Everyone on/. was up in arms because Arwen replaced Glorfindel, prior to the release of the first movie (Myself included).
Many had fits with a "last alliance of men and elves" at Helm's Deep.
However, the movies have not dissapointed many, other than the die-hard fans.
I will admit that I did not like FOTR after my first watch. Sections of TTT, such as the Warg attack bugged me, however, for those who have not read the books 16x like myself, I found my friends loved the movies.
This is important because Jackson has captured the essence of the books, and the essence of what LOTR is about. Granted, he could have followed the books perfectly - but then only die-hard fans would enjoy it.
Think about it - do you believe more or fewer people are reading the books now that the first 2 films are out?
Sure, I decide to download the last few Red vs. Blue episodes that I have not yet seen. I decide to do it on a monday night, because, hey, who downloads Red vs. Blue on a Monday?
Apparently everyone on Slashdot...
Thanks a heap. (I can't even find bittorrent links - bugger!)
Some might, but the typical enduser has no interest in ripping open source code and modifying or fixing it.
This is one of the problems Open Source zealots need to get over.
Ok, I can certanly agree with that. How am I a zealot though?
Considering the number of problems NASA has had as a result of software bugs, not even NASA can claim to be perfect.
I am not claiming that NASA is perfect, only that they have the lowest number of bugs in their software due to the risks involved in bugs in their software. There was an article about it on slashdot sometime back.
However, in my experience, like you say, there are ways around things in Open Source. I have found the ways around much more difficult in closed source.
And you're also more willing to put up with crap that's free than if you paid for it.
(Note: People tend to attach a greater value to things that they pay more for. You may disagree with this comment, and that is fine. However, if you wish to research it yourself I suggest you look into some market research on customer satisfaction as a function of total price of a product - you might be surprised with the results.)
Possibly. That is your opinion anyways. Having worked in enterprise environments where I charged for the Linux servers I built - we were really happy with them. The comporable Microsoft servers which also ran our database, cost us (and the customer) more money. We had a much lower tech support rate with the Linux servers. When I worked there, we deployed about 100 servers, 25 of those being Windows NT/2000 servers. In my experience in that situation, Linux was superior.
Likewise, I have seen situations where Windows is superior. It is just a question of choosing the right tool for the job.
People should stop drinking the kool-aid and start being honest with one another.
Ok, what is with the kool aid comment anyhow? I don't live in Jonestown. (You need to work on your trolling...)
I would say the objective of Open Source is more making software that is good enough that people can tweak easily to meet their specific needs...
Some might define that as the best software. If it meets all your needs, then it probably is the best software for you.
Dude, put the kool-aid down. Most Open Source software is buggy, but it's written with developers in mind. If the bug is really annoying you fix it yourself, if not you figure out a way to work around it.
If anything people are more willing to put up with bugs in something they got for free, than something they paid for.
I personally have found fewer bugs with my copy of Red Hat 6.2 that runs my Samba server sitting next to me than Windows 2000 that I am using this to type on.
I am by no means saying that Open Source software has no bugs, I think that only NASA can claim to write bug free software AFAIK.
However, in my experience, like you say, there are ways around things in Open Source. I have found the ways around much more difficult in closed source. YMMV though. To each their own.
While this is/. and many will disagree, I doubt that the heads of Microsoft are dumb. The author seems to think that they are, but I disagree:
Microsoft is a company - its objective is to make money. It does this by selling software and associated other things (part services and hardware, (Joysticks Mice etc...))
The objective of Open Source (Linux in this example) is to make the best software possible it just so happens that this model also believes that open code is the best code.
This is pretty simple. Now, the heads at Microsoft understand this - but it is their job to promote Microsoft. That is what they get paid to do. They work for Microsoft, they have Microsoft stock options - they make their living by selling Microsoft. The heads of these companies (and all companies really) are salesmen. They work to sell a product. Now, it is important to believe in your product to sell it - and Microsoft exec's clearly do.
But really, can you blame them? They are clearly worried by the Open Source model because it presents a direct threat to their Cash Flow. Buggy software requires upgrades - this is good for business because you can sell the upgrades, and make money. That is their objective. With Open Source, buggy software is bad, because the objective is to make the best software possible.
Microsoft does not want to make the best software possible - otherwise people would buy it, and once they bought it, they would never need to buy it again. Their sales would go up - and then plateau.
Linux developers want to make the best software - because that is what they set out to do in the beginning.
There are totally different perspectives at work here. If you want to understand Open Source, and Commercial software you have to understand both ideals. I think Balmer understands totally - but he can't start disparaging Microsoft. It goes against his mandate.
I think MS is scared - and rightly so. They are hitting a plateau in sales, and Open Source is a serious threat to their server sales. What comes out of this will be interesting. That much is certain.
Ok, this is a kind of a scary admission - especially for slashdot... Anyhow, here goes.
When I was about 6, my Dad got a pirated copy of Aliens (video stores did not exist at that time) and he sat down to watch it. I wanted to watch it with him (mistake!!!)
