If you followed the link, you would find that the cryptography ballot does not necessarily show how one has voted. (unless you have both parts)
True, you would have a piece of paper with marks on it, however there would be no indication whatsoever of which votes counted for which ballot items/candidates. The on-line verification would only show the status of the individual ballot, (counted/not-counted/disqualified) with no indication of how the individual's ballot was cast.
The system truly mitigates the very situations you describe. It's not just a "bingo card ballot", but a two-part system that eliminates the 'proof' of any individual vote. Furthermore, the votes can be re-counted with perfect accuracy. The individual voter has no potential to be threatened—unless you strictly talking scare tactics—for voting based on anything but their own volition.
If I were faced with any of the above situations using the cryptography ballot, I would just play along. Hell, I could use an extra $100, even if I have to lie to get it.
In programming, like driving a car or setting an appointment, the x86 architecture is a standard... becuase a standard is necessary for programming.
In the market, x86 would be "conventional", though it is often referred to as a "standard". In the market, we have a choice of what to use. If we use empirical terms, it's only "standard" in the "de facto" sense of the word.
From what I see, TFA asks why we use x86, and not why anyone develops on that platform. (though there is likely a connection in the answers to both, it's not really the same thing)
In a word, Windows. If Windows ran on a PowerPC, we'd be using PowerPC's. It's only because Windows gained the appeal of American (and ultimately world-wide) businesses, and because of their "marriage" with Intel that we continue to use x86 machines.
Macs have used PowerPC cores ever since the first (albeit an initial failure at launch) PowerPC Mac. Strides since that era have produced the G3 and G4 platforms; some of the fastest processors at the time. Appealing? Sure! But only to a limited market. Many PowerPC's are still in use today, keeping up with the race between AMD and Intel. Yet, as far as our employers and hobbyists go, we still use x86.
Curious still is the current CISC trend; dual-core, double-speeds, quad-core... is an "octal core" in the works? (Moore says "sure, why not?") It's as if the CISC platform is evolving into an uber-RISC platform itself. Still, with all the 64-bit options now available, the majority of the established market uses "good ol' 32-bit" x86.
Now take the Cell processor; the progeny of most every predecessor, put together into a unified core and built with all incumbent standards in mind. Should it ever emerge to an open market, it could likely be the next level of PowerPC. Unfortunately, it's in the hands of Sony. If history is any guide, we will continue to use x86. (BTW: watch for the next leap in VAIO computing... along with a proprietary core platform, but likely to embrace both W32 and *nix software platforms; maybe a "virtural machine host" platform)
For those luddites out there that pay no heed to consumer electronics and patent debacles; Sony is infamous for patenting brilliant technologies and suffocating them in the crib. Cases in point: Betamax and Hi8. (superior quality + limited market scope + closed patent = "Like Nothing Else") Other notables are the MiniDisc and MemoryStick. (next up: Blu-Ray) Notice how many non-Sony devices use these technologies... that's right, none! (not counting card-reader devices) If Philips ever backed-out of the Compact Disc partnership, we would still be listening to cassette tapes. (because blank CD's would cost $20 apiece)
Wither the fate of yonder Cell... we hardly knew ye.
What if Windows didn't determine the prevailing platform anymore? What direction would we take as a market if Linux became the norm?
That all depends on your definition of "paper". (thank you, Slick Willy!)
Florida's election system (pronounced: floor-ih-duh) approved the use of punch-cards in the General Election, primarily for their robust and elegant tendency towards ambiguity.
This tendency was turned into a benefit for the now-incumbent, for when the voting system contains ambiguity, who arbitrates the final vote? That's right, the Electoral Commission. (a.k.a. brother Jeb)
For any self-respecting and honorable Electoral Commission to accept the use of 200-year-old technology in the face of perfectly feasible and econonical alternatives screams about the potential for fraud. Even at this point, the punch-cards themselves remain blameless for the debacle.
Did you ever notice how much of the counted votes actually changed during the Florida Recount? Strange that—had they been thoroughly re-counted—most of them un-earthed more votes for Gore in the end.
It's not so much the case where "that's all they had"... be real! That's what the Electoral Commission chose to use. There's a promising new system that implements a physical form of cryptography. Let's see if the Electoral Commission comes up with a good reason not to use it.
As for questioning the reliability of paper ballots; don't criticize the paper itself, it is but a mere medium for information. Rather, focus on what goes on the paper, and who interprets its meaning. Your argument would seem to blame the punch-card itself for being blatantly mis-interpreted.
