I never implied otherwise. We're talking about the the Win32 port of xbill, which (as I understand it) does not predate WinG. Thus, my observation is still relevant.:)
Hey dum dum! He didn't say they were engineered that way because of Macrovision, just that they are engineered more loosely.
I considered that possibility. What he actually said was, "engineered loosely enough... to ignore", which implies that it was an active decision on the part of the people who designed the TV standard.
Maybe I read too much into his words. That's certainly a possibility. But he still deserved to be chastized for telling him to "get a friggin' clue." That was the whole point of asking the question-- the questioner was hoping to acquire additional clue on this subject. Berating him was not necessary.
Good observation-- but unlikely. Most sanely-written graphics/video drivers will wait for the next VGA vsync before flipping to the next frame in the video stream. This ensures that the "tearing" you're referring to won't happen.
Since you decided to berate the questioner in a most anti-social manner, (rather than simply answering their question helpfully,) I thought I'd point out that your statement:
Your DVD player *does not allow* you to play your Macrovision-protected purchased discs on anything but a
TV set, which are engineered loosely enough (as opposed to VCRs/TV tuners etc.) to 'ignore' the Macrovision signal. (emphasis mine.)
is wrong. TV's are not engineered 'looser' to "'ignore' the Macrovision signal." The various TV standards existed before VCRs and Macrovision. Macrovision takes advantage of the fact that TVs are more forgiving creatures than VCRs are, when it comes to interpretting analog video signals. Analog TVs were never explicitly designed to 'ignore' Macrovision. VCRs originally weren't either, but today they are.
The questioner's TV card, on the other hand, was engineered from the get-go to be affected by Macrovision. The Macrovision shysters^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H lawyers enforce this, because otherwise TV cards could be used as Macrovision filters. (Whether you would actually want to do this is an entirely different question.)
Finally, as an example of a useful response, I submit the following suggestion to the questioner: If you have a DVD drive, and your PC is fast enough, you might want to invest in a software DVD player. This method will not suffer from the visible Macrovision artifacts, and will look better anyway. The method you are currently using takes a digital source, converts it to analog, and then back to digital. With DVD software, you stay digital until the video leaves your graphics card's DAC. Thus, the image will be much cleaner.
If 3dfx was serious about selling to OEMs, then why did they produce a graphics card that required an additional power supply FFS?
(FFS? I'm not familiar with that acronym)
Short answer: That particular card was obviously not targetted towards OEMs.:)
Long answer: Way, way back when the Voodoo4/5 products were first conceived by marketing, the Voodoo4 (single chip, & no external power supply) would have done very well with OEMs-- had we delivered it on time. As I'm sure you know, Voodoo4 was very, very late. By the time it hit the shelves, it was boring; for pretty much the same price we were asking, OEMs could get a leaner, more potent solution from our competitor. And as you already pointed out, OEMs are not too inclined to go with high-cost, margin-reducing SKUs like our Voodoo5 series.
In the end, we had to focus on promoting our Voodoo5 series in the retail channels, just to stay afloat long enough to get our next product released. But that was not our original intended focus for Napalm.
Our next architecture, Rampage, had just gotten back from the fab a few short weeks before the company went belly-up. Software developers only had Rampage boards a few days before the company become insolvent. I don't know the exact specs-- and now no one will ever know if this was really the case-- but it was alleged to be as potent as NVIDIA's GeForce2 series. (FYI, Rampage was also very, very late. Rampage was at least 2 years in the making. I cringe when I think of how things might have turned out, if Rampage had stayed on schedule.)
...and articles such as this one make me sick to my stomach. Why? Because most of them are full of ill-researched speculation, that couldn't be further from the truth, but nevertheless seem plausible-- so people believe them.
Now, this particular article on Sharky isn't so bad. I've seen worse. Brian Burke was with us almost to the end, so he knows what he's talking about.