I had nightmares of the Alien, for years, and I always found it creepy - I hated even looking at H. R. Gigers Alien's. More recently, I picked up a copy of Alien vs. Predator - and I played through the entire game. It was difficult at first, but after getting used to killing Aliens (and being killed...) My fear went away. Irrational fear? Yes, but it was a fear I had none the less.
On a separate note, my friend saw The Exorcist when he was about 6 too, and he had nightmares about it. Recently he got the DVD extended version, and forced himself to watch it about 20 times. The movie no longer bothers him either.
About the only things on TV that intereste me are documentaries: Nova, Nature, Nature of Things, Daily Planet etc. The rest is really not worth my time (episodes of any Star Trek I have not seen notwithstanding... =)
I mostly get my science fix online, or though print.
Michael Schermer (who wrote the article) also wrote one of my favorite books: "Why People Believe Wierd Things" it is second only to Carl Sagans "The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark" (Which is mentioned in the article.) - Both these books are worth a read if you have not taken a look at them. I hope that this network covers "myths" in the same way those books do. (And Given that Shermer is working on this, and that he works on Skeptic mag, I would suspect that the network will include shows of that nature.)
Can't you people see the connection? Carmack is working to dominate space, any war fought in space will be dominated by Carmack! I strongly suspect that the real reason he is into rocket science is so that he can lauch missions to Mars for experiments on Phobos and Demios...
Sure, you are worrying about China or some other nation - but I tell you Texas is looking mighty scary right now... Mark my words - QUAKE IN SPACE!!!
Yeah, I have no social skills. I'm what you would call a dork or a nerd. But thats ok, because am not here to be please everybody.
You don't have to please everybody - but you will find that your life goes a great deal easier if the people around you like you.
If you recognize the fact that you have no social skills, then, if you are technically minded as you say - why don't you point some of your intellect towards social skills? I used to be in the same situation - a geek in highschool (and still today) I never talked to anyone, never went on dates etc. However, after I decided that I wanted to get better social skills my life changed instantly - for the better.
Right now I have a good deal of Unix experience in an enterprise environment - yet, I just took a sales job. Why? I want to be a better sales person. I want to understand all aspects of business so I can go into business for myself one day. As it happens I am selling computers, just something I happen to know about. I find it makes your life easier if you try to fix what you might consider weaknesses in your character. It has worked for me quite well so far. It is something to consider.
As far as the holier than thou attitude, yeah, so what? I'm choosy about the people I like and if I'm condescending its because a lot of people who're above me are there not because they're better than me but because they have the "Oh so called Social Skills."
If you are technically minded, you are likely logically minded as well. Technology involves solving problems - so does social skills. However, it also involves understanding other peoples feelings and empathy. A great book to read and begin to understand this is the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People by Steven Covey. It would probably be worth your time to read, especially if you know that is is a weak area of yours.
You certanly sound angry at the people who have "Social Skills" so why don't you point a little logic of yours in that direction? It is easier than you might think.
I don't see the point -- as long as I do my job and get my stuff done, whats the point and the problem?
Whether you are employed or not quite often depends on your social skills. Really, if you keep pissing off the PHB, they will replace you, and if you have no social skills, you will never even see it coming.
You could almost rewrite that line by saying: I don't see the point -- as long as I write crappy code that barely works, whats the point and the problem?
No, that is not fair to rewrite it like that - but it is an appropriate analogy for how other people might feel about your attitude. Most people see having social skills as an INTEGRAL part of getting along with co-workers. And, getting along with one's co-works is part of your job.
All that most "informed bosses" can do is kiss everyone's ass and pretend to know everything. And serve everything as sugar coated lies to the clients and investors.
Yes - and that is THEIR JOB They are in business - they have to be able to sell. You can make fun of the PHB's who can't use the computers (and there are many) but how many coders understand a balance sheet, and can sell their product effectively? You know, amongst the PHB's the last thing they want is an engineer near a client - engineers (generally) are not good salespeople. If you don't have good salespeople - you don't have a job and pay the bills. You are stuck coding free software (which is just fine) but you can't pay the power bill to keep your system running.
I would much rather not pretend to empathize with such people.
Part of having social skills would mean that you understand WHY they are doing what they do, so that you can in fact have REAL empathy for them. Not fake empathy. Faking empathy is not a socia
I have always hoped for something like this to be developed. I have studied Martial Arts for 13 years, and one can only take the training so far with a partner or a Wooden Dummy (Wing Chun.)
I had always envisioned an "upgraded" Wing Chun Dummy that was in fact, a robot. It would not be required that the robot could actually walk like this one does - it could be supported by an "arm" though the middle of the back that connects to a support. The robot would have to be covered with a plastic that reasonably simulated flesh for impact protection, and to make it more realistic for training: something like this.
Of course programming the robot would be hard - users would probably have to wear a suit so that software could recognice your movements and react to via cameras on the head.
