I have enjoyed "The Practice" for a while now. Shatner does a fine job. I am looking forward to the new show.
My favorite so far is the episode where he is called to defend his friend with a handicap fetish. The poor guy is sitting in the trial worried about his reputation. (As he should be, based on the line of questioning Shatners character enters into.)
I have tried to deal with these companies. Bought the whole individual thing. What did I get?
- "new" non-preferred customer status. Longer hold times, etc...
- Almost nothing.
- Loss of a lot of time that could have been better spent.
Today, I seek small businesses that are run by people who actually want to do business. Local is great, but the Internet makes that less of an issue.
I also have been more political lately. I have found, over the last couple of years, that doing simple things, like calling your senator, representitive, city and local school counsils, actually can make a difference. You don't see it today because not enough people bother to make the effort.
Sure, some things have to be purchased from the ones taking advantage, and some laws must be endured today. However, there is also a lot that does not.
It takes less time to look for the right people to do business with than it does doing battle with the wrong ones. Sadly, it is far easier to just get screwed over than it does to do anything about it.
More of you should be choosing to at least vote with your feet where it makes sense. Those of us wanting to see things change could use the help.
It is a high mileage engine. Has been well taken care of, but it tends to ping on the lower octane fuel. It also performs a lot better in the low rpm, high drive gear condition I mentioned in my post.
Having owned several older cars, I find the octane does matter on the older engines just as much as it does for newer more expensive ones.
BTW, I do get about a 3-5 MPG mileage bump on the better fuel.
and some options in the cars we have to make conservation easier.
My first high MPG car was one of those little Sprint things. It was possible to exceed 50 MPG in that car, provided the driver drives in a sane manner.
Currently I drive a 90 Toyota 4 door. I regularly get between 30 and 40 MPG, and that is mostly city driving.
The secrets every driver should know?
- Manual transmission
This one is a biggie because it allows the driver to conserve to a much greater degree than it possible with automatic trannies.
- Buy good high Octane fuel.
It will cost a bit more, but your car will perform much better in low RPM conditions if you have the better fuel.
- Quality tires
Make sure you are running the right tires at the right pressure for your climate.
So, how to save the gas?
Use your lower gears to reach speed, then use high gears to maintain that speed. Downhill? Consider freewheeling, if the slope is not too bad. Here in Portland, we have lots of hills, it is possible to roll the car around, or keep it in a high gear for in-town driving most of the time. All it takes is a slight slope to make coasting, or driving in high gear practical.
Pretend your brakes are wearing thin. Try to see how little you can stop on your way to work. Each start uses enough fuel for a few miles of at-speed driving.
Learn the limits of your car and use those to your advantage. Mine has fairly good low rpm performance. Using 4th gear @ 35mph works well and requires almost no gas to do. (This does sometimes mean an extra shift or two, depending on the traffic and other things...)
More about limits, my car runs best at about 63 Mph. Too bad my state sees 55 as the best speed. On the freeway, I seek this speed as often as I can to keep mileage up.
Why don't more cars have a consumption indicator so the drivers can see how much fuel they are spending at any given time? That simple change would save a ton of gas right there.
Don't start fast. Combine this with limiting your stops and you really save pretty big overall. You are doing well when you roll up to a group of cars all working hard to start fast, drop into second or third gear and lightly bring your car to speed, taking advantage of the speed you already have.
Personally, I would like my next car to have some gears aimed directly at conservation. The dodge colt did this with a rear-end gear --too bad the car itself was a pile...
For those that *have* to own an automatic, why not provide a couple of settings there as well that more closely reflect safe conservative driving?
is working nicely. --The reality is that you are likely to get locked up somewhere, silenced and maybe get a minor mention on the tech friendly sites.
Coupla problems I see:
-Your plight will not likely fit into a little sound byte. If it does, the general public will not understand it.
Newsworthy or not, those two combined are a strong incentive for the press to just move on.
Unless you have money or power, not much will be made of a case like that.
Why the switch? Might do some good, but if it doesn't you at least know somebody somewhere knows the truth.
Sorry thoughts really. Probably a bit overkill; however, given the current state of affairs, who knows? It's a scary time --lots of things are out of balance right now.
