I think it simply refers to a natural tendency. It isn't a binding concept. Like I said, it can change depending on the situation. Alcohol seems to make people less introverted. In some situations you are probably introverted, in others extroverted. Maybe doing/saying things impulsively (which I do sometimes too) is sort of a "pressure valve" from all those times you held it back? Just a random theory.
Like many (well, MOST) things in psychology, this is a guide and nothing more. Psychology (like most disciplines) suffers from "Physics Envy"; that is they lack the ability to make concrete statements like Physics has ("Earth's gravity is 9.8 m/s^2").
I agree completely. I don't see any way to question the trust thing you bring up, it is an excellent description.
As for the "acting like an extrovert" idea, I have learned to do that, and it is the "cure" to being an introvert. All introvert really means is you have a natural tendency towards that stuff. I did it exactly the way you suggested: talking to people when I had a reason to. I've known I was an introvert for many years, but I was surprised last year when a teacher was surprised when I said I was an introvert, she thought I was an extrovert. That was when I realized that I've gotten so good at "acting" extrovert at school that I am extroverted in classroom situations.
This is the kind of thing I was going to post. I am an introvert (degree depends on situation, ranging from slight extrovert to medium/strong introvert). I think introverts have more brain activity because they think about things more. An extrovert says something in a conversation. They might think about it a little first, but they say it.
An introvert says it, but only after thinking it over, if it is the best thing to say, the timing, thinking about what others say a bunch to try to come up with good things to say, etc. An introvert can "over analyze" things like that.
Other things happen too. When I'm going to meet someone, I'll often think up entire conversations on the way. It isn't purposeful, but I think something along the lines of "I could say X", then that leads to "then they would say Y", and it continues and before you know it I've had a little conversation in my head.
I think about all sorts of stuff. I can be walking down the street and I'll start thinking about something completely irrelevant. I'm not talking about "I remember that one birthday", I'm talking about "how you could build X" which leads to how to solve problem Y, how X would be useful in situation Z, etc.
That is sort of the whole introvert/extrovert thing. Introverts do all this stuff inside. Extroverts might do these things as conversations with other people, or they might fill that "need" in some other way with normal conversation and such.
That's how I see it. I used to be more of an introvert, and I've never been an extrovert so I can't say I've had that point of view (outside of the odd situation).
I'm 22 and I currently live in the midwest. I've lived here and on the coast. I haven't seen a Lego TV ad in 6 years for sure, probably 10. They used to be on TV all the time when I was younger. As for where they sell them: they are where you would think: toy stores. Toys 'R' Us has them, Walmart has 'em, Target has 'em, ZaniBrany had 'em (they went out of business), and many independent stores have 'em. When I was a kid my local TRU would have a huge section devoted to them. Now them seem to have a few dozen sets. They don't carry as many as they used to.
I agree. Like Apple, I think they need to advertise more.
I loved Legos as a kid. I still do. But there aren't many general sets. I love building the large models (especially the large Technic models) but there are basically none of those today. If I want to build a large set, my choice is basically a giant Yoda or a star destroyer. Both costing $100-$150. There don't seem to be any general sets any more (not that I've looked hard). When I was little I got a Technic set that I loved. It came with hundreds of pieces and an instruction book full of like 30+ models you could make (simple things: mixing machine, little car that steers, etc). Going through all those things gave you lots of ideas to make your own stuff.
But let's talk about Mindstorms. I bought one when they first came out. They cost $200. That is a lot of money for a kid's toy (you can buy a Nintendo DS and two games for that). You can only program them with the Lego Mindstorms software which I found annoying and limited (I soon found the free C complier for it on the internet). I don't even think it would work with my Mac that I have today.
What kind of sensors did you get? As I remember you got.. 2 touch sensors. Or was it 3. And two motors. They offered rotational sensors (cost extra), a vision system (costs a TON extra), etc. I just spent $200 on a Lego set (that didn't include enough pieces, if you ask me), I'm NOT going to go buy a $50-$100 camera for it (I don't know what it costs, wasn't available when I bought it).
I think that was the last Lego set I bought. I used to love Lego. But there isn't anything like it today that I know of. Legos aren't the same. I remember building house kits, airplanes kits, a moon base with a monorail, the trains, and all sorts of other stuff. Today they seem to license half their product lines and there is almost nothing "normal" like I remember.