Still - I think that advancements in this direction would be awesome for martial arts training. (Even if this is not why it was developed initally.)
I have tried some of the full VR games that I saw in Las Vegas, and for somone who actually studies Martial Arts they are lacking. One of them has you wear gloves, which is reasonable for boxing. Another emulates a sword to some degree. And a third I saw used floor sensors to detect your movement, and respond to punches and kicks that you perform as you move. Trouble was with the floor sensors, is that if you were a practiced martial artist, and had good balance, the sensors did not register that you were punching and kicking! Only if you were out of balance did it register anything.
So, unfortunately, all the arcade based martial arts games I have tried don't help ones training. However, as things go, I think that this technology will be great for martial artists in the long run.
Giant corporations have lots of reserve cash and are able to leverage it in all kinds of ways. Unfortuately this also makes them slow. From the article:
Sony was so worried about piracy, and sapping revenue from its Sony Music division, that it chose to do nothing and let Apple ascend. Apple made boatloads of cash from the iPod, while Sony struggled to remain profitable as revenues from its main cash cow, the PlayStation 2, plummeted.
Sony lost out because it is trying to do too many things - trying to be many things to many markets. It is things like this that make me wonder if the megacorps can really survive by buying up all the little guys. Most sucessful companies focus on only one goal. Microsoft focused on getting the desktop - and they got it. Now though, Microsoft is headed in many directons (not nearly so much as Sony) is it possible that this lack of focus will push Microsoft aside? I suspect so (in the long run that is.)
Right now I am using Win2k to post this. Why? Because it does what I need it to do.
I used Linux only as my desktop OS for over 2 years - and it was a pain in the ass. I was a tried and true Zealot, hell, my first ever post to Slashdot was something along the line of "Microsoft Suxors, Linux Rul3z!"
I admit I had fun for some time - learning about the Unix model etc. But after a long time I started to realize that I was wasting a large amount of my personal time to no end. I could not play all the games online with my friends - and a whole host of programs I wanted to use were unavalable to me.
But "Wait!" I hear some of you cry - you can use Wine to do that, and can recompile this to do that, and you can download the latest version of Qt to fix this...
I don't care. I make $25.00 an hour. The cost of Windows 2000 was worth six of my working hours. I can make Linux work in the same capacity - but it will eat more of my time than six hours over the course of only a few weeks. And that is what is really valuable to me is my time. I use *nix for servers because it is more powerful - and more cost effective both in terms of the cost of the OS and functionality. As a server *nix is far more functional.
It was about then that I started to realize that my computer is a tool. Being totally Linux centric (or BSD or whatever) is silly. It is like praising the virtues of a hammer, and how a hammer is an awesome tool. Well great, - but cutting down a tree with a hammer takes longer than with a saw or an axe.
Now, having said that - this post is also traveling through my firewall, which runs Red Hat 6.2 and is my Samba file server. The firewall script is one I wrote myself. I installed RH 6.2 on it when 6.2 was hot off the presses, and I have not moved to later versions of Linux on it. Why? Because it does what I need it to do.
When I setup a server I choose Linux or BSD because those OS's do what I need. When I want to play a game or perform a general desktop function I use windows. It is a simple division. I will switch to a *nix on the desktop only when the desktop experience EXCEEDS Windows. I have no doubt that it will someday - Mac OS X is getting close. However, I (and millions of other users) won't switch from the Windows desktop until something better comes out. *
* The same goes for servers, I won't switch away from a *nix for a server until (if) something better comes out. Personally, I don't think that Microsoft will be able to pull it off.
I am currently using a Matrox G450 Max dual head, and my desktop resolution is 2048 X 768 on two 17 inch monitors. Interestingly enough slashdot seems slow right now, so on my left monitor I am reading other news articles while I wait for Slashdot to load.
If you have never tried multiple monitors, I suggest you give it a shot - even if you are only using a second card in a PCI slot. While you will be missing some features that the integrated multihead cards have, it is still superior to a single monitor.
It is extremely efficent for tasks such as working on servers etc. For example, I can have a shell open in the right monitorto a server, and have the webpage, or database open on the left monitor. I can view changes I make to the server quickly on the left monitor - and fix screw ups faster because everything is right in front of me. It sounds pretty much the same to most people who have never tried it, but it is not. The difference is subtle, but signifigant. You start to save small segments of time over the course of a day - and that all adds up.
I would really like to eventually get a Matrox Parhelia and have a third monitor thrown into the mix.
For those of you wanting to try it, get a cheap PCI card and a cheap monitor - they are easy enough to find for about $10.00 each nowdays. You will probably find that you like it, and upgrade to a nicer monitor than the $10.00 POS you started with.
However, as for the comment: IT managers will view it as a good investment and not just for gamers
So unless you are talking about articles like thisand this planetquake article You probably have not tried it for gaming.
How do I know? I have tried it.
