This seems to be a really dumb move. Its basically telling the world that its ok for the US to take over foreign companies, but its not ok for foreign companies to take over a US business. Allies or not, arabic interests owning American assets is a perceived security risk. That isn't dumb as much as it's consistent policy. If the PR for the war on terror hadn't been so effective, no person would have blinked.
No. 11: Boycott Arab Oil at Your Local Gas Station - This is a list of oil companies and how dependent they are on Middle Eastern Oil. Although this source is not authoratative, it's in line with other reports I've read. I buy from stations that are less dependent on purpose.
The insert did not commment on an assessment of the decision, only pointed out a relevant fact that we would expect be pointed out. It is neither xenophobic nor/.'s fault that the port deal is in the news. If it was decided by another news-worthy (or in this case, culturally relevant) entity, readers EXPECT this to be highlighted in the copy.
Blizzard has poor server architecture. Monolithic servers. Sharding continents rather than zones was a bad idea, but easy to implement and find talent (ex-EQ devs) to develop/support. From a financial standpoint, it was a good risk. There were 2 outcomes:
A. Shards dont get overloaded - they made a prudent choice. B. Shards got overloaded - they would have millions of subscribers.
B happened. They dont regret it.
Scaling is their current problem. You can't throw hardware at a bad architecture. It's worked because ppl are pissed and jumping to new servers, but that's not gonna last forever. Look forward to server closures in a year. If each zone, entity, and abstract engine (like the AH) were run as concurrent processes, they would be able to scale 10 to 100 times larger with much more fault tolerance. As with most games, they learn by doing and will improve in future games.
You are basically betting that Apple's proprietary DRM laced format will be the standard for the rest of your life
Again, why do you continue to think ppl are attacking you? THAT'S FROM THE ARTICLE YOU FAILED TO READ or more likely, comprehend.
Huh? When I copy data from disk to disk, there will be bitrot?
Again, you can claim anything you like about making backups. You long ago betrayed a lack of credibility. Arguing for arguing's sake is not contributing. Thx for playing.
Entertainment per hour is EXACTLY how it works. What on earth leads you to think differently? Even when they are talking about a game, away from the game, they are enjoying it. The problem is that you cannot gauge how many hours ppl are going to get out of a game and it's not consistent across players. There are casual and hardcore to every genre. That's about as specific as it gets. I played more halflife, starcraft, and diablo 2 (individually) than I have WoW. I still consider them superior games to WoW. of course the term game is a misnomer being applied to a wide variety of experiences that we can choose to enjoy in any number of ways. I specifically HATE the grind game of WoW while meph runs were great fun. Why is that?
You said "In 20 years nobody will be able to read them!", but it's the data that is important, and you will be able to read that data (because if it's important, you will have transferred it to the storage medium du jour).
As with recordings, there will be a loss of data in the transition. You just notice more in recordings. At this point, I can recognize someone who doesn't make backups.
I still see this whole article as BS and you defending your ego. The original recordings are held in non-proprietary forms by proprietary entities. THE MUSIC (as data) IS SAFE REGARDLESS OF THE FORMAT PPL PURCHASE OR STORE IT IN. You'll be able to purchase it again, faithfully from your neighborhood RIAA. By accepting DRM you accept you aren't getting a lossless exportable format. If you don't like it, clouding the issue with practical eventualities that affect ANY FORMAT, isn't helping. The author didn't "Point Out" anything. He's an anti-DRM cheerleader who's pissed a massive company is making money in a way he disapproves of. For understanding such a technical issue, you KNOW he's a cheerleader when he acts like iTunes are FOREVER iTunes. Gimme a break. In other news I can play CDs in my DVD burner or as images off my HD.
Here is the crux of your defensiveness and my sarcasm. The article is saying SURPRISE, when it should be a non-surprise and treated as such. Maybe you can't read your current music format in 10 years as easily as now...I dont expect the same of 3.5s, or even IDE drives. You can still export DRM music from a number of vectors while a failed harddrive has a similar characteristic. You end up with data loss in both cases. That's called a correct analogy, not an incorrect comparison. Yes there is a vast difference between storage media and storage formats...perhaps you just misunderstood or didn't realize there was another way to interpret my OP.
Looking at it again, where is this article anything more than an indirect attack on DRM from a technical standpoint when there's NOTHING TECHNICALLY DEFICIENT in DRM protected music?
You are basically betting that Apple's proprietary DRM laced format will be the standard for the rest of your life.
I'm not trying to teach you anything, other than you have some sort of personal disorder that causes you to attack a comment on an article you didn't write about a topic you don't have anything to add to. The majority of responses are "I just rip them", because the complaints are completely baseless there isn't much to add.
P.S. My fans don't mind my grammar, they mind it when I post sober.