They both have plenty of reasonable ways to transfer 3D geometry with enough attribute information to be perfectly useable. What they don't have is a way to express models.
Models can be animations and kinematics, or dimensions and constraints. Both often involve a significant degree of construction history as well.
Personally, I don't see this standard doing anything not currently being done. X3D is already out there and works surprisingly well with those few applications supporting it.
Part of the problem lies in the differences between representations and methods used to describe and manupulate the models. (At least as far as engineering stuff goes --I assume animation models have the same troubles.)
Perhaps no standard yet exists because we are not entirely sure how the process should be done in the first place. I knew this was the case 10 years ago, but is that still true today? Keep in mind, new product releases often continue to include new abilities not present in older releases along with usability features. In contrast, the geometry based functionality largely boils down to new usability features; thus, implying we understand geometry very well compared to modeling.
There needs to be some better evaluation of the tradeoffs inherent in the process today.
If we allow a greater scope of potentially patentable things, then we need to spend a lot more time in review, because the negative effects on innovation and the economy in general are potentially higher.
On the other hand, limiting the scope would then allow for a looser process, for the same reasons I just mentioned.
Since we seem to be heading toward a very wide scope, those that do get patents should have to work hard to get them.
The way it is set up today, we have a wide scope combined with a large number of patents. Innovation is suffering as a result as is the tech economy. If we spend a lot of time paying each other for minor or poorly assigned IP rights, we lose out on the ability to generate wealth.
Funny the VIC 20 actually ran faster than the C64 did. Today we would call it shared memory or UMA. Both the CPU and the graphics chips worked from the same RAM. Turn off the graphics and you get about 10 percent higher performance.
The VIC had about half the resolution the C64 did, so that means have the DMA graphics memory access. Faster machine.
it is exactly these little hacks and tricks that made the 8-bitters so damn much fun. In order to get the machine to do something cool, you basically had to have a pretty firm understanding of the thing. For a young coder, this means:
- base 2 & 16 notation and basic mathmatics
- understanding of the differences between ROM, RAM and memory mapped I/O registers. (Controllers, graphics and sound chips)
- assembly language
- making the basic abstract leaps between the math and the game elements. (The toughest part really)
I do see your point, however mine remains. The computer does do exactly what we tell it to do. The hardware in the case of your C64 examples, *does* do what they told it to. (Within limits of course)
The sound chip one I agree with.
Point being that we are generally the problem with computers more times than not. Secondary point being, the first point has a *lot* to do with which computer and software you actually choose to use.
We both are sitting at the extremes on this. Hardware faults aside, I do believe my early lesson largely applies today. When something crashes, I first look at what I just did, then work backward on the general idea that the level of thought goes up as you move down the chain ov events that lead to the machine in use.
When it clearly doesn't, that is where my first inclination as to the poor quality of the system in use. BTW, this is exactly why I much prefer *NIX systems to other ones these days.
I guess, I was not considering hardware issues. In my mind, these are all part of the process that leads to good quality computing. There is little difference between issuing software instructions in ram and programming logic gates. If you bend the rules....
is the shit for sure. Can't argue about that. However, lacking space and dollars for cabinets, emulators provide a fairly good experience for a lot of the games.
Your comments about ROBOTRON 2084, SMASH T.V., DEFENDER/STARGATE, and TEMPEST are spot on.
These games trigger an altered state of consiousness I have always called the trance. Getting good at these games basically required the ability to reach this state rather quickly, then maintain it. Tempest & Defender worked well for me. Robotron and Smash TV wanted to work, but I could never quite get there for long enough to really say I nailed the game, but I enjoyed trying.
Man, these games were intense. The level of interaction, between eye, brain and hand, is extremely high. Actually reaching that state where sustained play at the higher levels is addicting. (I still will play any of these on sight, no matter what.)
I would add a 2600 game to the list --KABOOM!. Very simple game, turn the paddle to catch the falling bombs. It's fast in the way the other games are, but you can trance easier because the game mechanics are dead simple to master, unlike the dual joystick of ROBOTRON, or the complex control panel of DEFENDER.
Smash TV is ROBOTRON in the way you describe. I really liked the atmosphere the game presented compared to ROBOTRON. The sounds in ROBOTRON are better though.