The framerate SUCKS. Granted, I have a bad card for gaming - it is old and out of date. However, I have tried Quake and Quake 3 running over both of my monitors, and while playable there is a signifigant framerate loss. Furthermore there is the problem of aim with a dual monitor setup. Your crosshair is split between the monitors, therefore aiming becomes very confusing indeed. You would need a minimum of 3 monitors (like with the parhelia, or additional PCI) for this to be effective. A nice advantage is that it is really easy to spot opponents with such a wide FOV. The disadvantage is that you can't aim to shoot them worth a damn.
So when playing games, I use a single monitor. But I keep this card around (even though it sucks for gaming) because it has excellent desktop performance, and I am not giving dual head up now that I am used to it.
That is a pretty good off the cuff Spherical Cow analogy. I would suspect that the network of silicon tubes uses something akin to counter current flow to achive higher rates of cooling.
Also, with a small network of tubes the relative surface area of the water to the heat would be higher than a teaspoon on a stove. While this probably means that the water would vaporize more quickly this might not be a bad thing. There was (is?) a company that produced PC cases that contained a compressor and supercooled liquid systems that operated on the vapour change principle. (I cannot for the life of me remember the company - they used to supercool the first Athlons.) When water changes into water vapour it absorbs more energy undergoing the phase change than when it is in liquid water alone. Also, water vapour can be moved about more quickly than water as it is less dense. Therefore, I suspect that if this is not a typo in the article, that liquid water is pumped into the chip, and it undergoes a phase change to steam which can only exit the chip in one direction - thus adding to the pressure in the system. The evaporation of the water would cool AND help push the coolant throughout the cycle.
So that is my guess - countercurrent flow to maximize the amount of heat removed from the chip, and the phase change of water to absorb more head and provide power to moving the water about the system.
In fact, the analogy they whip out is that of Harley-Davidson (HD was purchased by AMF, went to hell, then arose re-branded as the mega-label you know today). I refrained from pointing out that pre/post-AMF Harley produced respected product, and did not send threatening letters to Yamaha owners...
Another poster mentions Harley's IP debacle over their engine types. However, from the 1950's to the 1960's the Norton Manx 30 M motorcycle was cleaning Harley's clock at Daytona Beach. Harley had the rules of the race changed specifically so that any motorcycle could enter - except a Manx 30 M.
Since I first heard about this movie I have been trying to get the word out about it. Where I live I have a little-to-none chance of seeing it in the theatre unless it gets into the big theaters.
When I first heard about it, they were having problems with getting the film distributed - a problem which is now partially solved.
The more people who make mention of this, the more likely we are to see this appear in theaters everywhere - even if only for a short time.
Hmm. Things may be different here in Canada - my broker indicated that my account needed to be a Margin account to use options. I will have to look into this in greater detail.
(One of the better things I like about slashdot is that if I post a fscked up comment like the one I just apparently did, then people call me on it, and I learn somthing.)
"Why you can't short stock".. . care to back that up?
Because in order to short a stock you must first borrow the stock from somone willing to lend it. In this case, no one is willing to lend SCO, so you cannot short it.
As per understanding the stock market, I make no claims to understand the whole thing - but in my example above, the fellow I talked to who had the $70,000 invested had already made money on the stock as it had more than doubled. He was anticipating that the company would get a large contract, and the stock would go up again. However, he did acknowlege that he was concerned for the stock prior to the contract - well the company lost the contract. The stock went down, and he lost all his gains, and some of his inital investment. He was planning on selling the stock within 4 months anyhow.
In this situation, he could have benifited greatly after the inital rise by using options. However, he was unaware of their existance. That is what I found truly surprising, that he was willing to commit $70,000 to the stock market, yet he did not know that much about it.
And yes - there is always risk, however, in the right circumstance options represent less risk, or insurance. They are certanly far less risky than shorts.
The evening "News" is so corporate owned and supported that I don't really consider it a reliable source for information.
Agreed. Here is an interesting experiment to try. Find a major news story, preferably on Iraq or Afganistan. (It can be something else, but Iraq and Afganistan will yield more results.)
Check the story first on CNN
Then check the subtle changes in perception on the same story from these sites:
Note, I am not asking you to agree with any of the above opinions, or websites. Just begin to notice the different perceptions you can gain insight to on news stories on the net. This kind of insight cannot be gathered by watching local news, like NBC, CBS, or even the "most trusted" views of CNN.
Slashdot Mirror
To everyone currently bitching on /. :
/. was up in arms because Arwen replaced Glorfindel, prior to the release of the first movie (Myself included).
Everyone on
Many had fits with a "last alliance of men and elves" at Helm's Deep.
However, the movies have not dissapointed many, other than the die-hard fans.
I will admit that I did not like FOTR after my first watch. Sections of TTT, such as the Warg attack bugged me, however, for those who have not read the books 16x like myself, I found my friends loved the movies.
This is important because Jackson has captured the essence of the books, and the essence of what LOTR is about. Granted, he could have followed the books perfectly - but then only die-hard fans would enjoy it.