Maybe Megablocks or one of the other "rip-offs" is better. I don't know. I never looked. But Lego priced themselves out of my market. A quick check on Amazon shows the set is still $200. What can I buy for $200 bucks? Let's look at some of the things I've been looking at lately. I can buy a little stirling engine that will run off sunlight or the heat of my had for $140. Or for the same amount, I can buy a Steam Engine kit. A working kit that includes a whistle, governor, and more. Both of those leave me with $60 to spend (a video game, perhaps?).
The older I got, the fewer Lego products I got as gifts for Christmas and such. While there were things I wanted, they just got more expensive. About the only models I remember wanting to build since I was maybe 10 or 12 (I'm currently 22) cost $100-$200.
Between the proliferation of video games, other electronic gadgets, and issues like I mentioned above, I think Lego will be a gonner soon. My parents had a hell of a time finding me an Erector set when I was a kid. I don't know if that has changed, but between that and Lego, what is there for kids to build things with these days?
What is this? Isn't the point of dating trying to find someone you can spend the rest of your life with? So when you find someone who spends all their time playing video games and doesn't seem to be as interested in you as those games, what do you do? Dump them because that's not what you are looking for?
NO!
You start a support group, of course! That way you can complain about him, and stay with him! Then you can marry him and continue to yell at him for doing the same thing he did when you were dating. This is pure genius.
So many people seem to be such idiots these days in these things. If you don't like the guy's personality, DUMP THE GUY.
I realize that they are different beasts. I know there is only one "distro" of Windows and one of OS X. But to the end user, they won't care about that difference. All they know is they have this problem on Linux and not OS X.
I have nothing against the Linux way, there is good stuff to say about it. But you if you want to compete, you can't go around saying "We're not windows so you can't criticize us for that." It is a very valid concern.
Maybe this is where some middle-man can make money. If they can create a platform to fix this problem that works on all the distros (or at least most) because they spend time working on it, and can get Linux game makers to target it for a tiny fee ($0.25 per copy?) then they could get established doing this (and giving it free to the users).
You're going to have a hard time, I think. Obviously if you have to just build for a number of distros you'll want to do it for the most popular (Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, and Gentoo, for example). That said, there are some solutions:
Java
Python
Static Build
Java and Python are obvious. You can always use things like JNI and the Python-C bridge if you feel you need better speed in some parts. As long as those parts don't link to any external code, you won't have any problem. They are both very fast these days, and by using things like PyOpenGL and Java3D you can get accelerated rendering and everything. Plus you would only need one codebase for both windows, linux, and OS X.
As for a static build, you may or may not want to do that. The size of the executable will be much larger, and it will take more memory to run, but you won't have the problem of everyone has a different version. It would solve your problem.
As an odd suggestion: why not build all your code into objects and distribute those with a little script to link them on the client machine into an executable. That would fix the problem right? The problem is you couldn't strip the binary (if you do that) because the linker needs the symbols (right?). But it would solve you problem. This is my understanding of how nVidia's kernel drivers work (they have a little glue source too, which you could include). This way they don't have to put out a version for every combination under the sun.
I hope this helps. This is one area where Linux is (rather far) behind Windows and OS X. It's not much of a problem if you've got the source, but if the application is closed source (like yours) then it can be a headache. This is something that the LSB was trying to solve, but I don't know how far they got (or how many distros follow their guidelines).
I kinda figured that was the problem. I seem to remember reading you can do 8 player if everyone is in the same room, which would point to latency issues.
It looks like this is slashdotted, but I read it this morning.
The first one is talking about using the controller as a baton for a music game. They talk to the guys at Harmonix (very cool company, they just released the AMAZING Guitar Hero). While the guy didn't seem to know it, the game Mad Maestro for the PS2 could be played this way with a baton controller (which I don't think was released in the US, only Japan got the controller). It was actually supposed to be a good game. Still you could easily use a pair of controllers to play onscreen drums, I think that would work great.
They mention using the controller as a sword or lightsaber. I agree with the mention that this would be problematic because there is no "feel" to it. While you can make it rumble, I don't think that will be enough. You swing your sword and your opponent blocks you. But your controller keeps going (maybe with a rumbling). I think that would be a problem.