His writing about simple discoveries like screen memory bring back floods of memories. We all used to sit around and try to figure the machine out. We all tried to make games, though nobody I knew had the sheer creativity Jeff demonstrated early on.
Going from Basic to changing memory locations to assembly language was one of the best times I have ever had with computing. This article brings all that back as though it were yesterday.
Happen to enjoy using my computer as well. I have purchased several retro game packages for a number of systems.
In general, they do a good job. Sometimes the choices they make for television display, or the lack of proper controls for the game spoil the mechanics.
Would be damn nice for them to sell me the ROM as well. I would gladly pay for it. --That game is worth it.
Why not get an account and discuss the matter proper?
See my earlier post for a better description than that.
It is also spring loaded so it returns to its position all the time and does not spin all the way around.
When you apply pressure, the pressure equates to motion along the axis in the model space you are working in.
These devices help you cope with the limitations
on
Two-Fisted Computing
·
· Score: 2, Informative
of the 2d screen because they allow you to associate 3d motion to actual 3d motion with your hand.
Pulling very lightly upward on one of these will slowly move you toward the model. A sharp tug followed by a slow release rips you toward the model with a nice slowdown just at the end, etc...
You will find using one of these handy when doing things like shaping surfaces. You can select a group of control points then use the mouse to manupulate them while also roving around the model to see it from different angles.
Think sculpting with one eye closed and the model in your hand.
This is sort of old news really,
on
Two-Fisted Computing
·
· Score: 4, Informative
the little knob with the fancy brushed metal look and blue LED's is cool and small, but really it's just a
Spaceball.
They have been around for a long time. CAD programs such as, Pro/e, I-deas, Solid Edge, Maya, Alias Studio Tools and others all have support for these devices, though Maya only recently joined that group for some reason.
The primary advantage is being able to very quickly establish a particular point of view for working on the model. A secondary one is to be able to dynamically change that point of view without having to leave the command you are in, or divert your mental attenion away from the task at hand.
Most other input schemes involving the keyboard and mouse cause you to give up your current state only to rotate or scale the model then re-establish said state. With one of these it is possible to be picking on things, making decisions, assembling parts all while moving (or flying as I see it) around the model space.
They also save considerable time over traditional nav tools, even if they are well developed and mature tools. Most nav tools have the hardest time helping the user deal with large changes in scale or orientation. Often the best comprimise is to use stored views in lieu of many repetitive command, mouse drag, command mouse drag sequences.
These devices allow motion in all 6 degrees of freedom without any context changes. A simple pull of the knob upward maintained for a half-second or so, combined with a slow twist throughout can perform the same function as zoom all, pan, zoom window or area, and rotate commands do.
(Picture looking at one small part of a 1000 part assembly knowing the next item of interest lies behind you and to the left. If you were to just 'move' there that is what these little devices do. Using the keyboard and mouse is like telling somebody else where the item is and how you would like to get there. --For what that is worth!)
They tend to be costly little buggers though.
It takes about 2 hours to bond with the device. After that, you will either love it, or hate it. A lot of this depends on the tool at hand as well. Some CAD tools have pretty good nav tools, so you don't have as much pain dealing with them. Others basically demand a controller like this (hey Unigraphics!) to get work done in a reasonable manner.
This new little toy has 5 or 6 little buttons around the edge that can be programed for different tasks. The device communicates via USB. Most programs need a driver of sorts, though they can be downloaded for free from the website. Some packages have the support built-in. (I-deas, Unigraphics, Pro/e, Alias Studio, others...)
If you have large hands, this particular model will annoy you because it is little. Get one of the older devices that looks more like a hockey puck attached to a little stand. --Easier to manupulate, cheaper, and works exactly the same way.
Personally, I really like these things. Having used a number of CAD programs over the years, I can say they make a big difference. Traditional MCAD programs benefit most from the device when users are performing assembly and modeling, though to a lesser degree for the latter.
They are almost useless for 2D tasks because very few drafting / detailing programs actually make use of the device. For those that do, being able to pan and zoom while picking is nice, but often not much of a help over traditional view manupulation tools.