Storing mass amounts of media in a proprietary format that cannot be exported completely lossless is a rather silly argument against storing it in that format when the media player is so popular. We currently have that data stored purely by proprietary organizations. From a purely functional standpoint, this negates this ridiculous article. Rather than explain why you think this "issue" could possibly be signifigant in the long term, you just drop random insults in an attempt to sound overbearingly superior. Your post misspelled/troll.
In other news, investing in harddrive manufacturers is obviously a sucker's move. In 20 years nobody will be able to read them! Amazing insight./sarcasm
Democracy is extraordinarily effective, when it's compulsory. Most democracies are liberally lazy and enmeshed in enforced capitalism. Churchhill was wrong.
Needless abstraction is one of the many geek culture relics that can and should be changed in the name of efficiency. The real problem is that too many people are engaged in it. If this was recognized as a poor programming practice, it could slowly be reversed. There's something right with considering non-end-users. Standardization both speeds adoption and creates stable intuitive metaphors. This makes the shell more useable. Each shell environment is getting more complex, partly due to this old hackish mentality.
Giving binaries a short name (project name or codename) means that they are easier to type. Advanced users who invoke GUI programs from the command line instead of using the menus are likely to know the project name anyway.
In 20 years when I have to work on a machine running an OS I have no contemporary reference for, do you really expect that these pet project names (which is what they are) are going to be so easy for me to remember or associate? Adding an additional layer of abstraction is geeky-fun, not practical.
Of course there's a correlation between the naming conventions. We're talking about symbolic relationships and I'm claiming that switching it up at the highest level is a rather ass-backwards way to implement a more sane windowing environment. Now we have an extra step, find what you want to recompile by using the canonical name to correlate it to the binary name. The lack of QA continues with the technically accurate and impractical answer.
The sabayon-admin package contains the graphical tools which a sysadmin should use to manage Sabayon profiles.
I'm sorry, how is the parent anything but an exemplary demonstration of the needless abstraction? gpedit.msc is something that's more practical. That's scary.
So when I'm on the command line I have no idea what that package is. Along with the trolls reiterating your response, I ask you, if you're making a user-oriented app like a windows environment in OSS, why would you choose to regress to naming binaries after development names? I can understand from a branding standpoint. I don't understand from a release standpoint.
There wasn't really much, I yearned for a new, truly OO language
No why's? Like why were you disappointed with 5rc1? Why did you want a new OO language? Why is a language something that makes you sick or happy? I'm betting you're a fanboi who read something disparaging about 5rc1 from a Ruby programmer. Most importantly, Ruby isn't great because of rails. There is evidence that it isn't being adopted BECAUSE of rails. Anecdotes of non-adoption from PHP/Perl/Java/C++ programmers I have read, typically tried using rails.
Dvorak is the Rush Limbaugh of the Computer Industry. At what point do the/. editors stop linking to tabloids? What's next, Weekly World News articles on the frontpage?
You haven't even come close to providing good reason to think it's less difficult. The problem is not the basic theoretical engineering. It's never going to happen. Cheers.
When we reach near-lightspeed, when it's convenient to get a counterweight for this "elevator", and someone's stupid enough to make it...it will barely break the top 10 marvels. Probably wont be done on Earth. As mentioned in other posts, you have to be 22k miles (not 62) above the Earth to keep a space elevator's center of mass in geo-sync so that it doesnt fall back to the planet. It's completely and ridiculously insane.
Communism has always been about freedom. That's what they shout right before they shoot you in the head. Why is OLD Chinese misdirection making the/. frontpage like it's news?
Consistent massive appeal is the only benchmark for best. A game that grows it's own base through sheer appeal that doesn't suit you, must be maddening. Don't try to armchair that somehow a scant few have a true vision of what fun entails and everyone else is just ignoring it.
10% or more of the users at every place I have ever worked, have needed it. That's a great deal more than 1% of the paying userbase. When you're counting pre-installed, the % dwindles, but MS isn't getting money for additional products (Office, MSSQL, etc) from them in anyways (in the abstract sense).
There is no problem. You have a false belief. The door is closed I say. You say it's not airtight, so it's open. It's simple enough to dismiss you. It's cost effective, THAT'S what really matters.
When you have 2 or 3 or more sources, you have simply reverted back to an informational democracy. By its very nature, there will be deception. A single trusted source is used in many aspects of life. Everything from the "guru" who lauds over an internal company process to a document describing a protocol. A single trusted source is only impossible, insofar, as we do not currently have a medium to communicate our own knowledge (or lack thereof) and suffer from a lack of foresight. It would take many generations to create and gather knowledge into a coherent malleable form. The internet was the first crude attempt at a medium.
Slashdot Mirror
This seems to be a really dumb move. Its basically telling the world that its ok for the US to take over foreign companies, but its not ok for foreign companies to take over a US business.