They talk to the guy behind Trauma Center for the DS. While it is an interesting idea, I agree that the surgery wouldn't work as well as on the DS because you aren't touching a screen like with the DS. But the idea of using the controller in other parts of the game for diagnosis (otoscope, test reflexes, etc.) sounds very interesting. I like the idea he suggests about hooking up a DS for the surgery part and using the revolution controller for the rest.
That's all I can remember right now. I'll post back with more if I think of it and I think it's worth it.
I can't wait for the revolution. I don't know about its graphics. I don't know of a single game for it (they have confirmed various sequels and such but we've never seen anything about them). But I as still far more excited by it than anything else. Between the unique controller and Nintendo continuing to push against "more of the same", I can't wait. When they do something, they tend to do it right.
I hear a full 45% of Mario Kart DS owners are playing online. They may have waited to do it, but it sounds like they knew what they were doing. I haven't picked up the game yet (I intend to), but it looks great. The only thing I wish is I hear the online races are only four players. It would be nice if it was 8 (even if each DS supplied one computer player). But that is a minor gripe.
I saw this last night and submitted it also, (must have been beaten to the punch). What I found intereseting was at the end of the article they say that for compairson they don't see how the PlayStation 3 could cost less than $600 to make.
Sony's CEO recently promised they would sell in the PS3 for $300-$400, which puts them at an initial loss of $200-$300 per unit.
That said, are you sure you want to build your own PC? I built my own for years but finally got tired of it. At a certain point I decided the time wasn't worth it, and I wanted to be able to call the manufacturer if something went wrong and say "fix it".
I bought a laptop (Dell) and never regretted that I didn't build another computer. When things happened, I could call dell about it instead of searching forms on the internet to try to diagnose whatever odd thing might happen. When the capacitors on my motherboard died, I had no one to turn to. It took me forever to figure out what it was, and then I had to contact the motherboard manufacturer and get it fixed at my own cost then rebuild it myself and it was all a huge hassle that I didn't have time for at the time. I would have loved to call up Dell and say "fix it" (which I have done for a motherboard problem in a very old dell years ago) and have them come over and fix it fast.
I later switched to the Mac which has been even more hassle free than with my Dell laptop (which was very nice).
Building your own computer is nice and if you want something very special you practically have to (when I did it I wanted a dually rig which were only available pre-built in servers at the time). But if you are just building it to say "I built it" and you have done it before, you may want to skip it. It often isn't worth it any more. When you can buy a very nice Dell for $300 or less, many of the arguments for building your own are gone.
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad I built my own. I wish more people would for the experience and understanding. But if you have done it, you should think long and hard about if this is what you want for the next few years or if you want something that is manufacturer supported. I don't know how old you are or how long you have been building computers, but at a certain point you'll probably begin to think like me and my post's parent.
You may see me build a special little weird box in a few years to play with, but for an every day computer, I'll buy one.
It sounds like you are just going out and looking for good deals then seeing what fits with that. I'm not surprised that you are running into such a problem. My suggestion would be to figure this stuff out up front as much as possible.
The first thing you need to decide is things like do you want a little computer (like a Shuttle) or something special (dual-cpu SLI) etc. The odder your request, the more your field is automatically narrowed down. The rest of this will apply, but I"ll assume you just want a normal (probably 1, maybe 2 CPU) board without SLI.
Start with the big one. Do you want Intel or AMD? I would go with AMD at this moment, but the choice is yours. So now that you know that, you eliminate a large chunk of stuff. So lets say you want AMD (same basic things for Intel).
Do you want dual processor (NOT CORE, PROCESSOR). If you want multiple sockets (dual rules, but you could get the same benefit with a dual core these days). If you do, that will severely limit your chipset choices and motherboard choices (because most dual-cpu boards are designed for servers). So by reading articles on the CPU you want, you can find out which chipsets support it. Make sure to future-proof. Even if you don't want a dual-core Athlon 64 today, get a chipset that would support it. This will cut down your chipset choices further.
Then look up the chipsets (with reviews of those). These will let you see the features to find something you'd really like that would narrow things down (say SLI as only a few chipsets support that). That way you can find the chipset you want (or at least a list of those you DON'T want).
Now you know your processor type, and a chipset (or small list). Now if want SLI then based on your graphics brand many of these decisions are made for you. With this information you can go out looking various motherboard manufacturers' sites looking for boards that have what you want (or close to it). From here you read reviews and narrow things down.