Anyway, my point to this post is to clarify a few details that people tend to get wrong in these articles:
* nvidia did NOT buy 3dfx. Rather, 3dfx became insolvent, and so asked nvidia to buy their assets, so they could afford to dig their own grave. That is why my TDFX stock is work pennies today. If nvidia had acquired 3dfx, the stock would be going up, not down (because eventually, the stocks would be one-and-the-same.)
* 3dfx did not "refuse" to let OEMs sell their products. 3dfx WANTED to sell to OEMs (such as Dell, Compaq, etc.) That was the whole reason they changed their logo-- to look more professional! But Napalm and Rampage were woefully late, and 3dfx fell so far behind on the performance curve, that OEMs weren't all that interested. 3dfx's inability to meet the OEM's product schedules didn't help, either. In the end, all that was left for 3dfx was the retail side-- something 3dfx had wanted to de-emphasize, with the STB merger.
(In defense of some of the people who made the above claim I just refuted... by "OEM" some people might have meant board companies, like CREAF-- in which case, they are absolutely right; 3dfx did stop selling to those companies intentionally. But that's not what killed 3dfx; retail sales only accounts for a very, very small portion of the 3D graphics market. By far, OEM sales (Dell, Compaq, etc.) is where the money is at. This becomes more evident if you consider the fact that 3dfx became insolvent, despite having the top-selling products in the retail channel. Reason? Because retail is just a trickle, compared to OEM sales.
* The gigapixel merger is NOT what killed 3dfx. The gigapixel purchase was the smartest thing 3dfx did in a long time. But it was too little, too late. The purchase of STB is ultimately what killed them. The problem was, the business model changed on them. Prior to the STB acquisition, companies such as Dell and Compaq bought boards from board companies. But by the time the acquisition took place, the OEMs started buying chips directly from the chip suppliers, and then contracting companies to build boards overseas. STB was a middleman; our days were numbered, but we didn't realize it at the time. And neither did 3dfx, and they paid dearly for it. What we should have done (hindsight being 20/20 and all,) was sell or lease Juarez to someone like Solectron, and return to being a chip company. 3dfx realized this, but we realized it too late; Mexican labor is considerably more expensive than that of the pacific rim sweatshops, so Juarez's market value declined before we could sell it.
Woah-ho-ho... touche'! That was a really great flame! (Note I called it a flame, not a troll; I thought you made some very good points in that napalm storm.)
But keep in mind that it is very easy to forget that VAIOs, AIBOs, PSX2s, etc., all come from the same company that happens to be giving us grief in other sectors. When I see a new gadget, I don't immediately think to run down a mental checklist, to make sure the company is "cool," before drooling and coveting. It's purely a pavlovian response.
Good writing doesn't make you think like the author before you understand the prose
Snip... that's going in the ol' "pithy quotes to remember" file. Quite insightful!
I don't know how practical (or possible) it is to accomplish, but it's at least a good goal to strive for.
(1) Ideally, we should encourage the good behaviour, and discourage the bad.
(2) I agree with you-- 11223 is a troll. But out of context, (ie, in metamoderation,) it would look like a bad mod, and I (or anyone else) would get bitchslapped.
Man in black: [turning his back, and adding the poison to one of the goblets] Alright, where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink - and find out who is right, and who is dead.
Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine it from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you...But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in black: You've made your decision then?
Vizzini: [happily] Not remotely! Because Iocaine comes from Australia. As everyone knows, Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So, I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Man in black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: Wait 'till I get going!!...where was I?
Man in black: Australia.
Vizzini: Yes! Australia! And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in black: You're just stalling now.
Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you! You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong...so you could have put the poison in your own goblet trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied...and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me!
Man in black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
Vizzini: It has worked! You've given everything away! I know where the poison is!
Man in black: Then make your choice.
Vizzini: I will, and I choose...[pointing behind the man in black] What in the world can that be?
Man in black: [turning around, while Vizzini switches goblets] What?! Where?! I don't see anything.
