Note that slashdotters are always complaining about judges not knowing anything about computers, but this court has a very good understanding of the relevant technical issues. They are fully aware of which servers are transmitting what data even when this is not immediately apparent to amateur users, and base part of their judgement on that basis.
In most uses nowadays, "RPG" has diverged from its literal meaning to mean a game where your avatar(s) may increase his power on a long-term basis by performing optional tasks (typically, gaining "levels" by killing randomly generated monsters). In that sense it's a precise and useful term.
Similarly, "adventure" when used in a precise manner refers to the now mostly dead genre of combat-less games where your avatar talks to NPCs and acquires inventory to solve real-world-esque puzzles. Applying it to Zelda reveals a lack of awareness of gaming jargon. Actually the genre Zelda fits best in is "action-RPG", namely an RPG involving elements of skill and generally from a top-down or 3/4 perspective (c.f. Secret of Mana, Terranigma, Crystalis, etc). But this is only approximate since Link doesn't gain levels; in truth it doesn't fit neatly within one of the clearly defined genres. It's at any rate not too useful to invent new, incredibly vague genres that don't correspond to commonly seen gameplay elements.
The main reason HL2 felt more constrictive is because the settings (city, landscape) are naturally open. In HL1 it was natural that many paths would be blocked since the Black Mesa complex was collapsing around you.
You're talking about RAM latency and bandwidth like it means something. The main way that RAM influences performance is by preventing swap to the hard drive, which is orders of magnitude slower than even the crappiest RAM.
Did you play the same HL and HL2 I did? These games were always completely closed and linear. The linear cinematic experience is what those games were all about. This is hardly new to HL2:EP1.
Actually, this is one reason I'm anticipating Portal more than HL2:Ep2. The lab-rat setting of Portal makes closedness and linearity perfectly natural and unnoticeable.
"Early" relative to Intel's implementation of x86-64. All those other 64-bit CPUs you mention aren't x86 compatible and hence irrelevant to the workstation market.
But judges are smart guys and many of them understand exactly what is going on. Look at this recent appeals court ruling for example (about a pornography website suing Google for making their images available through image search). Can you point to a single technically inaccurate statement in the entire 50-page ruling? (The only thing that caught my eye is referring to HTML markup as "instructions", but even that is not really inaccurate in context, simply out of sync with usual jargon).
You are being overly harsh to the grandparent. He just expressed some doubt as to the strength of the underlying data, which is not unreasonable considering that we have only tiny indirect shreds of data to go on with these extrasolar planets. He was not denying obvious facts (as flat-earthers do) or questioning science in general.
Okay, so your scheme gives you the IP address of some machine they've rooted and are proxying their connection through. How does that help you stop them again?
I mean okay, it's a cool project, but can Negroponte stop being such a media whore for a moment or two? There's no reason to have a press release every time you make a design decision. In fact, this could be entirely under-the-radar.
Java is obviously dominating C++ in most generalist uses, just peruse any job listing. And what "flexibility" are you talking about? Removed languages features like MI, manual memory allocation and objects on the stack don't really prevent you from doing any task at all.
(Also, you obviously like to post on web forums without knowing HTML.)
Also, to add, the reason Unix can't do something like Powershell is that the fragmented Unix world can't unify itself around a component standard like CLR.
It's not just catching up, it's leaping ahead. Yes, it's a big surprise to see MS do this after putting zero effort into their shell for so long, but I'm increasingly convinced that the Monad way of doing things is intrinsically superior to the Unixy way. In particular, it will finally allow smooth interaction between CLI and GUI applications, which has never been feasible with the unix text stream model. Notice how modern Unix is neatly split into a CLI world and a GUI world, and the only connection is that some (usually crappy) GUI applications are wrappers around CLI ones.
CLR objects can have string conversion methods if you want to output them as text; you can convert between text and binary and back in a way that's in fact more elegant than the Unix manner (where frequently parsing code ends up rewritten multiple times). I really don't see what we lose by moving to the Monad model.
Perl can only elegantly invoke other perl components. Monad can interface with any CLR object. Shell scripts are all about taking completely disparate pieces and mashing them together with duct tape to perform a task. Bash and monad are good at this; perl is not.
Unless MS rewrites all of their other commands to accept STDIN/OUT, Monad will never surpass the shells. The power of the shells isnt' their programming flexibility, it's their ability to incorporate all the other UNIX tools and commands via pipes to do what you want.
You're obviously just parroting Unix ideology and haven't even bothered to take a glance at Monad to see how it compares. As I understand it, Monad's object model is essentially a superset of Unix's file model. I haven't used it enough to speak to how it works in practice, but it is a fundamentally more powerful paradigm.
Another reason it will never surpass the shells. They're lightweight, and flexible, and I don't need a Garbage Collector running in the back end to clean up my object allocation.
That's what they said about the early versions of Java. Now C++ is relegated mostly to embedded, systems and games programming.
Nobody will pay you if you do that. Any wanker can send an email threatening to DoS you with no proof. You DoS them once, then threaten to DoS them again. RTFA.
Sure, but extortionists are selfish bastards, right? Since they are willing to screw over society to make a buck, why wouldn't they screw over the rest of the extortionists to avoid losing their botnet?
Slashdot Mirror
Here. 50 pages but a good read at least for me.
Note that slashdotters are always complaining about judges not knowing anything about computers, but this court has a very good understanding of the relevant technical issues. They are fully aware of which servers are transmitting what data even when this is not immediately apparent to amateur users, and base part of their judgement on that basis.