Think about it - do you believe more or fewer people are reading the books now that the first 2 films are out?
Sure, I decide to download the last few Red vs. Blue episodes that I have not yet seen. I decide to do it on a monday night, because, hey, who downloads Red vs. Blue on a Monday?
Apparently everyone on Slashdot...
Thanks a heap. (I can't even find bittorrent links - bugger!)
8P
Some might, but the typical enduser has no interest in ripping open source code and modifying or fixing it.
This is one of the problems Open Source zealots need to get over.
Ok, I can certanly agree with that. How am I a zealot though?
Considering the number of problems NASA has had as a result of software bugs, not even NASA can claim to be perfect.
I am not claiming that NASA is perfect, only that they have the lowest number of bugs in their software due to the risks involved in bugs in their software. There was an article about it on slashdot sometime back.
However, in my experience, like you say, there are ways around things in Open Source. I have found the ways around much more difficult in closed source.
And you're also more willing to put up with crap that's free than if you paid for it.
(Note: People tend to attach a greater value to things that they pay more for. You may disagree with this comment, and that is fine. However, if you wish to research it yourself I suggest you look into some market research on customer satisfaction as a function of total price of a product - you might be surprised with the results.)
Possibly. That is your opinion anyways. Having worked in enterprise environments where I charged for the Linux servers I built - we were really happy with them. The comporable Microsoft servers which also ran our database, cost us (and the customer) more money. We had a much lower tech support rate with the Linux servers. When I worked there, we deployed about 100 servers, 25 of those being Windows NT/2000 servers. In my experience in that situation, Linux was superior.
Likewise, I have seen situations where Windows is superior. It is just a question of choosing the right tool for the job.
People should stop drinking the kool-aid and start being honest with one another.
Ok, what is with the kool aid comment anyhow? I don't live in Jonestown. (You need to work on your trolling...)
I would say the objective of Open Source is more making software that is good enough that people can tweak easily to meet their specific needs...
Some might define that as the best software. If it meets all your needs, then it probably is the best software for you.
Dude, put the kool-aid down. Most Open Source software is buggy, but it's written with developers in mind. If the bug is really annoying you fix it yourself, if not you figure out a way to work around it.
If anything people are more willing to put up with bugs in something they got for free, than something they paid for.
I personally have found fewer bugs with my copy of Red Hat 6.2 that runs my Samba server sitting next to me than Windows 2000 that I am using this to type on.
I am by no means saying that Open Source software has no bugs, I think that only NASA can claim to write bug free software AFAIK.
However, in my experience, like you say, there are ways around things in Open Source. I have found the ways around much more difficult in closed source. YMMV though. To each their own.
While this is /. and many will disagree, I doubt that the heads of Microsoft are dumb. The author seems to think that they are, but I disagree:
Microsoft is a company - its objective is to make money. It does this by selling software and associated other things (part services and hardware, (Joysticks Mice etc...))
The objective of Open Source (Linux in this example) is to make the best software possible it just so happens that this model also believes that open code is the best code.
This is pretty simple. Now, the heads at Microsoft understand this - but it is their job to promote Microsoft. That is what they get paid to do. They work for Microsoft, they have Microsoft stock options - they make their living by selling Microsoft. The heads of these companies (and all companies really) are salesmen. They work to sell a product. Now, it is important to believe in your product to sell it - and Microsoft exec's clearly do.
But really, can you blame them? They are clearly worried by the Open Source model because it presents a direct threat to their Cash Flow. Buggy software requires upgrades - this is good for business because you can sell the upgrades, and make money. That is their objective. With Open Source, buggy software is bad, because the objective is to make the best software possible.
Microsoft does not want to make the best software possible - otherwise people would buy it, and once they bought it, they would never need to buy it again. Their sales would go up - and then plateau.
Linux developers want to make the best software - because that is what they set out to do in the beginning.
There are totally different perspectives at work here. If you want to understand Open Source, and Commercial software you have to understand both ideals. I think Balmer understands totally - but he can't start disparaging Microsoft. It goes against his mandate.
I think MS is scared - and rightly so. They are hitting a plateau in sales, and Open Source is a serious threat to their server sales. What comes out of this will be interesting. That much is certain.
Aliens came out long after Video Stores were around - Alien however, is what I meant.
Ok, this is a kind of a scary admission - especially for slashdot... Anyhow, here goes.
When I was about 6, my Dad got a pirated copy of Aliens (video stores did not exist at that time) and he sat down to watch it. I wanted to watch it with him (mistake!!!)
I had nightmares of the Alien, for years, and I always found it creepy - I hated even looking at H. R. Gigers Alien's. More recently, I picked up a copy of Alien vs. Predator - and I played through the entire game. It was difficult at first, but after getting used to killing Aliens (and being killed...) My fear went away. Irrational fear? Yes, but it was a fear I had none the less.
On a separate note, my friend saw The Exorcist when he was about 6 too, and he had nightmares about it. Recently he got the DVD extended version, and forced himself to watch it about 20 times. The movie no longer bothers him either.