We've all followed "the paper trail" at some point. If anyone is so staunch a supporter of paperless electronic voting, tell me how you follow an "electron trail"?
Though the article implies the angle where SFLC deserves attention for siding with MSFT, the real story is how MSFT is even considering the same side as SFLC. (especially since this exchange.)
So, in thinking about where this all leads, don't think about what SFLC will do next. Rather, think what the next move of MSFT will be.
Involvement in International Policy regarding validity of US software patents. (TFA) Looks like they're buttering-up to the world in response to all the bad press, but might it also be a precursor to something else? Is MSFT setting the stage for more agressive global profiteering?
I love the way this thread is more about the domain-name dispute than the movie itself.
Of course, it sounds like the same-plot-different-subject sort of thing.
Besides; why wouldn't they go with wargames2themovie.com or wargames2thedeadcode.com ? Those are just as easy to remember and apply more directly to the hosted content.
Maybe MGM is worried that a "fully remastered" DVD of the original movie will be supplanted by people buying Axis & Allies instead. [um... right]
There's no need for a huge battle... and I'm sure if they asked nicely, Mr. Cadenhead would love to oblige them with a link-thru. It would benefit both of them, but I think Mr. Cadenhead would get a nice boost from the incidental traffic through his site. It's not like the guy is going to take movie or ticket sales away from poor ol' Mega-Giant-Movie company. [/sarcasm]
Another case of lititgate-first-ask-questions-later. [/me sighs]
It's another FUD about the ways of digital communication and
how MSFT is doing its darndest to make a buck when their cash-cows are
quickly being abducted by penguin-shaped aliens and casual-dressed
hipster marketing images. (Note: The
hipsters aren't really taking any MSFT business away.)
In the end, what's the patent really about? It's about a bit
of data that a Microsoft product puts on an e-mail message.
Can they patent the smiley/frowney/angry/rolley/etc?
No. That's not what this is about.
Can they patent any emotional expression in e-mail?
No. That would be unconstitutional as it would
restrict freedom of expression.
Can they patent e-mail messages that are "flagged"?
Obviously not, since that has pre-eminently entered into common usage
among almost every text-communication medium, and is therefore akin to
"public domain".
Can they patent a flagging system that is
parsed client-side into a corresponding emoticon to represent an entire
e-mail message?
We'll see.
That is what this post is really about;
MSFT profiteering over a miniscule convention in technology that only
slightly colors the digital landscape and will ultimately be
worked-around like any other obstacle.
[The] two basic concepts of the Internet: the Internet
routes around obstacles and enables communication to all nodes from all
nodes. How does the Internet do this? It does that because on the
Internet all nodes are equal. On the Internet all nodes are free to
communicate.
— Steve Sloan
...which would be a'la mode. (Don't any of you try to sue me
if you stick ice cream in your new PC;)
What I mean is, provide a multiple-choice solution for
customers; give them more than just one OOB (Out Of Box) option.
The current OOB model:
Customer purchases PC online, defaulting to Windows
pre-installed.
Customer receives PC, takes it out of the box, plugs it in
and turns it on.
Customer is faced with one OOB experience; setting-up
Windows XP.
This, I believe, is the concern that the French are trying to
voice.
Now, consider this model:
Customer purchases PC online, defaulting to "a'la mode"
package.
Customer receives PC, takes it out of the box, plugs it in
and turns it on.
Customer is granted options from a proprietary
HP bootstrap; Windows, HP-UX, or [insert linux distro here].
In fact, HP could add some serious value by adding options that are
dynamically allocated online. That is, the HP bootstrap would check for
Internet (not a problem, since HP-assembled system has predictable
hardware) and "call home" to find the current selection of network-stub
platforms. With the volatile nature of the Linux community at
present—ahem...
Novell—having a dynamic selection would be in their best
interests.
Customer selects preferred platform and enters respective
installation routine. At any time, the customer would be able to
re-initiate the HP bootstrap to begin the process anew. This could be
DVD, CD-ROM set, USB key or host
protected region.
How does this mitigate French law? Simple! It breaks the
"anti-trust" nature of a 1:1 product offering (1 machine, 1 platform)
and gives the choice to the consumer.