In most uses nowadays, "RPG" has diverged from its literal meaning to mean a game where your avatar(s) may increase his power on a long-term basis by performing optional tasks (typically, gaining "levels" by killing randomly generated monsters). In that sense it's a precise and useful term.
Similarly, "adventure" when used in a precise manner refers to the now mostly dead genre of combat-less games where your avatar talks to NPCs and acquires inventory to solve real-world-esque puzzles. Applying it to Zelda reveals a lack of awareness of gaming jargon. Actually the genre Zelda fits best in is "action-RPG", namely an RPG involving elements of skill and generally from a top-down or 3/4 perspective (c.f. Secret of Mana, Terranigma, Crystalis, etc). But this is only approximate since Link doesn't gain levels; in truth it doesn't fit neatly within one of the clearly defined genres. It's at any rate not too useful to invent new, incredibly vague genres that don't correspond to commonly seen gameplay elements.
The main reason HL2 felt more constrictive is because the settings (city, landscape) are naturally open. In HL1 it was natural that many paths would be blocked since the Black Mesa complex was collapsing around you.
You're talking about RAM latency and bandwidth like it means something. The main way that RAM influences performance is by preventing swap to the hard drive, which is orders of magnitude slower than even the crappiest RAM.
Could you invent a genre that is a little less specific please? How about "action"? Oh oh, how about "graphical"?
Did you play the same HL and HL2 I did? These games were always completely closed and linear. The linear cinematic experience is what those games were all about. This is hardly new to HL2:EP1.
Actually, this is one reason I'm anticipating Portal more than HL2:Ep2. The lab-rat setting of Portal makes closedness and linearity perfectly natural and unnoticeable.
"Early" relative to Intel's implementation of x86-64. All those other 64-bit CPUs you mention aren't x86 compatible and hence irrelevant to the workstation market.
But judges are smart guys and many of them understand exactly what is going on. Look at this recent appeals court ruling for example (about a pornography website suing Google for making their images available through image search). Can you point to a single technically inaccurate statement in the entire 50-page ruling? (The only thing that caught my eye is referring to HTML markup as "instructions", but even that is not really inaccurate in context, simply out of sync with usual jargon).
You are being overly harsh to the grandparent. He just expressed some doubt as to the strength of the underlying data, which is not unreasonable considering that we have only tiny indirect shreds of data to go on with these extrasolar planets. He was not denying obvious facts (as flat-earthers do) or questioning science in general.
Gameplay is action-reaction. The output you get on your screen is every bit as important as the input you feed into it.
Okay, so your scheme gives you the IP address of some machine they've rooted and are proxying their connection through. How does that help you stop them again?
What blatant lack of security signs? The site had pictures of locks all over it!
Have you bothered to read the article? These kinds of devices were one of the main sources of information.
Maybe instead of being terrified and covering their ass at the expense of the company and its customers, these IT managers should do their jobs.
That's only because you've forgotten that Apple batteries are made by Sony, otherwise you'd be complaining about how terrible the battery life is.
I mean okay, it's a cool project, but can Negroponte stop being such a media whore for a moment or two? There's no reason to have a press release every time you make a design decision. In fact, this could be entirely under-the-radar.
Java is obviously dominating C++ in most generalist uses, just peruse any job listing. And what "flexibility" are you talking about? Removed languages features like MI, manual memory allocation and objects on the stack don't really prevent you from doing any task at all.
(Also, you obviously like to post on web forums without knowing HTML.)
Why don't you look up what CLR is before mouthing off?
Uh do you really not understand the difference between a typeless language and an object-oriented one, or are you just trolling?
Also, to add, the reason Unix can't do something like Powershell is that the fragmented Unix world can't unify itself around a component standard like CLR.
It's not just catching up, it's leaping ahead. Yes, it's a big surprise to see MS do this after putting zero effort into their shell for so long, but I'm increasingly convinced that the Monad way of doing things is intrinsically superior to the Unixy way. In particular, it will finally allow smooth interaction between CLI and GUI applications, which has never been feasible with the unix text stream model. Notice how modern Unix is neatly split into a CLI world and a GUI world, and the only connection is that some (usually crappy) GUI applications are wrappers around CLI ones.
CLR objects can have string conversion methods if you want to output them as text; you can convert between text and binary and back in a way that's in fact more elegant than the Unix manner (where frequently parsing code ends up rewritten multiple times). I really don't see what we lose by moving to the Monad model.
Perl can only elegantly invoke other perl components. Monad can interface with any CLR object. Shell scripts are all about taking completely disparate pieces and mashing them together with duct tape to perform a task. Bash and monad are good at this; perl is not.
You're obviously just parroting Unix ideology and haven't even bothered to take a glance at Monad to see how it compares. As I understand it, Monad's object model is essentially a superset of Unix's file model. I haven't used it enough to speak to how it works in practice, but it is a fundamentally more powerful paradigm.
That's what they said about the early versions of Java. Now C++ is relegated mostly to embedded, systems and games programming.
Nobody will pay you if you do that. Any wanker can send an email threatening to DoS you with no proof. You DoS them once, then threaten to DoS them again. RTFA.
Sure, but extortionists are selfish bastards, right? Since they are willing to screw over society to make a buck, why wouldn't they screw over the rest of the extortionists to avoid losing their botnet?