You can also do bizzarre things with it as well. Doing fly-through animations manually, just by flying around the model is pretty cool. It's easy to whip one of these out compared to keyframing all the different camera locations, or setting up many different views in an MCAD package.
If you are lucky enough to have a workstation configured with the 3D glasses and higher end MCAD software, you will find visualization tasks are excellent using one of these, but the 3D will give you a headache after about 30 minutes.
Anyway, cool stuff that I am happy to see on/. but clearly old news.
The author should look closer to SGIs business model. They grappled with this early on and came to the right conclusion:
Linus is in charge, it's his kernel.
Where did this leave SGI, and what does it mean for future development?
They decided:
(1) they can resubmit their changes after adjusting them,
(2) they can provide what they want as an add on (SGI ProPack),
(3) they can forego their project and embrace another one that gets what they want done,
(4) they can choose to not do it.
I was at a conference in 2000, I think, where their head technologist gave a speech on OSS and what it means to SGI. He outlined these options then. I thought about it quite a bit afterword and realized SGI gave quite a complement to the process actually, and Linus in particular. Rather than fight things, they accept them and begin engineering accordingly.
Funny many folks in the audience scoffed at this, thinking the OSS model would get in the way of things. The reality is that is has somewhat, but SGI now has Linux running single image 256 proc machines. Those same machines will run a stock linux, but will run better with the SGI Pro Pack loaded.
Eventually,
(1) Linus will accept SGIs changes,
(2) the kernel will perform the necessary tasks some other way, making those changes moot,
(3) everyone will discover the changes are not needed and move on.
The key here is that users of SGI machines will have clear choices open to them they would not otherwise have.
You can buy SGI IRIX machines that are sweet machines really, but finding applications on them is tough outside of user ported OSS. SGI developed fast and hard early on, but failed to achieve application capture which ultimatly limited their future.
Today IRIX users are dwindling as the mindshare leaves the platform. Make no mistake, IRIX is a sweet OS that can do amazing things, but its closed nature hurt its chance at gaining enough marketshare to survive long-term.
To me, this is a shining example of the primary advantage of OSS over proprietary solutions. Users come first because the process forces the issue, not because it makes more money. Having somebody in charge of core development that is not compensated on its use keeps things clean and workable for everybody.
Linux may not be able to match IRIX today, but the last 3 years or so have been simply amazing really. Give it another 2 or three and it will be there. On a side note, I have invested considerable time and money into IRIX only to see it slowly wither away. Same for various win32 iterations. The primary attraction Linux has for me is that my time and money investments are going to last a good long time. I don't want to go through another transition like that and with Linux, I won't have to.
In the longer term, this kernel is going to eventually spank every last one of the other kernels because it will be developed in a way that actually forwards the art of building and running kernels, not making money. As it continues along this path, the numbers of users grow as does mindshare. You can't get that kind of insurance for proprietary software no matter what you pay because money is the motivator. Think about it, if the software gets too good, what exactly will they charge for?
Clearly SGI sees this because they have embraced the process and appear to be back on track with what they do best; namely, large single image NUMA systems with low latency and high I/O. This time they are building on a kernel that has mindshare and a growing number of applications.
They get to make money, while their users retain choices they would not otherwise have, while they forego the expense of building all that stuff in house. Supercomputing just got one hell of a lot cheaper as a result.
Looking at all of that compared to the proprietary way seems like a no brainer to me really.
Slashdot Mirror
I have enjoyed "The Practice" for a while now. Shatner does a fine job. I am looking forward to the new show.
My favorite so far is the episode where he is called to defend his friend with a handicap fetish. The poor guy is sitting in the trial worried about his reputation. (As he should be, based on the line of questioning Shatners character enters into.)
I have tried to deal with these companies. Bought the whole individual thing. What did I get?
- "new" non-preferred customer status. Longer hold times, etc...
- Almost nothing.
- Loss of a lot of time that could have been better spent.
Today, I seek small businesses that are run by people who actually want to do business. Local is great, but the Internet makes that less of an issue.
I also have been more political lately. I have found, over the last couple of years, that doing simple things, like calling your senator, representitive, city and local school counsils, actually can make a difference. You don't see it today because not enough people bother to make the effort.