Vizzini: Oh, well, I...I could have sworn I saw something. No matter. [Vizzini laughs]
Man in black: What's so funny? Vizzini: I...I'll tell you in a minute. First, lets drink, me from my glass and you from yours. [They both drink]
Man in black: You guessed wrong.
Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha, you fool!! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia; and only slightly less well known is this: Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line! [Vizzini continues to laugh hysterically. Suddenly, he stops and falls right over. The Man in black removes the blindfold from the princess.]
Buttercup: Who are you?
Man in black: I'm no one to be trifled with. That is all you'll ever need know.
Buttercup: And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned.
Man in black: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up immunity to iocaine powder.
Well, that's certainly a different perspective of Greenspan's motivation for controlling unemployment, and for that, I thank you.
If demand for new employees starts to outstrip their supply, employers have to start jacking up salaries to woo (and keep) their fold. You would claim that, by using the PR to throttle the economy, Greenspan is limiting the salaries of the rank and file, to help his cronies keep their advantage. I claim that any wage increase that is due only to low aggregate unemployment is a hollow victory; the cost of goods will soon follow suit, as labor is a significant portion of a company's cost of doing business.
The proper way to increase one's wage income is to increase your individual marketability; increased demand for your services will follow. If you work hard at it, and save money, maybe someday you can quit living off of wages, and start living off of interest. But letting aggregate demand outstrip aggregate supply doesn't benefit anyone, in terms of buying power.
Greenspan's lever avoids inflation by dampening the triggers. Low unemployment just happens to be a very potent trigger. Call me a sheeple if you think the name fits, but I think you're being a bit myopic.
Regarding the other subject... Those "haut-wage-slaves" are being stupid. They could live like they made only 48K and squirrel the rest of that 120K away. Sure, they'd have to work for a while... but they could be millionaires in about 10 years.
I just about fell out of my chair when WKiernan said:
The investing class talk about it, privately amongst themselves, quite freely; if you'd like to spy on your betters, read the economic analyses in section C of any day's Wall Street Journal, and learn for yourself precisely what that malicious old Randite Alan Greenspan means by "inflation."
I usually don't bite when I hear us/them, proletariat/bourgeoisie arguments, mostly because I don't believe in the concept of "betters". (I'm Process-State all the way, baaybee!)
But you're comments on Greenspan's supposed secret definition of inflation piqued my interest. But alas, I don't intend to subscribe to the WSJ, and I doubt that going out and buying one on some random day will yield that definition, so... care to elaborate on your comments?
And I'll throw in a question: What glass ceiling prevents you from elevating yourself to "investing class"?
The quality of dubs of audio tapes degrade with each generation. Since one person's not likely to make 50,000 first-generation dubs from a CD, the amount of piracy is limited in this domain.
With mp3's, you sustain a hit to quality when you encode-- but after that, each copy's as good as the previous one, regardless of generation.
(I know I'm gonna burn some karma with this post, but it needs to be said.)
Who pee'd in your Cheerios today, Poag? I mean, c'mon; if you think it's important enough to bitch about this being an old story, then at the least YOU should go through the trouble of hunting down the URL of the previous post.
I sure as hell don't remember seeing this story before. Rob, Hemos, and the others have to wade through 100x more submissions then they actually end up posting. I agree slashdot has just about become unreadable but... you're straining gnats here.
When you've proven that you can do it better, then (and only then) you've earned the right to bitch.
Mr. Adams, Although they weren't as criticly acclaimed as the HGTTG series, I found your Dirk Gently books (especially Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency) to be... well.. literary genius. Can we expect to see any more Dirk books?
Re:Um... this is a computer virus?
on
Sim Plague
·
· Score: 1
Ah. Yes, well... I'm not surprised that the media can't differentiate between a "virtual" virus, infecting a PC, and a "virtual virtual" virus infecting a character in a game on a PC. I get miffed when they bungle computer concepts up, too. But I suppose that concepts that you and I think of as fundamental and simple are obscure and complex to them. Maybe psychologists and other highly specialized professionals find themselves wincing, too, when the media botches up in their attempts at paraphrasing the experts.
