| |
Greetings
I just talked with Heidi Bailey again today, and she informed me that
TLC will not be allowing us to sell the CD-ROM at Legoland this summer
for the Kidvention. We are allowed to distribute literature about
LDraw and of course, hold our display. We can have the CD-ROM
available for sale by then (or shortly thereafter, perhaps with a
preorder feature).
I've been working on the HTML guide today and getting that finished
up. I'll hopefully have that done by this time tomorrow when I leave
for the airport. I'll be bringing the master CD and the working zip
disk to Brickfest, to meet with a few people regarding technical
issues for the CD.
I've downloaded a few more software titles, including MLCad, POV-Ray
for Windows, DOS, and Linux, and am in the process of getting the
Bezier Curve Generator. I'll also be adding Jonathan Knudsen's
ldraw.org feature article to the CD under the Tutorials section.
The CD will not include the OMR, because no structure exists at this
point. I will do my best to include Datsville - I need to meet with
Kevin Loch this weekend regarding placing DAT Explorer on the CD.
The way it looks, we might possibly have copies shipped around
Kidvention time or shortly thereafter. Its looking good! :)
Looking forward to meeting a lot of you Friday and Saturday!
-Tim Courtney
ldraw.org Project Coordinator
http://www.ldraw.org
http://www.zacktron.com
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> Did TLG say why?
Probably because it is their place (and their show?) and they don't want to
let a group come in and sell a product that could be seen as competing with
their own products?
LDraw and other packages are great, and the fact that LEGO has chosen to
ignore them for so long is wonderful. I can't imagine taking steps to force
them to issue an opinion one way or the other about it (even in a limited way)
but I guess that was already done.
|
|
| |
Mike Stanley wrote:
>
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> > Did TLG say why?
>
> Probably because it is their place (and their show?) and they don't want to
> let a group come in and sell a product that could be seen as competing with
> their own products?
>
> LDraw and other packages are great, and the fact that LEGO has chosen to
> ignore them for so long is wonderful. I can't imagine taking steps to force
> them to issue an opinion one way or the other about it (even in a limited way)
> but I guess that was already done.
I think it is more like this:
when you are just showing it off, it ias just a fan made creation but if
you start selling it, then some people (parents especially) might start
to assume that it is endorsed by lego or approved by lego or something.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw Jonathan Wilson <wilsonj@xoommail.com>
wrote:
> I think it is more like this:
> when you are just showing it off, it ias just a fan made creation but if
> you start selling it, then some people (parents especially) might start
> to assume that it is endorsed by lego or approved by lego or something.
Maybe, mabye not. I'd tend to lean towards not. Because we're going
to make sure the user does NOT go away with the idea the software is
official. And we will plug the CD-ROM indirectly on our literature.
It will all be made clear in plain english. So there shouldn't be the
reason for this to happen.
Jonathan - just a friendly reminder about posting methods in the
group. I just noticed a few of the one liner questions which have
caused so many problems in the past. I'm encouraging you to stick
with using a signature to sign your messages, and write a little bit
more to give a message a little background. A lot of people are still
bruised from before.
-Tim
http://www.zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
|
|
| |
tim@zacktron.com (Tim Courtney) writes:
> Jonathan - [...] I just noticed a few of the one liner questions
> which have caused so many problems in the past. I'm encouraging
> you to stick with using a signature to sign your messages [...]
Tim, I have to disagree with you again. If there is something which
is more annoying than a person posting a one-line-reply, it is a
person posting a one-line-reply _and_ five automatically inserted
signature lines.
I have never heard any rules of netiquette which suggest that one
_should_ use a signature. In stead, standard netiquette typically say
that a signature should be as short as possible. A typical rule of
thumb is that a signature should be no longer than four lines.
Further, there should be a signature separator between the body of the
message (what you type in manually) and the signature. The signature
separator is "-- " (with newline on either side).
The other part of your message I agree with, though. It does
typically make it easier for people reading a thread if you quote just
so much text to make the context clear. It can sometimes be a bit
difficult to decide just how much quoted text to include. Personally,
I lean towards quoting as little as possible, as it is very easy with
some client software to retrieve the parent article of the one you are
reading.
Always quoting all the text of the parent article is a sure fire way
to annoy people in the long run, and should mostly be avoided.
Fredrik
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw Fredrik Glöckner
<fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote:
> tim@zacktron.com (Tim Courtney) writes:
>
> > Jonathan - [...] I just noticed a few of the one liner questions
> > which have caused so many problems in the past. I'm encouraging
> > you to stick with using a signature to sign your messages [...]
>
> Tim, I have to disagree with you again. If there is something which
> is more annoying than a person posting a one-line-reply, it is a
> person posting a one-line-reply _and_ five automatically inserted
> signature lines.
I see your point. It does depend on if the one-liner is an
intelligent statement/question or if its ill-phrased and adds little
value.
> I have never heard any rules of netiquette which suggest that one
> _should_ use a signature. In stead, standard netiquette typically say
> that a signature should be as short as possible. A typical rule of
> thumb is that a signature should be no longer than four lines.
> Further, there should be a signature separator between the body of the
> message (what you type in manually) and the signature. The signature
> separator is "-- " (with newline on either side).
Perhaps what I meant and should have said would be more along the
lines of having the person sign their name instead.
> The other part of your message I agree with, though. It does
> typically make it easier for people reading a thread if you quote just
> so much text to make the context clear. It can sometimes be a bit
> difficult to decide just how much quoted text to include. Personally,
> I lean towards quoting as little as possible, as it is very easy with
> some client software to retrieve the parent article of the one you are
> reading.
Yes.
> Always quoting all the text of the parent article is a sure fire way
> to annoy people in the long run, and should mostly be avoided.
I'd agree. I like to intersperse my comments between quoted text, and
kill the irrelevant stuff. Sometimes depending on the length of the
message and all, I'll write a reply before a full quote, but not very
often.
-Tim
http://www.zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
|
|
| |
tim@zacktron.com (Tim Courtney) writes:
> Perhaps what I meant and should have said would be more along the
> lines of having the person sign their name instead.
Personally, I have never been offended by anyone not typing in their
name below the article. After all, the contents of the article is
what is important, and the relevant information about the author is
(normally) in the headers anyway.
> I'd agree. I like to intersperse my comments between quoted text,
> and kill the irrelevant stuff. Sometimes depending on the length
> of the message and all, I'll write a reply before a full quote, but
> not very often.
In my opinion, quoting text when following up is mostly useful for
making it clear what part of the parent article you are commenting.
This makes the article much easier to read and understand.
If you are writing the reply on the top (or on the very bottom), while
quoting all the parent article, the information about which part of
the parent article you are commenting is completely lost, and you
might as well refrain from quoting anything at all. After all, the
contents of the parent article is easily accessed by a keystroke on
sensible client software.
Fredrik
|
|
| |
Fredrik Glöckner <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> writes:
> After all, the contents of the parent article is easily
> accessed by a keystroke on sensible client software.
Not if you're reading the groups via email, like me[1]. I like at least
something quoted so I know which article someone is replying to...
--Bram
1) subscribing to 50+ groups by email is a lot...I read with one finger
on the delete key...
Bram Lambrecht................BramL@JUNO.com
http://www.chuh.org/Students/Bram-Lambrecht/
|
|
|