Allies or not, arabic interests owning American assets is a perceived security risk. That isn't dumb as much as it's consistent policy. If the PR for the war on terror hadn't been so effective, no person would have blinked.
No. 11: Boycott Arab Oil at Your Local Gas Station - This is a list of oil companies and how dependent they are on Middle Eastern Oil. Although this source is not authoratative, it's in line with other reports I've read. I buy from stations that are less dependent on purpose.
The insert did not commment on an assessment of the decision, only pointed out a relevant fact that we would expect be pointed out. It is neither xenophobic nor /.'s fault that the port deal is in the news. If it was decided by another news-worthy (or in this case, culturally relevant) entity, readers EXPECT this to be highlighted in the copy.
Blizzard has poor server architecture. Monolithic servers. Sharding continents rather than zones was a bad idea, but easy to implement and find talent (ex-EQ devs) to develop/support. From a financial standpoint, it was a good risk. There were 2 outcomes:
A. Shards dont get overloaded - they made a prudent choice.
B. Shards got overloaded - they would have millions of subscribers.
B happened. They dont regret it.
Scaling is their current problem. You can't throw hardware at a bad architecture. It's worked because ppl are pissed and jumping to new servers, but that's not gonna last forever. Look forward to server closures in a year. If each zone, entity, and abstract engine (like the AH) were run as concurrent processes, they would be able to scale 10 to 100 times larger with much more fault tolerance. As with most games, they learn by doing and will improve in future games.
You are basically betting that Apple's proprietary DRM laced format will be the standard for the rest of your life
Again, why do you continue to think ppl are attacking you? THAT'S FROM THE ARTICLE YOU FAILED TO READ or more likely, comprehend.
Huh? When I copy data from disk to disk, there will be bitrot?
Again, you can claim anything you like about making backups. You long ago betrayed a lack of credibility. Arguing for arguing's sake is not contributing. Thx for playing.
I stand corrected. I hadn't considered intensity.
Entertainment per hour is EXACTLY how it works. What on earth leads you to think differently? Even when they are talking about a game, away from the game, they are enjoying it. The problem is that you cannot gauge how many hours ppl are going to get out of a game and it's not consistent across players. There are casual and hardcore to every genre. That's about as specific as it gets. I played more halflife, starcraft, and diablo 2 (individually) than I have WoW. I still consider them superior games to WoW. of course the term game is a misnomer being applied to a wide variety of experiences that we can choose to enjoy in any number of ways. I specifically HATE the grind game of WoW while meph runs were great fun. Why is that?
You said "In 20 years nobody will be able to read them!", but it's the data that is important, and you will be able to read that data (because if it's important, you will have transferred it to the storage medium du jour).
As with recordings, there will be a loss of data in the transition. You just notice more in recordings. At this point, I can recognize someone who doesn't make backups.
I still see this whole article as BS and you defending your ego. The original recordings are held in non-proprietary forms by proprietary entities. THE MUSIC (as data) IS SAFE REGARDLESS OF THE FORMAT PPL PURCHASE OR STORE IT IN. You'll be able to purchase it again, faithfully from your neighborhood RIAA. By accepting DRM you accept you aren't getting a lossless exportable format. If you don't like it, clouding the issue with practical eventualities that affect ANY FORMAT, isn't helping. The author didn't "Point Out" anything. He's an anti-DRM cheerleader who's pissed a massive company is making money in a way he disapproves of. For understanding such a technical issue, you KNOW he's a cheerleader when he acts like iTunes are FOREVER iTunes. Gimme a break. In other news I can play CDs in my DVD burner or as images off my HD.
Here is the crux of your defensiveness and my sarcasm. The article is saying SURPRISE, when it should be a non-surprise and treated as such. Maybe you can't read your current music format in 10 years as easily as now...I dont expect the same of 3.5s, or even IDE drives. You can still export DRM music from a number of vectors while a failed harddrive has a similar characteristic. You end up with data loss in both cases. That's called a correct analogy, not an incorrect comparison. Yes there is a vast difference between storage media and storage formats...perhaps you just misunderstood or didn't realize there was another way to interpret my OP.
Looking at it again, where is this article anything more than an indirect attack on DRM from a technical standpoint when there's NOTHING TECHNICALLY DEFICIENT in DRM protected music?
You are basically betting that Apple's proprietary DRM laced format will be the standard for the rest of your life.
I'm not trying to teach you anything, other than you have some sort of personal disorder that causes you to attack a comment on an article you didn't write about a topic you don't have anything to add to. The majority of responses are "I just rip them", because the complaints are completely baseless there isn't much to add.
P.S.
My fans don't mind my grammar, they mind it when I post sober.
Storing mass amounts of media in a proprietary format that cannot be exported completely lossless is a rather silly argument against storing it in that format when the media player is so popular. We currently have that data stored purely by proprietary organizations. From a purely functional standpoint, this negates this ridiculous article. Rather than explain why you think this "issue" could possibly be signifigant in the long term, you just drop random insults in an attempt to sound overbearingly superior. Your post misspelled /troll.