Slashdot Mirror
Not just any elevator music... the muzak version of "Stairway to Heaven", over and over and over...
Woah, hey... wait a minute-- you're the author of xbill. We're not worthy!
There's an antiquated graphics library (pre-DirectX,) for Windows, called WinG. So, "Wingdows" could also be a play on words.
Maybe I read too much into his words. That's certainly a possibility. But he still deserved to be chastized for telling him to "get a friggin' clue." That was the whole point of asking the question-- the questioner was hoping to acquire additional clue on this subject. Berating him was not necessary.
Since you decided to berate the questioner in a most anti-social manner, (rather than simply answering their question helpfully,) I thought I'd point out that your statement: is wrong. TV's are not engineered 'looser' to "'ignore' the Macrovision signal." The various TV standards existed before VCRs and Macrovision. Macrovision takes advantage of the fact that TVs are more forgiving creatures than VCRs are, when it comes to interpretting analog video signals. Analog TVs were never explicitly designed to 'ignore' Macrovision. VCRs originally weren't either, but today they are.
The questioner's TV card, on the other hand, was engineered from the get-go to be affected by Macrovision. The Macrovision shysters^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H lawyers enforce this, because otherwise TV cards could be used as Macrovision filters. (Whether you would actually want to do this is an entirely different question.)
Finally, as an example of a useful response, I submit the following suggestion to the questioner: If you have a DVD drive, and your PC is fast enough, you might want to invest in a software DVD player. This method will not suffer from the visible Macrovision artifacts, and will look better anyway. The method you are currently using takes a digital source, converts it to analog, and then back to digital. With DVD software, you stay digital until the video leaves your graphics card's DAC. Thus, the image will be much cleaner.
(FFS? I'm not familiar with that acronym)
Short answer: That particular card was obviously not targetted towards OEMs. :)
Long answer: Way, way back when the Voodoo4/5 products were first conceived by marketing, the Voodoo4 (single chip, & no external power supply) would have done very well with OEMs-- had we delivered it on time. As I'm sure you know, Voodoo4 was very, very late. By the time it hit the shelves, it was boring; for pretty much the same price we were asking, OEMs could get a leaner, more potent solution from our competitor. And as you already pointed out, OEMs are not too inclined to go with high-cost, margin-reducing SKUs like our Voodoo5 series.
In the end, we had to focus on promoting our Voodoo5 series in the retail channels, just to stay afloat long enough to get our next product released. But that was not our original intended focus for Napalm. Our next architecture, Rampage, had just gotten back from the fab a few short weeks before the company went belly-up. Software developers only had Rampage boards a few days before the company become insolvent. I don't know the exact specs-- and now no one will ever know if this was really the case-- but it was alleged to be as potent as NVIDIA's GeForce2 series. (FYI, Rampage was also very, very late. Rampage was at least 2 years in the making. I cringe when I think of how things might have turned out, if Rampage had stayed on schedule.)
...and articles such as this one make me sick to my stomach. Why? Because most of them are full of ill-researched speculation, that couldn't be further from the truth, but nevertheless seem plausible-- so people believe them.
Now, this particular article on Sharky isn't so bad. I've seen worse. Brian Burke was with us almost to the end, so he knows what he's talking about.
Anyway, my point to this post is to clarify a few details that people tend to get wrong in these articles:
* nvidia did NOT buy 3dfx. Rather, 3dfx became insolvent, and so asked nvidia to buy their assets, so they could afford to dig their own grave. That is why my TDFX stock is work pennies today. If nvidia had acquired 3dfx, the stock would be going up, not down (because eventually, the stocks would be one-and-the-same.)
* 3dfx did not "refuse" to let OEMs sell their products. 3dfx WANTED to sell to OEMs (such as Dell, Compaq, etc.) That was the whole reason they changed their logo-- to look more professional! But Napalm and Rampage were woefully late, and 3dfx fell so far behind on the performance curve, that OEMs weren't all that interested. 3dfx's inability to meet the OEM's product schedules didn't help, either. In the end, all that was left for 3dfx was the retail side-- something 3dfx had wanted to de-emphasize, with the STB merger.