Frankly, I think HP would do well to consider a "paradigm of
choice" rather than allow their consumer line of PC's getting pimped my
Mr. Ballmer to continue. Poor Spitzmuller, he's just doing his
job. (though he is basically a lawyer)
Yowtch, extreme!...and here I am, getting all flustered at the 25sec. span it takes Ubuntu to come to login. Although... with my Win2k dual-boot, the time does increase to 45 sec. (not taking in all the startup services and call-home updates taking place) Leave it to MSFT to have a system that looks booted without really being "booted".
My best suggestion for a P/Pro system (more like a PowerPC than AMD or P4) would be to go for full-uptime; have it on 24/7 (idling at login screen when you're not using it)
For that solution, uninterruptible power would be key, and with the preeminent conditions of your area, it would seem to be a necessity! Those with serial DB-9 or USB interface would be best; gives feedback to a Windows applet and even appends to system events.
Other keys for speed; RAM RAM RAM... you can get most SDRAM (does it even take SDRAM?) on the real-cheap from discount places like http://www.geeks.com/.
* The above software links are only suggested titles I've used myself among many other options out there.
In addition to the other Denverite; I'll throw my hat into the ring with an old Athlon 1.1GhZ that seems to overheat too easily. The MoBo and ram seem to be the tops. (takes DDR 266 or "PC 2100") Don't underestimate the benefit of a faster hard-disk, either!
These tips come compliments of another who has burned the crucible of aging hardware time and time again. (after all, the $500 cost for a serious upgrade only comes along every year or so) Currently using (at home) a 1.7GhZ Sempron within a Soyo barebones kit. (all told, the Kit, CPU and RAM only cost about $250 at the time) My next project, Home-Theater PC with Linux.
40GB of Flash...would require more power than a 1.5" HDD
You bring up a good point, and I would agree but for the "mobile" factor.
You can still crash an iPod by throwing it across the room, (same goes for any HD) but not so with an iPod Nano. It will take bump after thump and still keep playing.
You can't beat zero-moving-parts for stability.
Then again, there are advances in "shock proofing" hard drives; Hitachi has led the way in zero-G sensors (parks and suspends the drive within 4" of being dropped) and now Plextor has their alleged "shock-proof" portable drive. (though it has been de-bunked in this extreme testing experiment shows) So much for empirical terms in marketing.
I think they've called it the Ultra Mobile PC. (UMPC) Incidentally, I clicked on "hardware" and found amusingly vague specs.
Here's what you do: Just strip-out all the junk (HD, and WindowsXP) keeping the real goods (install around 40GB permanent flash storage, upgrade RAM, expand Wi-Fi with 10/100 Ethernet) and you've got a suprisingly usable brick. Expand further to use CF/SD/MMC/PCMCIA and it becomes ultra-usable. I bet it wouldn't cost all that much in the end.
I've learned that at Polycount and it matches pretty much every piece of documentation on the matter I've seen.
Come back when you've actually used this knowledge. To debate based on documentation is tantamount to looking at a postcard of the Eiffel Tower and argue about its height. If debating semantics is your wish, there is a great many who would love to engage you in that very same, fruitless pursuit... not me.
Seriously! What is your point? That Valve's contribution to 3D techniques is lesser than what I claimed? (also, completely off-topic for TFA) Aside from the words, "in part", there is no further qualification for the amount (more or less) that I accredit to Valve or the individual developers. The difference that you believe you are debating never existed in this thread. Why you engaged my response in the first place is beyond me.
I'm generally a helper when it comes to neuroses, but in your case I have nothing to offer. The phantom arguments that you wish to conquer can not be found here.
[In response to the implication of "troll-ish" behavior...]
From my position it looks a lot like you're doing that.
The ruling on the "I'm rubber and you're glue..." argument is that it will immediatley transfer your case into the Juvenile Circuit. (no cookie for you) Though I have engaged certain sub-points, (note that they were not introduced by me) it was only to cite the true origins. (not regurgitated theoretical documentation or speculations on current dogma) The other technical fallacies that you have perpetrated will have to remain as your badges of ignorance for someone else to point out at a later time.
I'm through with this pointless bickering. If you can't invent a better excuse for an argument than that, this "discussion" is over.
[singing:]
Come and listen to my story of a man named Jeb
You must've heard about 'im, he's all over the Web
You see, one day, he'll be shootin' for the moon
But all we'll remember is the bringin' of the doom...
Taxes, that is...
Budget cuts...
You'll see.
(feel free to contribute... I'm just riffin' here.)