In other news, investing in harddrive manufacturers is obviously a sucker's move. In 20 years nobody will be able to read them! Amazing insight. /sarcasm
Democracy is extraordinarily effective, when it's compulsory. Most democracies are liberally lazy and enmeshed in enforced capitalism. Churchhill was wrong.
There is nothing wrong with that.
Needless abstraction is one of the many geek culture relics that can and should be changed in the name of efficiency. The real problem is that too many people are engaged in it. If this was recognized as a poor programming practice, it could slowly be reversed. There's something right with considering non-end-users. Standardization both speeds adoption and creates stable intuitive metaphors. This makes the shell more useable. Each shell environment is getting more complex, partly due to this old hackish mentality.
Giving binaries a short name (project name or codename) means that they are easier to type. Advanced users who invoke GUI programs from the command line instead of using the menus are likely to know the project name anyway.
In 20 years when I have to work on a machine running an OS I have no contemporary reference for, do you really expect that these pet project names (which is what they are) are going to be so easy for me to remember or associate? Adding an additional layer of abstraction is geeky-fun, not practical.
That's what my experience has taught me.
Of course there's a correlation between the naming conventions. We're talking about symbolic relationships and I'm claiming that switching it up at the highest level is a rather ass-backwards way to implement a more sane windowing environment. Now we have an extra step, find what you want to recompile by using the canonical name to correlate it to the binary name. The lack of QA continues with the technically accurate and impractical answer.
The sabayon-admin package contains the graphical tools which a
sysadmin should use to manage Sabayon profiles.
I'm sorry, how is the parent anything but an exemplary demonstration of the needless abstraction? gpedit.msc is something that's more practical. That's scary.
So when I'm on the command line I have no idea what that package is. Along with the trolls reiterating your response, I ask you, if you're making a user-oriented app like a windows environment in OSS, why would you choose to regress to naming binaries after development names? I can understand from a branding standpoint. I don't understand from a release standpoint.
There wasn't really much, I yearned for a new, truly OO language
No why's? Like why were you disappointed with 5rc1? Why did you want a new OO language? Why is a language something that makes you sick or happy? I'm betting you're a fanboi who read something disparaging about 5rc1 from a Ruby programmer. Most importantly, Ruby isn't great because of rails. There is evidence that it isn't being adopted BECAUSE of rails. Anecdotes of non-adoption from PHP/Perl/Java/C++ programmers I have read, typically tried using rails.
Dvorak is the Rush Limbaugh of the Computer Industry. At what point do the /. editors stop linking to tabloids? What's next, Weekly World News articles on the frontpage?
You haven't even come close to providing good reason to think it's less difficult. The problem is not the basic theoretical engineering. It's never going to happen. Cheers.
When we reach near-lightspeed, when it's convenient to get a counterweight for this "elevator", and someone's stupid enough to make it...it will barely break the top 10 marvels. Probably wont be done on Earth. As mentioned in other posts, you have to be 22k miles (not 62) above the Earth to keep a space elevator's center of mass in geo-sync so that it doesnt fall back to the planet. It's completely and ridiculously insane.
Communism has always been about freedom. That's what they shout right before they shoot you in the head. Why is OLD Chinese misdirection making the /. frontpage like it's news?
There's no indication that this is true. A couple suspicious anecdotes, serving to hype the game, do not qualify.
Consistent massive appeal is the only benchmark for best. A game that grows it's own base through sheer appeal that doesn't suit you, must be maddening. Don't try to armchair that somehow a scant few have a true vision of what fun entails and everyone else is just ignoring it.
The definition of "suckiness" always seems biased away from the UI you're used to
And in some cases it's just poor design. Cntrl-K for delete instead of say, the delete key. Welcom to a GIMPed GUI
10% or more of the users at every place I have ever worked, have needed it. That's a great deal more than 1% of the paying userbase. When you're counting pre-installed, the % dwindles, but MS isn't getting money for additional products (Office, MSSQL, etc) from them in anyways (in the abstract sense).
There is no problem. You have a false belief. The door is closed I say. You say it's not airtight, so it's open. It's simple enough to dismiss you. It's cost effective, THAT'S what really matters.
When you have 2 or 3 or more sources, you have simply reverted back to an informational democracy. By its very nature, there will be deception. A single trusted source is used in many aspects of life. Everything from the "guru" who lauds over an internal company process to a document describing a protocol. A single trusted source is only impossible, insofar, as we do not currently have a medium to communicate our own knowledge (or lack thereof) and suffer from a lack of foresight. It would take many generations to create and gather knowledge into a coherent malleable form. The internet was the first crude attempt at a medium.