(In defense of some of the people who made the above claim I just refuted... by "OEM" some people might have meant board companies, like CREAF-- in which case, they are absolutely right; 3dfx did stop selling to those companies intentionally. But that's not what killed 3dfx; retail sales only accounts for a very, very small portion of the 3D graphics market. By far, OEM sales (Dell, Compaq, etc.) is where the money is at. This becomes more evident if you consider the fact that 3dfx became insolvent, despite having the top-selling products in the retail channel. Reason? Because retail is just a trickle, compared to OEM sales.
* The gigapixel merger is NOT what killed 3dfx. The gigapixel purchase was the smartest thing 3dfx did in a long time. But it was too little, too late. The purchase of STB is ultimately what killed them. The problem was, the business model changed on them. Prior to the STB acquisition, companies such as Dell and Compaq bought boards from board companies. But by the time the acquisition took place, the OEMs started buying chips directly from the chip suppliers, and then contracting companies to build boards overseas. STB was a middleman; our days were numbered, but we didn't realize it at the time. And neither did 3dfx, and they paid dearly for it. What we should have done (hindsight being 20/20 and all,) was sell or lease Juarez to someone like Solectron, and return to being a chip company. 3dfx realized this, but we realized it too late; Mexican labor is considerably more expensive than that of the pacific rim sweatshops, so Juarez's market value declined before we could sell it.
Woah-ho-ho... touche'! That was a really great flame! (Note I called it a flame, not a troll; I thought you made some very good points in that napalm storm.)
But keep in mind that it is very easy to forget that VAIOs, AIBOs, PSX2s, etc., all come from the same company that happens to be giving us grief in other sectors. When I see a new gadget, I don't immediately think to run down a mental checklist, to make sure the company is "cool," before drooling and coveting. It's purely a pavlovian response.
Good writing doesn't make you think like the author before you understand the prose
Snip... that's going in the ol' "pithy quotes to remember" file. Quite insightful!
I don't know how practical (or possible) it is to accomplish, but it's at least a good goal to strive for.
Careful... your 50% brain usage could also be due to inferior genes...
:)=
Nah... Do you really want him to consume all available harddrive space? Better to use
/dev/random /dev/GeorgeLucas
ln -s
Nice emulation of Stevenson's dialogue-writing style, ewhac.
Two reasons why that's a bad idea:
Man in black: [turning his back, and adding the poison to one of the goblets] Alright, where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink - and find out who is right, and who is dead.
Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine it from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you...But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in black: You've made your decision then?
Vizzini: [happily] Not remotely! Because Iocaine comes from Australia. As everyone knows, Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So, I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Man in black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: Wait 'till I get going!! ...where was I?
Man in black: Australia.
Vizzini: Yes! Australia! And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in black: You're just stalling now.
Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you! You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong...so you could have put the poison in your own goblet trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied...and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me!
Man in black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
Vizzini: It has worked! You've given everything away! I know where the poison is!
Man in black: Then make your choice.
Vizzini: I will, and I choose...[pointing behind the man in black] What in the world can that be?
Man in black: [turning around, while Vizzini switches goblets] What?! Where?! I don't see anything.
Vizzini: Oh, well, I...I could have sworn I saw something. No matter. [Vizzini laughs]
Man in black: What's so funny? Vizzini: I...I'll tell you in a minute. First, lets drink, me from my glass and you from yours. [They both drink]
Man in black: You guessed wrong.
Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha, you fool!! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia; and only slightly less well known is this: Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line! [Vizzini continues to laugh hysterically. Suddenly, he stops and falls right over. The Man in black removes the blindfold from the princess.]
Buttercup: Who are you?
Man in black: I'm no one to be trifled with. That is all you'll ever need know.
Buttercup: And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned.
Man in black: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up immunity to iocaine powder.
--synaptik
If you want to flame me, do so here.