WALLACE: "Berbershire? [...] Londonderry? [...] Well! It's like no cheese I've ever tasted!"
Monolith Moon Cheese®, it's full of stars!
And now for something completely different...
We're whalers on the moon,
We carry a har-poon...
But there ain't no whales,
So we tell tall tales
And sing a wailin' tune.
Of course, Ignignokt the mooninite would have something snappy to say; like, "Don't even think about going up there. (ERR: "yeah!") We allowed you to go there once, but that was a courtesy. We wanted to see if your pathetic ships would blow themselves up. That would have amused us. (ERR: "Ha! That would have been GREAT!") Indeed, Err. Our technology has the ability to vaporize any and all trespassers at any time."
RE:(1) — Did you happen to try adept?...or explore the Ubuntu
wiki?...how about the forums? Anyone
can tell you that apt-get is a fair package-installer, but not the best
at package management. Had you tried adept, you
may have been able to find a solution in time.
Personally, I use original-flavor Ubuntu. (Gnome) I understand
KDE is regarded as a more powerful environment, but it certainly has
its flaws.
The kUbuntu documentation is very informative regarding some
of the basic functions. (even after it is installed) It has a good
description of how to use adept there.
For a FreeBSD advocate, I'm surprised that you didn't try the
enhanced UI first.
What a bountiful collection of jargon you have... it's clear
that you come from a dogmatic school of 3D modeling. (if any school...
and if you are self-taught, I applaud you... even if not for the lack
of humility)
Texture deformation happens on the
contiguous mesh, (one-piece models) though it is generally a real-time
feature of the engine and not the model itself. Part of Valve's
innovation was making model-animation specifics part of the engine,
rather than relying on design-time parameters. Why did you not make the
leap to this conclusion? Are you so steeped in static modeling that you
fail to envision the model in action?
As to the idea that I was even referring to consoles in the
first place, I didn't. Valves efforts were founded in the PC gaming
arena, and eventually tossed a bone to the sixth-gen consoles such as
Xbox, GameCube and PS2. For the benefit of my first post, I was only
referring to PC game technology and relevant hardware. (3dfx, nVidia,
S3 and ATI) If you remember, the consoles of that age aspired
to the performance of even a mediocre 3D-accelerated PC back in the day.
AFAIK Half-Life didn't make much use of manipulating UV
coordinates.
For this thoroughly unrelated claim, I have to make a mention
of its inaccuracy. Half Life had plenty of UV mapping; it's now an
indispensable part of 3D design! Sometimes the interactive objects in
HL reassigned texture-maps, sometimes they used a procedural texture,
thereby changing the visible surface in real-time. This is a relatively
simple technique and is prevalent in many games since HL, Quake II, and
even Unreal.
Have you modded or mapped any Valve games? Used Hammer recently?
It's a free download. (or you can jump all the way up to the Source
SDK) I encourage you to try it out, after all, it beats the
$500+ price tags of 3D Studio and the like.
Skeletal Kinetic Animation as a technique is, in fact, a bit after
the first Half Life release. It did not really have a name at first,
but it came to be known as such. Valve was good enough to help
distribute
the technique around the 3D community rather than patent and camp on
it. (they earn my respect with such gestures) Though Valve did not,
themselves, invent or introduce it, they played a significant role.
This is why I've said that the state of modern 3D-dev is
thanks in part to
the efforts of the Valve
team. This, in and of itself, is the only
point I wish to make; all other ideas from my initial post seem to have
dropped from your radar
I'm not sure of your exact stance in this discussion...
frankly, it's a bit troll-ish. (debating irrelevant details and trying
to intimidate with barrages of so-called uber-speak) If there is
nothing more constructive to add, let's call it a day, shall
we? If you feel like debating yourself even more, feel free to
do so. I will have moved on.
Slashdot Mirror
If you followed the link, you would find that the cryptography ballot does not necessarily show how one has voted. (unless you have both parts)
True, you would have a piece of paper with marks on it, however there would be no indication whatsoever of which votes counted for which ballot items/candidates. The on-line verification would only show the status of the individual ballot, (counted/not-counted/disqualified) with no indication of how the individual's ballot was cast.
The system truly mitigates the very situations you describe. It's not just a "bingo card ballot", but a two-part system that eliminates the 'proof' of any individual vote. Furthermore, the votes can be re-counted with perfect accuracy. The individual voter has no potential to be threatened—unless you strictly talking scare tactics—for voting based on anything but their own volition.