Sure, some things have to be purchased from the ones taking advantage, and some laws must be endured today. However, there is also a lot that does not.
It takes less time to look for the right people to do business with than it does doing battle with the wrong ones. Sadly, it is far easier to just get screwed over than it does to do anything about it.
More of you should be choosing to at least vote with your feet where it makes sense. Those of us wanting to see things change could use the help.
It makes a lot of sense given the power curve engines have.
The sensation of speed is a bit wierd in one of those however... Everything feels right, but you don't get the same engine feedback expected.
The tires, filter and fuel system tips are all good ones. Most people I know almost completely ignore those things; thus, my education point again.
It is a high mileage engine. Has been well taken care of, but it tends to ping on the lower octane fuel. It also performs a lot better in the low rpm, high drive gear condition I mentioned in my post.
Having owned several older cars, I find the octane does matter on the older engines just as much as it does for newer more expensive ones.
BTW, I do get about a 3-5 MPG mileage bump on the better fuel.
and some options in the cars we have to make conservation easier.
My first high MPG car was one of those little Sprint things. It was possible to exceed 50 MPG in that car, provided the driver drives in a sane manner.
Currently I drive a 90 Toyota 4 door. I regularly get between 30 and 40 MPG, and that is mostly city driving.
The secrets every driver should know?
- Manual transmission
This one is a biggie because it allows the driver to conserve to a much greater degree than it possible with automatic trannies.
- Buy good high Octane fuel.
It will cost a bit more, but your car will perform much better in low RPM conditions if you have the better fuel.
- Quality tires
Make sure you are running the right tires at the right pressure for your climate.
So, how to save the gas?
Use your lower gears to reach speed, then use high gears to maintain that speed. Downhill? Consider freewheeling, if the slope is not too bad. Here in Portland, we have lots of hills, it is possible to roll the car around, or keep it in a high gear for in-town driving most of the time. All it takes is a slight slope to make coasting, or driving in high gear practical.
Pretend your brakes are wearing thin. Try to see how little you can stop on your way to work. Each start uses enough fuel for a few miles of at-speed driving.
Learn the limits of your car and use those to your advantage. Mine has fairly good low rpm performance. Using 4th gear @ 35mph works well and requires almost no gas to do. (This does sometimes mean an extra shift or two, depending on the traffic and other things...)
More about limits, my car runs best at about 63 Mph. Too bad my state sees 55 as the best speed. On the freeway, I seek this speed as often as I can to keep mileage up.
Why don't more cars have a consumption indicator so the drivers can see how much fuel they are spending at any given time? That simple change would save a ton of gas right there.
Don't start fast. Combine this with limiting your stops and you really save pretty big overall. You are doing well when you roll up to a group of cars all working hard to start fast, drop into second or third gear and lightly bring your car to speed, taking advantage of the speed you already have.
Personally, I would like my next car to have some gears aimed directly at conservation. The dodge colt did this with a rear-end gear --too bad the car itself was a pile...
For those that *have* to own an automatic, why not provide a couple of settings there as well that more closely reflect safe conservative driving?
is working nicely. --The reality is that you are likely to get locked up somewhere, silenced and maybe get a minor mention on the tech friendly sites.
Coupla problems I see:
-Your plight will not likely fit into a little sound byte. If it does, the general public will not understand it.
Newsworthy or not, those two combined are a strong incentive for the press to just move on.
Unless you have money or power, not much will be made of a case like that.
Why the switch? Might do some good, but if it doesn't you at least know somebody somewhere knows the truth.
Sorry thoughts really. Probably a bit overkill; however, given the current state of affairs, who knows? It's a scary time --lots of things are out of balance right now.
They both have plenty of reasonable ways to transfer 3D geometry with enough attribute information to be perfectly useable. What they don't have is a way to express models.
Models can be animations and kinematics, or dimensions and constraints. Both often involve a significant degree of construction history as well.
Personally, I don't see this standard doing anything not currently being done. X3D is already out there and works surprisingly well with those few applications supporting it.
Part of the problem lies in the differences between representations and methods used to describe and manupulate the models. (At least as far as engineering stuff goes --I assume animation models have the same troubles.)