About the only things on TV that intereste me are documentaries: Nova, Nature, Nature of Things, Daily Planet etc. The rest is really not worth my time (episodes of any Star Trek I have not seen notwithstanding... =)
I mostly get my science fix online, or though print.
Michael Schermer (who wrote the article) also wrote one of my favorite books: "Why People Believe Wierd Things" it is second only to Carl Sagans "The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark" (Which is mentioned in the article.) - Both these books are worth a read if you have not taken a look at them. I hope that this network covers "myths" in the same way those books do. (And Given that Shermer is working on this, and that he works on Skeptic mag, I would suspect that the network will include shows of that nature.)
Come on, it should be obvious! With his coding skills for 3D engines like Quake and Doom, plus his 1337 deathmatch skills...
Come on people! THINK ABOUT IT! He is the lead coder behind id Software and he works on rockets with Armadillo Aerospace.
Can't you people see the connection? Carmack is working to dominate space, any war fought in space will be dominated by Carmack! I strongly suspect that the real reason he is into rocket science is so that he can lauch missions to Mars for experiments on Phobos and Demios...
Sure, you are worrying about China or some other nation - but I tell you Texas is looking mighty scary right now... Mark my words - QUAKE IN SPACE!!!
(Note For the Humor Impaired: this is a joke.)
Yeah, I have no social skills. I'm what you would call a dork or a nerd. But thats ok, because am not here to be please everybody.
You don't have to please everybody - but you will find that your life goes a great deal easier if the people around you like you.
If you recognize the fact that you have no social skills, then, if you are technically minded as you say - why don't you point some of your intellect towards social skills? I used to be in the same situation - a geek in highschool (and still today) I never talked to anyone, never went on dates etc. However, after I decided that I wanted to get better social skills my life changed instantly - for the better.
Right now I have a good deal of Unix experience in an enterprise environment - yet, I just took a sales job. Why? I want to be a better sales person. I want to understand all aspects of business so I can go into business for myself one day. As it happens I am selling computers, just something I happen to know about. I find it makes your life easier if you try to fix what you might consider weaknesses in your character. It has worked for me quite well so far. It is something to consider.
As far as the holier than thou attitude, yeah, so what? I'm choosy about the people I like and if I'm condescending its because a lot of people who're above me are there not because they're better than me but because they have the "Oh so called Social Skills."
If you are technically minded, you are likely logically minded as well. Technology involves solving problems - so does social skills. However, it also involves understanding other peoples feelings and empathy. A great book to read and begin to understand this is the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People by Steven Covey. It would probably be worth your time to read, especially if you know that is is a weak area of yours.
You certanly sound angry at the people who have "Social Skills" so why don't you point a little logic of yours in that direction? It is easier than you might think.
I don't see the point -- as long as I do my job and get my stuff done, whats the point and the problem?
Whether you are employed or not quite often depends on your social skills. Really, if you keep pissing off the PHB, they will replace you, and if you have no social skills, you will never even see it coming.
You could almost rewrite that line by saying:
I don't see the point -- as long as I write crappy code that barely works, whats the point and the problem?
No, that is not fair to rewrite it like that - but it is an appropriate analogy for how other people might feel about your attitude. Most people see having social skills as an INTEGRAL part of getting along with co-workers. And, getting along with one's co-works is part of your job.
All that most "informed bosses" can do is kiss everyone's ass and pretend to know everything. And serve everything as sugar coated lies to the clients and investors.
Yes - and that is THEIR JOB They are in business - they have to be able to sell. You can make fun of the PHB's who can't use the computers (and there are many) but how many coders understand a balance sheet, and can sell their product effectively? You know, amongst the PHB's the last thing they want is an engineer near a client - engineers (generally) are not good salespeople. If you don't have good salespeople - you don't have a job and pay the bills. You are stuck coding free software (which is just fine) but you can't pay the power bill to keep your system running.
I would much rather not pretend to empathize with such people.
Part of having social skills would mean that you understand WHY they are doing what they do, so that you can in fact have REAL empathy for them. Not fake empathy. Faking empathy is not a socia
I have always hoped for something like this to be developed. I have studied Martial Arts for 13 years, and one can only take the training so far with a partner or a Wooden Dummy (Wing Chun.)
I had always envisioned an "upgraded" Wing Chun Dummy that was in fact, a robot. It would not be required that the robot could actually walk like this one does - it could be supported by an "arm" though the middle of the back that connects to a support. The robot would have to be covered with a plastic that reasonably simulated flesh for impact protection, and to make it more realistic for training: something like this.
Of course programming the robot would be hard - users would probably have to wear a suit so that software could recognice your movements and react to via cameras on the head.
Still - I think that advancements in this direction would be awesome for martial arts training. (Even if this is not why it was developed initally.)