If I were faced with any of the above situations using the cryptography ballot, I would just play along.
Hell, I could use an extra $100, even if I have to lie to get it.
... confuse "standards" and "conventions".
In programming, like driving a car or setting an appointment, the x86 architecture is a standard... becuase a standard is necessary for programming.
In the market, x86 would be "conventional", though it is often referred to as a "standard". In the market, we have a choice of what to use. If we use empirical terms, it's only "standard" in the "de facto" sense of the word.
From what I see, TFA asks why we use x86, and not why anyone develops on that platform. (though there is likely a connection in the answers to both, it's not really the same thing)
In a word, Windows. If Windows ran on a PowerPC, we'd be using PowerPC's. It's only because Windows gained the appeal of American (and ultimately world-wide) businesses, and because of their "marriage" with Intel that we continue to use x86 machines.
Macs have used PowerPC cores ever since the first (albeit an initial failure at launch) PowerPC Mac. Strides since that era have produced the G3 and G4 platforms; some of the fastest processors at the time. Appealing? Sure! But only to a limited market. Many PowerPC's are still in use today, keeping up with the race between AMD and Intel. Yet, as far as our employers and hobbyists go, we still use x86.
Curious still is the current CISC trend; dual-core, double-speeds, quad-core... is an "octal core" in the works? (Moore says "sure, why not?") It's as if the CISC platform is evolving into an uber-RISC platform itself. Still, with all the 64-bit options now available, the majority of the established market uses "good ol' 32-bit" x86.
Now take the Cell processor; the progeny of most every predecessor, put together into a unified core and built with all incumbent standards in mind. Should it ever emerge to an open market, it could likely be the next level of PowerPC. Unfortunately, it's in the hands of Sony. If history is any guide, we will continue to use x86. (BTW: watch for the next leap in VAIO computing... along with a proprietary core platform, but likely to embrace both W32 and *nix software platforms; maybe a "virtural machine host" platform)
For those luddites out there that pay no heed to consumer electronics and patent debacles; Sony is infamous for patenting brilliant technologies and suffocating them in the crib. Cases in point: Betamax and Hi8. (superior quality + limited market scope + closed patent = "Like Nothing Else") Other notables are the MiniDisc and MemoryStick. (next up: Blu-Ray) Notice how many non-Sony devices use these technologies... that's right, none! (not counting card-reader devices) If Philips ever backed-out of the Compact Disc partnership, we would still be listening to cassette tapes. (because blank CD's would cost $20 apiece)
Wither the fate of yonder Cell... we hardly knew ye.
What if Windows didn't determine the prevailing platform anymore? What direction would we take as a market if Linux became the norm?
Ponderous, man. Real-ly ponderous.
That all depends on your definition of "paper". (thank you, Slick Willy!)
Florida's election system (pronounced: floor-ih-duh) approved the use of punch-cards in the General Election, primarily for their robust and elegant tendency towards ambiguity.
This tendency was turned into a benefit for the now-incumbent, for when the voting system contains ambiguity, who arbitrates the final vote? That's right, the Electoral Commission. (a.k.a. brother Jeb)
For any self-respecting and honorable Electoral Commission to accept the use of 200-year-old technology in the face of perfectly feasible and econonical alternatives screams about the potential for fraud. Even at this point, the punch-cards themselves remain blameless for the debacle.
Did you ever notice how much of the counted votes actually changed during the Florida Recount? Strange that—had they been thoroughly re-counted—most of them un-earthed more votes for Gore in the end.
It's not so much the case where "that's all they had"... be real! That's what the Electoral Commission chose to use. There's a promising new system that implements a physical form of cryptography. Let's see if the Electoral Commission comes up with a good reason not to use it.
As for questioning the reliability of paper ballots; don't criticize the paper itself, it is but a mere medium for information. Rather, focus on what goes on the paper, and who interprets its meaning. Your argument would seem to blame the punch-card itself for being blatantly mis-interpreted.
We've all followed "the paper trail" at some point. If anyone is so staunch a supporter of paperless electronic voting, tell me how you follow an "electron trail"?
Indeed.
Though the article implies the angle where SFLC deserves attention for siding with MSFT, the real story is how MSFT is even considering the same side as SFLC. (especially since this exchange.)
So, in thinking about where this all leads, don't think about what SFLC will do next. Rather, think what the next move of MSFT will be.
So far...
Hmm... seems that this only draws attention to "software patents" in general.
