you knew anything of the history of Microsoft and their business practices...
Yes, it's their fault.
I remember a huge controversy in my college a few years back where MS would not allow the school to purchase copies of it's software to educate the students at educational rates (the same rates other schools got) unless the college removed all Macromedia software from every computer on campus. I don't see Google telling you you can't search the internet with Bing if you want faster access to Google.
I don't use Google's Ad Service, but I don't see anything about a termination fee and there are enough advertising services on the net to engulf the entire Asian continent. Just because they don't work as hard as Google keeping the ads relevant and minimal doesn't reflect poorly on Google.
Can you watch video on Hulu or any of the other major video sites without installing Google software on your PC? Yes. Just because they own the domain name doesn't mean you are tied to use their service. You can always use one of the other online document services as well. You are not bound by the fact that you have to run Google specific software to operate competitively in this world.
People like to use whatever numbers make their arguments seem logical.
Right. The difference between Google's market share and Microsoft's share is that I can take my email elsewhere, I can search another site, and I can go to any of 50 video sites. I never have to look at another Google app the rest of my life and I'm not going to have to suffer to pay rent. With Microsoft, you can't just pack up your Games, Office applications/Exchange app, and development suites and move to Linux. You can't work in the business world without having to support Microsoft in one way or another... or find a job that has nothing to do with computers.
It's a matter of being able to leave if you don't like the service. Anyone can leave Google in an hour if they wanted. Even though I use Linux daily, I still have to use Windows at work and at home if I want to play the latest game.
Yes, because obviously the most selling item is the highest quality item with the best return on investment. (See: Big Mac, Britney, Titanic)
People don't know what they want. They think they want to have action 24/7. They think they want to push the limits of effects and all the new things that have come out... then within a few weeks they are complaining that the game is boring or they are off to a new thing. I suppose as a game designer, that works great for you since you will always have a job replacing the last game you made that didn't keep the player's attention. So let me know when you make a game that keeps the attention of players for more than a year... or does that violate the business model? So you can shove your elitist attitude of, "I'm a game designer, so therefore I must know better" because it's not helping your argument in my eyes. Electronic Arts and their developer mills must be heaven in your eyes since they ship all kinds of games.
RE, Game Density: That's fine if you are making a game that requires you build up a town and defend it from enemies. (ie: Dwarf Fortress, try building a fort where there are no goblins. Boring!) but if you are playing in a World then instant teleports only make that world smaller, artificially. I'm sure the SWG instant transport was added because people completely missed the point of having a game world or really only want to play a FPS game with character development instead playing in a game world.
If you want to play with your friends, how about conversing with them. Communication really helps bring your game enjoyment up a level. If you are the type of player who decides to jump to the other side of the world leaving your friends behind, then you deserve to have to run back to them to play.
Quit trying to bring single player tactics to multiplayer games. If you solely want to play with your friends, then why even play an MMO? Why not attempt to invite people that aren't your friend to a group to take that enemy? You might find that there are some skilled players out there. Instead, you want the developer to dumb down the game and make it easier so you don't have to play with others? Makes sense. :rolleyes:
Regarding your idea of a countdown timer... what's more boring, running to a location or getting there and having to wait before you attack?
Yet the single player game people want to bring that experience to the MMO and kill the whole point of the game world.