Perhaps no standard yet exists because we are not entirely sure how the process should be done in the first place. I knew this was the case 10 years ago, but is that still true today? Keep in mind, new product releases often continue to include new abilities not present in older releases along with usability features. In contrast, the geometry based functionality largely boils down to new usability features; thus, implying we understand geometry very well compared to modeling.
My thoughts anyway.
one of those sales books and make even more money!
Maybe a goofy book title mini-thread?
"Selling your soul and loving it"
"How to sell what you have, make what you want and work for the best" -- That one is probably not bad, if you are into sales.
"How to turn your underdog success into a profitable business"
(ducks..)
So, they don't really need to show the license, but can only benefit if they do.
I found that interesting, that's all. Never realized this particular aspect of the GPL.
ask their users to agree to the terms of the GPL during installation?
There needs to be some better evaluation of the tradeoffs inherent in the process today.
If we allow a greater scope of potentially patentable things, then we need to spend a lot more time in review, because the negative effects on innovation and the economy in general are potentially higher.
On the other hand, limiting the scope would then allow for a looser process, for the same reasons I just mentioned.
Since we seem to be heading toward a very wide scope, those that do get patents should have to work hard to get them.
The way it is set up today, we have a wide scope combined with a large number of patents. Innovation is suffering as a result as is the tech economy. If we spend a lot of time paying each other for minor or poorly assigned IP rights, we lose out on the ability to generate wealth.
I can agree with your opinion here, but would like to add something.
THE CONFIG FILE MUST BE THERE. Manage it with a GUI if you like, but preserve the option of working with the file directly.
Those that understand how to put the right tools on those files gain far more than those that need the GUI lose.
Funny the VIC 20 actually ran faster than the C64 did. Today we would call it shared memory or UMA. Both the CPU and the graphics chips worked from the same RAM. Turn off the graphics and you get about 10 percent higher performance.
The VIC had about half the resolution the C64 did, so that means have the DMA graphics memory access. Faster machine.
it is exactly these little hacks and tricks that made the 8-bitters so damn much fun. In order to get the machine to do something cool, you basically had to have a pretty firm understanding of the thing. For a young coder, this means:
- base 2 & 16 notation and basic mathmatics
- understanding of the differences between ROM, RAM and memory mapped I/O registers. (Controllers, graphics and sound chips)
- assembly language
- making the basic abstract leaps between the math and the game elements. (The toughest part really)
I do see your point, however mine remains. The computer does do exactly what we tell it to do. The hardware in the case of your C64 examples, *does* do what they told it to. (Within limits of course)
The sound chip one I agree with.
Point being that we are generally the problem with computers more times than not. Secondary point being, the first point has a *lot* to do with which computer and software you actually choose to use.
We both are sitting at the extremes on this. Hardware faults aside, I do believe my early lesson largely applies today. When something crashes, I first look at what I just did, then work backward on the general idea that the level of thought goes up as you move down the chain ov events that lead to the machine in use.
When it clearly doesn't, that is where my first inclination as to the poor quality of the system in use. BTW, this is exactly why I much prefer *NIX systems to other ones these days.
I guess, I was not considering hardware issues. In my mind, these are all part of the process that leads to good quality computing. There is little difference between issuing software instructions in ram and programming logic gates. If you bend the rules....
There is nothing like making an old piece of hardware do something pretty cool; namely, more colors or sprites and such.
I really liked assembly on the 8-bit machines. Learned two core things that stick with me to this day:
(1) all computers really do is add numbers together and move them around, and
(2) the computer does exactly what you tell it to.
Number 1 was a biggie because it made the link between the nifty things like graphics and sound and numbers make some sense.
Number 2 is evident to this day. When a machine crashes, it's because somebody somewhere did not think something completely through.
is the shit for sure. Can't argue about that. However, lacking space and dollars for cabinets, emulators provide a fairly good experience for a lot of the games.
Your comments about ROBOTRON 2084, SMASH T.V., DEFENDER/STARGATE, and TEMPEST are spot on.
These games trigger an altered state of consiousness I have always called the trance. Getting good at these games basically required the ability to reach this state rather quickly, then maintain it. Tempest & Defender worked well for me. Robotron and Smash TV wanted to work, but I could never quite get there for long enough to really say I nailed the game, but I enjoyed trying.