Well, that's certainly a different perspective of Greenspan's motivation for controlling unemployment, and for that, I thank you.
If demand for new employees starts to outstrip their supply, employers have to start jacking up salaries to woo (and keep) their fold. You would claim that, by using the PR to throttle the economy, Greenspan is limiting the salaries of the rank and file, to help his cronies keep their advantage. I claim that any wage increase that is due only to low aggregate unemployment is a hollow victory; the cost of goods will soon follow suit, as labor is a significant portion of a company's cost of doing business.
The proper way to increase one's wage income is to increase your individual marketability; increased demand for your services will follow. If you work hard at it, and save money, maybe someday you can quit living off of wages, and start living off of interest. But letting aggregate demand outstrip aggregate supply doesn't benefit anyone, in terms of buying power.
Greenspan's lever avoids inflation by dampening the triggers. Low unemployment just happens to be a very potent trigger. Call me a sheeple if you think the name fits, but I think you're being a bit myopic.
Regarding the other subject... Those "haut-wage-slaves" are being stupid. They could live like they made only 48K and squirrel the rest of that 120K away. Sure, they'd have to work for a while... but they could be millionaires in about 10 years.
--synaptik
If you want to flame me, do so here.
DOH! s/you're/your
--synaptik
If you want to flame me, do so here.
I just about fell out of my chair when WKiernan said:
I usually don't bite when I hear us/them, proletariat/bourgeoisie arguments, mostly because I don't believe in the concept of "betters". (I'm Process-State all the way, baaybee!)
But you're comments on Greenspan's supposed secret definition of inflation piqued my interest. But alas, I don't intend to subscribe to the WSJ, and I doubt that going out and buying one on some random day will yield that definition, so... care to elaborate on your comments?
And I'll throw in a question: What glass ceiling prevents you from elevating yourself to "investing class"?
--synaptik
If you want to flame me, do so here.
It's simple.
The quality of dubs of audio tapes degrade with each generation. Since one person's not likely to make 50,000 first-generation dubs from a CD, the amount of piracy is limited in this domain.
With mp3's, you sustain a hit to quality when you encode-- but after that, each copy's as good as the previous one, regardless of generation.
QED.
--synaptik
If you want to flame me, do so here.
(I know I'm gonna burn some karma with this post, but it needs to be said.)
Who pee'd in your Cheerios today, Poag? I mean, c'mon; if you think it's important enough to bitch about this being an old story, then at the least YOU should go through the trouble of hunting down the URL of the previous post.
I sure as hell don't remember seeing this story before. Rob, Hemos, and the others have to wade through 100x more submissions then they actually end up posting. I agree slashdot has just about become unreadable but... you're straining gnats here.
When you've proven that you can do it better, then (and only then) you've earned the right to bitch.
--synaptik
If you want to flame me, do so here.
Mr. Adams,
Although they weren't as criticly acclaimed as the HGTTG series, I found your Dirk Gently books (especially Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency) to be... well.. literary genius.
Can we expect to see any more Dirk books?
--synaptik
If you want to flame me, do so here.
Ah. Yes, well... I'm not surprised that the media can't differentiate between a "virtual" virus, infecting a PC, and a "virtual virtual" virus infecting a character in a game on a PC. I get miffed when they bungle computer concepts up, too. But I suppose that concepts that you and I think of as fundamental and simple are obscure and complex to them. Maybe psychologists and other highly specialized professionals find themselves wincing, too, when the media botches up in their attempts at paraphrasing the experts.
--synaptik
If you want to flame me, do so here.
Re-read the article. It does replicate. An infected human character can transmit the virus to another (nearby) human character by sneezing.
--synaptik
If you want to flame me, do so here.
it's safe to say that it will not get bigger than that.
HAHAHA! ROTFL!
Has it occurred to you that that's the same argument the BIOS designers made, way back when?
And remember, too, Gates' Law: "640K ought to be enough for anybody."
--synaptik
If you want to flame me, do so here.