It won't change overnight, but will it change under MSFT guidance/control? (eek!)
Anyone else see a pattern here? </sarcasm> At least others are proving that MSFT has to receive as well as they give.
Looks like they're buttering-up to the world in response to all the bad press, but might it also be a precursor to something else? Is MSFT setting the stage for more agressive global profiteering?
Another question; could anybody stop them?
Yes.
...
That's my answer.
Simple, ain't it?
You can move along now.
You're still here?[pauses]
I'ts over! Go home.
[gestures as if to say "shoo!"]
Go on...
-- Post-Ending-Credit Sequence from Ferris Bueller's Day Off
That's the power-on greeting for my mobile.
Don't you see it?! Right there! Evil, pure and simple from the Eighth Dimension!
Loved the Jet Car... it was the real deal. (except for the whole dimension-crossing bit) Even had working turn signals!
What's that watermelon doing there?
I'll tell you later
Alas, nobody told New Jersey about the watermelon in the movie.
I love the way this thread is more about the domain-name dispute than the movie itself.
Of course, it sounds like the same-plot-different-subject sort of thing.
Besides; why wouldn't they go with wargames2themovie.com or wargames2thedeadcode.com ? Those are just as easy to remember and apply more directly to the hosted content.
Maybe MGM is worried that a "fully remastered" DVD of the original movie will be supplanted by people buying Axis & Allies instead. [um... right]
There's no need for a huge battle... and I'm sure if they asked nicely, Mr. Cadenhead would love to oblige them with a link-thru. It would benefit both of them, but I think Mr. Cadenhead would get a nice boost from the incidental traffic through his site. It's not like the guy is going to take movie or ticket sales away from poor ol' Mega-Giant-Movie company. [/sarcasm]
Another case of lititgate-first-ask-questions-later. [/me sighs]
It's another FUD about the ways of digital communication and how MSFT is doing its darndest to make a buck when their cash-cows are quickly being abducted by penguin-shaped aliens and casual-dressed hipster marketing images. (Note: The hipsters aren't really taking any MSFT business away.)
In the end, what's the patent really about? It's about a bit of data that a Microsoft product puts on an e-mail message.
Can they patent the smiley/frowney/angry/rolley/etc?
No. That's not what this is about.
Can they patent any emotional expression in e-mail?
No. That would be unconstitutional as it would restrict freedom of expression.
Can they patent e-mail messages that are "flagged"?
Obviously not, since that has pre-eminently entered into common usage among almost every text-communication medium, and is therefore akin to "public domain".
Can they patent a flagging system that is parsed client-side into a corresponding emoticon to represent an entire e-mail message?
We'll see.
That is what this post is really about; MSFT profiteering over a miniscule convention in technology that only slightly colors the digital landscape and will ultimately be worked-around like any other obstacle.
[The] two basic concepts of the Internet: the Internet routes around obstacles and enables communication to all nodes from all nodes. How does the Internet do this? It does that because on the Internet all nodes are equal. On the Internet all nodes are free to communicate.— Steve Sloan
RTFA indeed.
...which would be a'la mode. (Don't any of you try to sue me if you stick ice cream in your new PC ;)
What I mean is, provide a multiple-choice solution for customers; give them more than just one OOB (Out Of Box) option.
The current OOB model:
This, I believe, is the concern that the French are trying to voice.
Now, consider this model:
How does this mitigate French law? Simple! It breaks the "anti-trust" nature of a 1:1 product offering (1 machine, 1 platform) and gives the choice to the consumer.
Frankly, I think HP would do well to consider a "paradigm of choice" rather than allow their consumer line of PC's getting pimped my Mr. Ballmer to continue. Poor Spitzmuller, he's just doing his job. (though he is basically a lawyer)
The latest trends for doing this are...
This is by no means a complete list, just my "top three". Anyone else like to add to this?
...least of all, an identity.
But in that other universe, roses smell like cat-doo...
Unthinkable in the other universe, since it's normal there, unless they also have Slashdot...
If they do, then it's called Slatdosh and instead contains incessant blathering about irrelevant topics...
Oh... hang on a bit...
Maybe Slashdot itself is a portal to parallel worlds?
Yowtch, extreme! ...and here I am, getting all flustered at the 25sec. span it takes Ubuntu to come to login. Although... with my Win2k dual-boot, the time does increase to 45 sec. (not taking in all the startup services and call-home updates taking place) Leave it to MSFT to have a system that looks booted without really being "booted".