I have tried some of the full VR games that I saw in Las Vegas, and for somone who actually studies Martial Arts they are lacking. One of them has you wear gloves, which is reasonable for boxing. Another emulates a sword to some degree. And a third I saw used floor sensors to detect your movement, and respond to punches and kicks that you perform as you move. Trouble was with the floor sensors, is that if you were a practiced martial artist, and had good balance, the sensors did not register that you were punching and kicking! Only if you were out of balance did it register anything.
So, unfortunately, all the arcade based martial arts games I have tried don't help ones training. However, as things go, I think that this technology will be great for martial artists in the long run.
Giant corporations have lots of reserve cash and are able to leverage it in all kinds of ways. Unfortuately this also makes them slow. From the article:
Sony was so worried about piracy, and sapping revenue from its Sony Music division, that it chose to do nothing and let Apple ascend. Apple made boatloads of cash from the iPod, while Sony struggled to remain profitable as revenues from its main cash cow, the PlayStation 2, plummeted.
Sony lost out because it is trying to do too many things - trying to be many things to many markets. It is things like this that make me wonder if the megacorps can really survive by buying up all the little guys. Most sucessful companies focus on only one goal. Microsoft focused on getting the desktop - and they got it. Now though, Microsoft is headed in many directons (not nearly so much as Sony) is it possible that this lack of focus will push Microsoft aside? I suspect so (in the long run that is.)
Right now I am using Win2k to post this. Why? Because it does what I need it to do.
I used Linux only as my desktop OS for over 2 years - and it was a pain in the ass. I was a tried and true Zealot, hell, my first ever post to Slashdot was something along the line of "Microsoft Suxors, Linux Rul3z!"
I admit I had fun for some time - learning about the Unix model etc. But after a long time I started to realize that I was wasting a large amount of my personal time to no end. I could not play all the games online with my friends - and a whole host of programs I wanted to use were unavalable to me.
But "Wait!" I hear some of you cry - you can use Wine to do that, and can recompile this to do that, and you can download the latest version of Qt to fix this...
I don't care. I make $25.00 an hour. The cost of Windows 2000 was worth six of my working hours. I can make Linux work in the same capacity - but it will eat more of my time than six hours over the course of only a few weeks. And that is what is really valuable to me is my time. I use *nix for servers because it is more powerful - and more cost effective both in terms of the cost of the OS and functionality. As a server *nix is far more functional.
It was about then that I started to realize that my computer is a tool. Being totally Linux centric (or BSD or whatever) is silly. It is like praising the virtues of a hammer, and how a hammer is an awesome tool. Well great, - but cutting down a tree with a hammer takes longer than with a saw or an axe.
Now, having said that - this post is also traveling through my firewall, which runs Red Hat 6.2 and is my Samba file server. The firewall script is one I wrote myself. I installed RH 6.2 on it when 6.2 was hot off the presses, and I have not moved to later versions of Linux on it. Why? Because it does what I need it to do.
When I setup a server I choose Linux or BSD because those OS's do what I need. When I want to play a game or perform a general desktop function I use windows. It is a simple division. I will switch to a *nix on the desktop only when the desktop experience EXCEEDS Windows. I have no doubt that it will someday - Mac OS X is getting close. However, I (and millions of other users) won't switch from the Windows desktop until something better comes out. *
* The same goes for servers, I won't switch away from a *nix for a server until (if) something better comes out. Personally, I don't think that Microsoft will be able to pull it off.
I am currently using a Matrox G450 Max dual head, and my desktop resolution is 2048 X 768 on two 17 inch monitors. Interestingly enough slashdot seems slow right now, so on my left monitor I am reading other news articles while I wait for Slashdot to load.
If you have never tried multiple monitors, I suggest you give it a shot - even if you are only using a second card in a PCI slot. While you will be missing some features that the integrated multihead cards have, it is still superior to a single monitor.
It is extremely efficent for tasks such as working on servers etc. For example, I can have a shell open in the right monitorto a server, and have the webpage, or database open on the left monitor. I can view changes I make to the server quickly on the left monitor - and fix screw ups faster because everything is right in front of me. It sounds pretty much the same to most people who have never tried it, but it is not. The difference is subtle, but signifigant. You start to save small segments of time over the course of a day - and that all adds up.
I would really like to eventually get a Matrox Parhelia and have a third monitor thrown into the mix.
For those of you wanting to try it, get a cheap PCI card and a cheap monitor - they are easy enough to find for about $10.00 each nowdays. You will probably find that you like it, and upgrade to a nicer monitor than the $10.00 POS you started with.
However, as for the comment: IT managers will view it as a good investment and not just for gamers
So unless you are talking about articles like thisand this planetquake article You probably have not tried it for gaming.
How do I know? I have tried it.
The framerate SUCKS. Granted, I have a bad card for gaming - it is old and out of date. However, I have tried Quake and Quake 3 running over both of my monitors, and while playable there is a signifigant framerate loss. Furthermore there is the problem of aim with a dual monitor setup. Your crosshair is split between the monitors, therefore aiming becomes very confusing indeed. You would need a minimum of 3 monitors (like with the parhelia, or additional PCI) for this to be effective. A nice advantage is that it is really easy to spot opponents with such a wide FOV. The disadvantage is that you can't aim to shoot them worth a damn.