I've stopped following all this stuff closely as I moved to laptops and then Mac (neither of which can you build your own). I'd say the most important thing would be the processor right now. You need to decide how much you want this system. Because while there are always new revisions coming out every few months, we are about to see some big changes. Intel is going to release their new chips (Yonah?) based on the Pentium M for the desktop. AMD will be moving to a new socket soon to enable them to use DDR2. So you may want to wait. On the other hand, the new Intel processor might not be enough for you wait, and you may see DDR as just fine (because when they first hit the street, the new CPUs and boards will be expensive and might not be worth it to you).
You've got homework to do, but if you just go looking at motherboards for features you like and try to decide the other factors (SLI, CPU, memory, etc) based on that you can be easily overwhelmed at one manufacturer's site.
I hope this helps. This is the process that I went through every time I built a computer, but like I said I used to keep up with this stuff much more than it sounds like you do (I'm now where you seem to be: I know some general stuff but I'd need a bunch of research before even starting to look at parts to buy).
I get the feeling they did it like a "man on the street" type thing, only the people they asked were in the industry. The marketing people tended to slip into marketing mode, but for the most part that was what it was.
All and all I think it is pretty sad. I haven't minded all the 360 coverage, but for something like this to get through seems like they aren't even checking any more. Either that or we've got a zealot on our hands (because no one objective would allow that "developer" story to get posted without at least noting it had nothing to do with developers), or they've given up on all the 360 stories and are just green-lighting many of them so people don't keep submitting them.
That article is pointless. While it has some info, the people in it are not developers, they are (in order): a president, a marketing guy, another marketing guy, another president, a designer, and a product manager.
Why the designer is almost there, the rest aren't even CLOSE to developers. I want DEVELOPER information. I've heard little bits (easier SDK than last time, hard to get full potential out of, etc.) but I would love some more in-depth info (that didn't get filtered through marketing to remove anything negative).
There is a bit in the article (many of them mentioned how they think they "Core System" is a terrible mistake, I agree), but there isn't that much. I think the last question of the three they ask is the worst. They ask "which games would you buy on launch day". OK. Whatever. How about "Would you buy one on launch day, and if so what would you buy with it?" That would show much more about how they feel about the system.
Are there any developers out there who would like to give us some better info on what it is like to develop for the 360 (or any next-gen console)? Good/bad/whatever? How are the tools? Run into any weird gotchas (I once heard that with the PS1 if you wanted to make a large flat surface (like a wall) you had to split it into many smaller polygons instead of 1 or 2 because the texture would look so terrible if you didn't)).
There is enough pointless hype around this launch anyway (it deserves hype, but there is still too much) without a bunch of guys from marketing pretending to be developers.
Why didn't they ask the janitor at a game company? Surely he has an opinion.
They don't even mention if the companies these people are from are working with the 360 or not. For all we know, none of these companies have anything to do with console games based on the information give (name only, so if you don't recognize it, you know nothing about them).
Very cool and good to know. It'd be nice if the PS3 did the same.
I have little doubt that I'll pick one up sooner or later, but I think I'll wait until the real thing (not the core) is $300 or so and there is a game or two I really want. Until then, I'll wait.
For what it's worth, a few minutes ago (and after my original post) I saw a entry on Joystiq about them plugging an iPod in where they showed the screenshots and everything confirming what you said.
I'm not planning on buying one yet (too expensive, no killer app for me yet), but i must say that I like the way they implemented custom soundtracks. On the XBox you could listen to your music in games (PGR2, for example) but you had to rip your CDs to the XBox hard drive. I've already done that to my computer's hard drive. I wasn't going to go rip my entire collection again onto my XBox. But with the 360 it can stream it off your computer from what I understand, or better yet you can hook up your iPod by USB and listen to the (non copy-protected) songs off that. When I played PGR 2 I turned off the music and put my iPod earphones in my ears and listened to my music while playing the games. Now I can do that without the earphones. I think that is great.
I don't know if the 360 can read the playlist info, but that would be even better. I doubt it (Apple wouldn't tell 'em, they'd have to reverse engineer it).
But this ability is a great little feature. It takes something that was too hard to use on the XBox (because of having to rerip my CDs) and makes it easily available.
First: The WSJ is a US publication, so unless they specify otherwise, "cellphone carriers" refers to "US cellphone carriers". And yes, cell service is in the US is not open and as such all prices suck.