My best suggestion for a P/Pro system (more like a PowerPC than AMD or P4) would be to go for full-uptime; have it on 24/7 (idling at login screen when you're not using it)
For that solution, uninterruptible power would be key, and with the preeminent conditions of your area, it would seem to be a necessity! Those with serial DB-9 or USB interface would be best; gives feedback to a Windows applet and even appends to system events.
Other keys for speed; RAM RAM RAM... you can get most SDRAM (does it even take SDRAM?) on the real-cheap from discount places like http://www.geeks.com/.
Other tips generally come in the form of; reduce your startup items* and/or pace them with delay software* so they aren't chewing-up CPU so much during boot; shut-off unnecessary services or keep them from auto-starting until they are needed; and remove unnecessary devices in Device Manager.
* The above software links are only suggested titles I've used myself among many other options out there.
In addition to the other Denverite; I'll throw my hat into the ring with an old Athlon 1.1GhZ that seems to overheat too easily. The MoBo and ram seem to be the tops. (takes DDR 266 or "PC 2100") Don't underestimate the benefit of a faster hard-disk, either!
These tips come compliments of another who has burned the crucible of aging hardware time and time again. (after all, the $500 cost for a serious upgrade only comes along every year or so) Currently using (at home) a 1.7GhZ Sempron within a Soyo barebones kit. (all told, the Kit, CPU and RAM only cost about $250 at the time) My next project, Home-Theater PC with Linux.
...or is it already here? Glance at this bit about Turner Entertainment "turning" to holographic storage.
Plus, it keeps the men in uniform from saying "booby" all the time.
Uh... hhuhuheheheh... he th'ed "boob-ee"... uh... huhuhuheheheh
Think of it... the most powerful military force in the world, saying "booby" to describe a bomb with a concealed trigger.
Maybe call them "wife-y traps"?
You bring up a good point, and I would agree but for the "mobile" factor.
You can still crash an iPod by throwing it across the room, (same goes for any HD) but not so with an iPod Nano. It will take bump after thump and still keep playing.
You can't beat zero-moving-parts for stability.
Then again, there are advances in "shock proofing" hard drives; Hitachi has led the way in zero-G sensors (parks and suspends the drive within 4" of being dropped) and now Plextor has their alleged "shock-proof" portable drive. (though it has been de-bunked in this extreme testing experiment shows) So much for empirical terms in marketing.
Didn't they already make something like that?
I think they've called it the Ultra Mobile PC. (UMPC) Incidentally, I clicked on "hardware" and found amusingly vague specs.
Here's what you do: Just strip-out all the junk (HD, and WindowsXP) keeping the real goods (install around 40GB permanent flash storage, upgrade RAM, expand Wi-Fi with 10/100 Ethernet) and you've got a suprisingly usable brick. Expand further to use CF/SD/MMC/PCMCIA and it becomes ultra-usable. I bet it wouldn't cost all that much in the end.
Add some embedded linux and you're ready to go!
Just how much do they pay people to think up these things anyway? (too much)
That reminds me of something...
I think of Steve Ballmer and Linus Torvalds in a barren setting, brandishing staff-like weapons and dueling each other to the death.
With that Star Trek (TOS) "fight song" ringing in my ears.
[da-di dah, dah, dah, dah, da di-di da, dah...]
Jeff Corwin would know what I mean...
Come back when you've actually used this knowledge. To debate based on documentation is tantamount to looking at a postcard of the Eiffel Tower and argue about its height. If debating semantics is your wish, there is a great many who would love to engage you in that very same, fruitless pursuit... not me.
Seriously! What is your point? That Valve's contribution to 3D techniques is lesser than what I claimed? (also, completely off-topic for TFA) Aside from the words, "in part", there is no further qualification for the amount (more or less) that I accredit to Valve or the individual developers. The difference that you believe you are debating never existed in this thread. Why you engaged my response in the first place is beyond me.
I'm generally a helper when it comes to neuroses, but in your case I have nothing to offer. The phantom arguments that you wish to conquer can not be found here.
[In response to the implication of "troll-ish" behavior...]From my position it looks a lot like you're doing that.
The ruling on the "I'm rubber and you're glue..." argument is that it will immediatley transfer your case into the Juvenile Circuit. (no cookie for you) Though I have engaged certain sub-points, (note that they were not introduced by me) it was only to cite the true origins. (not regurgitated theoretical documentation or speculations on current dogma) The other technical fallacies that you have perpetrated will have to remain as your badges of ignorance for someone else to point out at a later time.