So when playing games, I use a single monitor. But I keep this card around (even though it sucks for gaming) because it has excellent desktop performance, and I am not giving dual head up now that I am used to it.
That is a pretty good off the cuff Spherical Cow analogy. I would suspect that the network of silicon tubes uses something akin to counter current flow to achive higher rates of cooling.
Also, with a small network of tubes the relative surface area of the water to the heat would be higher than a teaspoon on a stove. While this probably means that the water would vaporize more quickly this might not be a bad thing. There was (is?) a company that produced PC cases that contained a compressor and supercooled liquid systems that operated on the vapour change principle. (I cannot for the life of me remember the company - they used to supercool the first Athlons.) When water changes into water vapour it absorbs more energy undergoing the phase change than when it is in liquid water alone. Also, water vapour can be moved about more quickly than water as it is less dense. Therefore, I suspect that if this is not a typo in the article, that liquid water is pumped into the chip, and it undergoes a phase change to steam which can only exit the chip in one direction - thus adding to the pressure in the system. The evaporation of the water would cool AND help push the coolant throughout the cycle.
So that is my guess - countercurrent flow to maximize the amount of heat removed from the chip, and the phase change of water to absorb more head and provide power to moving the water about the system.
In fact, the analogy they whip out is that of Harley-Davidson (HD was purchased by AMF, went to hell, then arose re-branded as the mega-label you know today). I refrained from pointing out that pre/post-AMF Harley produced respected product, and did not send threatening letters to Yamaha owners ...
Another poster mentions Harley's IP debacle over their engine types. However, from the 1950's to the 1960's the Norton Manx 30 M motorcycle was cleaning Harley's clock at Daytona Beach. Harley had the rules of the race changed specifically so that any motorcycle could enter - except a Manx 30 M.
SGI:Hello SCO!
SCO:Hello.
SGI:We have just one word for you.
SCO:And that would be?
SGI:OWNZOR!!
SCO:D'oh!
Note, the above has been checked against the Linux kernel and System V source and it matches neither. (You hear that down there in Salt Lake City?)
Tinfoil! See? I TOLD YOU my hat had a use! Ha! Track my head will you! NEVER!!!
Since I first heard about this movie I have been trying to get the word out about it. Where I live I have a little-to-none chance of seeing it in the theatre unless it gets into the big theaters.
When I first heard about it, they were having problems with getting the film distributed - a problem which is now partially solved.
The more people who make mention of this, the more likely we are to see this appear in theaters everywhere - even if only for a short time.
I am still dying to see it out here.
Well it was read! =)
And yes, I use a Matrox card for the same reason. I like the idea of a far right and a far left view. Something I will have to teach my children.
Next time you watch CNN - check out their commercials which state: "CNN, Voted Americas Most Trusted News Source" or something to that effect.
Hmm. Things may be different here in Canada - my broker indicated that my account needed to be a Margin account to use options. I will have to look into this in greater detail.
(One of the better things I like about slashdot is that if I post a fscked up comment like the one I just apparently did, then people call me on it, and I learn somthing.)
Looks like I am getting called! =)
Point. My comment did look condescending. My bad.
"Why you can't short stock".. . care to back that up?
Because in order to short a stock you must first borrow the stock from somone willing to lend it. In this case, no one is willing to lend SCO, so you cannot short it.
As per understanding the stock market, I make no claims to understand the whole thing - but in my example above, the fellow I talked to who had the $70,000 invested had already made money on the stock as it had more than doubled. He was anticipating that the company would get a large contract, and the stock would go up again. However, he did acknowlege that he was concerned for the stock prior to the contract - well the company lost the contract. The stock went down, and he lost all his gains, and some of his inital investment. He was planning on selling the stock within 4 months anyhow.
In this situation, he could have benifited greatly after the inital rise by using options. However, he was unaware of their existance. That is what I found truly surprising, that he was willing to commit $70,000 to the stock market, yet he did not know that much about it.
And yes - there is always risk, however, in the right circumstance options represent less risk, or insurance. They are certanly far less risky than shorts.
The evening "News" is so corporate owned and supported that I don't really consider it a reliable source for information.
Agreed. Here is an interesting experiment to try. Find a major news story, preferably on Iraq or Afganistan. (It can be something else, but Iraq and Afganistan will yield more results.)
Check the story first on CNN
Then check the subtle changes in perception on the same story from these sites:
BBC NEWS
Globe and Mail
Then note the radically different opinions on:
Aljazeera
Antiwar
Note, I am not asking you to agree with any of the above opinions, or websites. Just begin to notice the different perceptions you can gain insight to on news stories on the net. This kind of insight cannot be gathered by watching local news, like NBC, CBS, or even the "most trusted" views of CNN.