Man, these games were intense. The level of interaction, between eye, brain and hand, is extremely high. Actually reaching that state where sustained play at the higher levels is addicting. (I still will play any of these on sight, no matter what.)
I would add a 2600 game to the list --KABOOM!. Very simple game, turn the paddle to catch the falling bombs. It's fast in the way the other games are, but you can trance easier because the game mechanics are dead simple to master, unlike the dual joystick of ROBOTRON, or the complex control panel of DEFENDER.
Smash TV is ROBOTRON in the way you describe. I really liked the atmosphere the game presented compared to ROBOTRON. The sounds in ROBOTRON are better though.
His writing about simple discoveries like screen memory bring back floods of memories. We all used to sit around and try to figure the machine out. We all tried to make games, though nobody I knew had the sheer creativity Jeff demonstrated early on.
Going from Basic to changing memory locations to assembly language was one of the best times I have ever had with computing. This article brings all that back as though it were yesterday.
Damn good stuff.
Agreed, though it plays pretty well on a faster machine. For me, MAME generally performs better than most console ports.
:)
I have been kicking around the cabinet thing for a while. Having the right environment would help quite a bit.
---serious Smash envy right now
Happen to enjoy using my computer as well. I have purchased several retro game packages for a number of systems.
In general, they do a good job. Sometimes the choices they make for television display, or the lack of proper controls for the game spoil the mechanics.
Would be damn nice for them to sell me the ROM as well. I would gladly pay for it. --That game is worth it.
Why not get an account and discuss the matter proper?
moves in all axis at once.
See my earlier post for a better description than that.
It is also spring loaded so it returns to its position all the time and does not spin all the way around.
When you apply pressure, the pressure equates to motion along the axis in the model space you are working in.
of the 2d screen because they allow you to associate 3d motion to actual 3d motion with your hand.
Pulling very lightly upward on one of these will slowly move you toward the model. A sharp tug followed by a slow release rips you toward the model with a nice slowdown just at the end, etc...
You will find using one of these handy when doing things like shaping surfaces. You can select a group of control points then use the mouse to manupulate them while also roving around the model to see it from different angles.
Think sculpting with one eye closed and the model in your hand.
the little knob with the fancy brushed metal look and blue LED's is cool and small, but really it's just a
/. but clearly old news.
Spaceball.
They have been around for a long time. CAD programs such as, Pro/e, I-deas, Solid Edge, Maya, Alias Studio Tools and others all have support for these devices, though Maya only recently joined that group for some reason.
The primary advantage is being able to very quickly establish a particular point of view for working on the model. A secondary one is to be able to dynamically change that point of view without having to leave the command you are in, or divert your mental attenion away from the task at hand.
Most other input schemes involving the keyboard and mouse cause you to give up your current state only to rotate or scale the model then re-establish said state. With one of these it is possible to be picking on things, making decisions, assembling parts all while moving (or flying as I see it) around the model space.
They also save considerable time over traditional nav tools, even if they are well developed and mature tools. Most nav tools have the hardest time helping the user deal with large changes in scale or orientation. Often the best comprimise is to use stored views in lieu of many repetitive command, mouse drag, command mouse drag sequences.
These devices allow motion in all 6 degrees of freedom without any context changes. A simple pull of the knob upward maintained for a half-second or so, combined with a slow twist throughout can perform the same function as zoom all, pan, zoom window or area, and rotate commands do.
(Picture looking at one small part of a 1000 part assembly knowing the next item of interest lies behind you and to the left. If you were to just 'move' there that is what these little devices do. Using the keyboard and mouse is like telling somebody else where the item is and how you would like to get there. --For what that is worth!)
They tend to be costly little buggers though.
It takes about 2 hours to bond with the device. After that, you will either love it, or hate it. A lot of this depends on the tool at hand as well. Some CAD tools have pretty good nav tools, so you don't have as much pain dealing with them. Others basically demand a controller like this (hey Unigraphics!) to get work done in a reasonable manner.
This new little toy has 5 or 6 little buttons around the edge that can be programed for different tasks. The device communicates via USB. Most programs need a driver of sorts, though they can be downloaded for free from the website. Some packages have the support built-in. (I-deas, Unigraphics, Pro/e, Alias Studio, others...)