I'm through with this pointless bickering. If you can't invent a better excuse for an argument than that, this "discussion" is over.
Good day.
[singing:]
Come and listen to my story of a man named Jeb
You must've heard about 'im, he's all over the Web
You see, one day, he'll be shootin' for the moon
But all we'll remember is the bringin' of the doom...
Taxes, that is...
Budget cuts...
You'll see.
(feel free to contribute... I'm just riffin' here.)
I don't very much care one way or another. Just let me know when they start signing-up "material defenders" after the automatons go awry.
Have they made preparations "A" through "G" yet?
On second thought... forget the moonbase.
WALLACE: "Berbershire? [...] Londonderry? [...] Well! It's like no cheese I've ever tasted!"
Monolith Moon Cheese®, it's full of stars!
And now for something completely different...
We're whalers on the moon,
We carry a har-poon...
But there ain't no whales,
So we tell tall tales
And sing a wailin' tune.
Of course, Ignignokt the mooninite would have something snappy to say; like, "Don't even think about going up there. (ERR: "yeah!") We allowed you to go there once, but that was a courtesy. We wanted to see if your pathetic ships would blow themselves up. That would have amused us. (ERR: "Ha! That would have been GREAT!") Indeed, Err. Our technology has the ability to vaporize any and all trespassers at any time."
RE:(1) — Did you happen to try adept? ...or explore the Ubuntu
wiki? ...how about the forums? Anyone
can tell you that apt-get is a fair package-installer, but not the best
at package management. Had you tried adept, you
may have been able to find a solution in time.
Personally, I use original-flavor Ubuntu. (Gnome) I understand KDE is regarded as a more powerful environment, but it certainly has its flaws.
The kUbuntu documentation is very informative regarding some of the basic functions. (even after it is installed) It has a good description of how to use adept there.
For a FreeBSD advocate, I'm surprised that you didn't try the enhanced UI first.
Best of luck for next time!
What a bountiful collection of jargon you have... it's clear that you come from a dogmatic school of 3D modeling. (if any school... and if you are self-taught, I applaud you... even if not for the lack of humility)
Texture deformation happens on the contiguous mesh, (one-piece models) though it is generally a real-time feature of the engine and not the model itself. Part of Valve's innovation was making model-animation specifics part of the engine, rather than relying on design-time parameters. Why did you not make the leap to this conclusion? Are you so steeped in static modeling that you fail to envision the model in action?
As to the idea that I was even referring to consoles in the first place, I didn't. Valves efforts were founded in the PC gaming arena, and eventually tossed a bone to the sixth-gen consoles such as Xbox, GameCube and PS2. For the benefit of my first post, I was only referring to PC game technology and relevant hardware. (3dfx, nVidia, S3 and ATI) If you remember, the consoles of that age aspired to the performance of even a mediocre 3D-accelerated PC back in the day.
AFAIK Half-Life didn't make much use of manipulating UV coordinates.For this thoroughly unrelated claim, I have to make a mention of its inaccuracy. Half Life had plenty of UV mapping; it's now an indispensable part of 3D design! Sometimes the interactive objects in HL reassigned texture-maps, sometimes they used a procedural texture, thereby changing the visible surface in real-time. This is a relatively simple technique and is prevalent in many games since HL, Quake II, and even Unreal.
Have you modded or mapped any Valve games? Used Hammer recently? It's a free download. (or you can jump all the way up to the Source SDK) I encourage you to try it out, after all, it beats the $500+ price tags of 3D Studio and the like.
Skeletal Kinetic Animation as a technique is, in fact, a bit after the first Half Life release. It did not really have a name at first, but it came to be known as such. Valve was good enough to help distribute the technique around the 3D community rather than patent and camp on it. (they earn my respect with such gestures) Though Valve did not, themselves, invent or introduce it, they played a significant role.
This is why I've said that the state of modern 3D-dev is thanks in part to the efforts of the Valve team. This, in and of itself, is the only point I wish to make; all other ideas from my initial post seem to have dropped from your radar
I'm not sure of your exact stance in this discussion... frankly, it's a bit troll-ish. (debating irrelevant details and trying to intimidate with barrages of so-called uber-speak) If there is nothing more constructive to add, let's call it a day, shall we? If you feel like debating yourself even more, feel free to do so. I will have moved on.