Second: No one inside the US should buy music for their phone. There are MP3 player phones out there (plus the ROKR). Of course, Sony is going to start selling Movies for cellphones; which continues to prove that the quantity of idiots in any country is always significantly greater than 0.
Third: SonyEricsson won't put iTunes on their phones. Other companies will, but not SonyEricsson. If Sony Music has any pull at all, they won't let it happen. Which is too bad. Sony is such a great company (if you don't count Sony Music and Sony Pictures).
On the Mac side, X-Code is fantastic. Not only do you get to lay out the components but you can even connect many of the simple actions with drag and drop. This means that checking one box that should enable and disable other fields can work in just a few seconds. The button that is supposed to make the drawer slide out? That is trivial to do. You get a working demo that looks exactly like the final thing will. It is just like using Visual Basic but better because you get a "real language" (sorry, I don't like VB for most things).
When it gets approved, you just add the code on the back and you're all set.
Plus you could let your manager or client play with it. Put all the buttons and fields on there and set things up, then let him drag 'em around, change font sizes, etc. Sure it will probably be hideous, but he'll be happy:). They even did something like this for Steve Jobs when making the original Mac (story here at Folklore.org.)
Enrollment has dropped for one reason: the bubble burst.
I started college in 2001 right before the bubble burst (it was just starting). I can't tell you how many idiots there were who entered CS along with me. There were people there who had never used a computer (literally). People who didn't know how to type, people with no math skills (I'm talking sub-algebra), etc. Those people were obviously in it for the money (which they all freely admitted). There was one or two (usually older adults) who decided to do it to learn more ("I don't know anything about computers, and I wanted to learn what made them tick."), but the vast majority were in it for the cash. Even among those who were more qualified, there were many who were in it for the money. You could tell who was who pretty easily. Those with the real passion already knew many things from studying it themselves. Those who wanted the cash tended to do the bare minimum and write horrid code ("As long as it works!").
Now that the bubble has burst, those people aren't there. If you want to compare enrollment numbers, look at the numbers from 1992 or 1995 so (before the bubble). I don't know what those numbers are, but I would think they would be more representative.
From what I hear, bio-med is the new CS. That (along with possibly accounting) is where you go if you want money as it is the new in industry with high pay.
It would be interesting to see how enrollment has changed over the last 10-20 years if you could filter out the gold-diggers. It would still be higher during the bubble from people who went into computers because they found them interesting (as they became more popular, more people became exposed, so more become interested). I'd love to see that.
As to the question "Have geeks gone mainstream"? No. They haven't. They never will. They existed in the '50s. They existed in the '70s. They existed in the '90s. They exist today. That is nearly 60 years and they haven't gone "mainstream" yet. Blacks have gone mainstream in that time (they are no longer outcasts). Gays have gone mainstream (you may say they're not there yet, but they are more than geeks). And geeks existed before the 1950s too. I don't think it will ever happen. We may get some acceptance, some respect, but we're not going to be mainstream. We're never going to see "pro-geeks" like we see "pro-atheletes".
Exactly. Free speech is supposed to be everything except some enumerated things (yelling "Fire" being the classic example).
It's odd that so many things are "free speech" and people will rush to defend them as though the country would fall apart without them (many pieces of "art") yet are silent on real free speech (some journalistic blogs). Whether that is due to ignorance ("All blogs are just people writing about what their cat did today and other pointless stuff"), an agenda ("I support the views of the first group, not the second above"), or some third reason is left as an exercise to the reader.
But I agree. Having to enumerate who qualifies for "free speech" is a dangerous trend. Hopefully it will reverse its self soon.
I could name hundreds of good reasons why free speech should be limited. There are so many ways I think we could make the world a better place by limiting the speech of a few jerks who abuse the privilege (simple example: "My sending SPAM is free speech!").
But, for ever 100 why we should get rid of free speech, there is one or two why we shouldn't. And those are always the large one. For every "I did insane thing x to piss people off but they can't get mad because I call it art" one comes across, there is that need for "The government is doing evil thing z" and "We need a fix for problem q that people want to sweep under the rug."
It's like that old saying: "Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others." As bad as free speech can be, that can't compare to how bad things could be without it.