If you have large hands, this particular model will annoy you because it is little. Get one of the older devices that looks more like a hockey puck attached to a little stand. --Easier to manupulate, cheaper, and works exactly the same way.
Personally, I really like these things. Having used a number of CAD programs over the years, I can say they make a big difference. Traditional MCAD programs benefit most from the device when users are performing assembly and modeling, though to a lesser degree for the latter.
They are almost useless for 2D tasks because very few drafting / detailing programs actually make use of the device. For those that do, being able to pan and zoom while picking is nice, but often not much of a help over traditional view manupulation tools.
You can also do bizzarre things with it as well. Doing fly-through animations manually, just by flying around the model is pretty cool. It's easy to whip one of these out compared to keyframing all the different camera locations, or setting up many different views in an MCAD package.
If you are lucky enough to have a workstation configured with the 3D glasses and higher end MCAD software, you will find visualization tasks are excellent using one of these, but the 3D will give you a headache after about 30 minutes.
Anyway, cool stuff that I am happy to see on
victim.
I hear you loud and clear. Smash TV is a great game! You should set it up under MAME and play the Arcade version. --You won't be dissapointed.
does not agree with a specific kernel change?
The author should look closer to SGIs business model. They grappled with this early on and came to the right conclusion:
Linus is in charge, it's his kernel.
Where did this leave SGI, and what does it mean for future development?
They decided:
(1) they can resubmit their changes after adjusting them,
(2) they can provide what they want as an add on (SGI ProPack),
(3) they can forego their project and embrace another one that gets what they want done,
(4) they can choose to not do it.
I was at a conference in 2000, I think, where their head technologist gave a speech on OSS and what it means to SGI. He outlined these options then. I thought about it quite a bit afterword and realized SGI gave quite a complement to the process actually, and Linus in particular. Rather than fight things, they accept them and begin engineering accordingly.
Funny many folks in the audience scoffed at this, thinking the OSS model would get in the way of things. The reality is that is has somewhat, but SGI now has Linux running single image 256 proc machines. Those same machines will run a stock linux, but will run better with the SGI Pro Pack loaded.
Eventually,
(1) Linus will accept SGIs changes,
(2) the kernel will perform the necessary tasks some other way, making those changes moot,
(3) everyone will discover the changes are not needed and move on.
The key here is that users of SGI machines will have clear choices open to them they would not otherwise have.
You can buy SGI IRIX machines that are sweet machines really, but finding applications on them is tough outside of user ported OSS. SGI developed fast and hard early on, but failed to achieve application capture which ultimatly limited their future.
Today IRIX users are dwindling as the mindshare leaves the platform. Make no mistake, IRIX is a sweet OS that can do amazing things, but its closed nature hurt its chance at gaining enough marketshare to survive long-term.
To me, this is a shining example of the primary advantage of OSS over proprietary solutions. Users come first because the process forces the issue, not because it makes more money. Having somebody in charge of core development that is not compensated on its use keeps things clean and workable for everybody.
Linux may not be able to match IRIX today, but the last 3 years or so have been simply amazing really. Give it another 2 or three and it will be there. On a side note, I have invested considerable time and money into IRIX only to see it slowly wither away. Same for various win32 iterations. The primary attraction Linux has for me is that my time and money investments are going to last a good long time. I don't want to go through another transition like that and with Linux, I won't have to.
In the longer term, this kernel is going to eventually spank every last one of the other kernels because it will be developed in a way that actually forwards the art of building and running kernels, not making money. As it continues along this path, the numbers of users grow as does mindshare. You can't get that kind of insurance for proprietary software no matter what you pay because money is the motivator. Think about it, if the software gets too good, what exactly will they charge for?
Clearly SGI sees this because they have embraced the process and appear to be back on track with what they do best; namely, large single image NUMA systems with low latency and high I/O. This time they are building on a kernel that has mindshare and a growing number of applications.
They get to make money, while their users retain choices they would not otherwise have, while they forego the expense of building all that stuff in house. Supercomputing just got one hell of a lot cheaper as a result.
Looking at all of that compared to the proprietary way seems like a no brainer to me really.