I agree with you. It is sad that we had to get bloggers declared "Journalists". What is the difference between a blogger and a reporting writing a little bit every day for a newspaper about the story he is investigating as he follows it (as some have done in the past) besides the immediacy?
Not all bloggers are Journalists, but that doesn't mean no Journalists are bloggers.
I don't have an order for a 360, I'll wait. There are reasons for that (mostly price) but I have been following it closely. Here is the part I've found the most interesting.
Read the reviews of the games. The games visual quality varries drastically (reportadly). Take the GameSpot review of NBA 2K6. If you have a SDTV, it is almost indistinguisable between the XBox and XBox 360 versions (there are slight differences, but nothing noticible). But if you have an HDTV, things look agazing. During replays they say you could easily mistake it for real footage. There is supposed to be tons of animation and detail (ex: the player's shirts get wet with sweat during the course of the game). But while that looks great, they say that the croud and coach look almost like they did in the XBox version (so when compared to players, it is a bit of a visual jolt because of the quality difference). If you have an HDTV, it is supposed to be great.
Now take Tony Hawk's American Wasteland. With SDTV, it looks like the XBox version. At HDTV, it looks worse. That's what Gamespot says. The low resolution of the textures become apparent, they shimmer, and the models obviously have low poly counts (they mention it especially with the story footage scenes, as opposed to in game). This is what quick & dirty XBox 360 ports will often look like, I bet. If the game isn't designed for the system (or next gen) then it will probably look like this.
But the most important thing I've taken away in all the reviews is while things look beatuiful, there isn't that much difference if you still have a SDTV (like me). While I will buy an HDTV one day, it really sounds like buying an XBox 360 wouldn't be worth it right now for me (on a pure graphics basis). A killer game would be one thing, but they don't have any killer-apps for me yet (I want to play PGR3, but not that much).
I wonder how much this trend will continue. Will later games (1.5, 2nd gen) look better at SDTV than current games (excluding a little anti-aliasing), or have we reached the end of what SDTV can show us. My guess is the first category (because with games like Shadow of the Colossus you could have higher poly counts on the large monsters), but we'll see.
I've only seen the 360 in real life for about 5 minutes playing Call of Duty 2 on a 20" screen at Best Buy. While it looked nice, it looked just like any PC game to me (given: Call of Duty IS a PC game, so I realize that).
We'll have to reserve graphics judgements untill more native games come out (the few that are designed for the 360 like PGR3 are supposed to be amazing). But this SDTV thing is something I think more people should be aware of. I wonder how many people will plug in their 360 and their copy of Madden or NBA 2K6 and say to themselves "I spent HOW MUCH for this? It looks just like my XBox" because they only have a SDTV.
Slashdot Mirror
Like many (well, MOST) things in psychology, this is a guide and nothing more. Psychology (like most disciplines) suffers from "Physics Envy"; that is they lack the ability to make concrete statements like Physics has ("Earth's gravity is 9.8 m/s^2").
As for the "acting like an extrovert" idea, I have learned to do that, and it is the "cure" to being an introvert. All introvert really means is you have a natural tendency towards that stuff. I did it exactly the way you suggested: talking to people when I had a reason to. I've known I was an introvert for many years, but I was surprised last year when a teacher was surprised when I said I was an introvert, she thought I was an extrovert. That was when I realized that I've gotten so good at "acting" extrovert at school that I am extroverted in classroom situations.
An introvert says it, but only after thinking it over, if it is the best thing to say, the timing, thinking about what others say a bunch to try to come up with good things to say, etc. An introvert can "over analyze" things like that.
Other things happen too. When I'm going to meet someone, I'll often think up entire conversations on the way. It isn't purposeful, but I think something along the lines of "I could say X", then that leads to "then they would say Y", and it continues and before you know it I've had a little conversation in my head.
I think about all sorts of stuff. I can be walking down the street and I'll start thinking about something completely irrelevant. I'm not talking about "I remember that one birthday", I'm talking about "how you could build X" which leads to how to solve problem Y, how X would be useful in situation Z, etc.
That is sort of the whole introvert/extrovert thing. Introverts do all this stuff inside. Extroverts might do these things as conversations with other people, or they might fill that "need" in some other way with normal conversation and such.
That's how I see it. I used to be more of an introvert, and I've never been an extrovert so I can't say I've had that point of view (outside of the odd situation).
MapServer is known to compile on most versions of UNIX/Linux, Microsoft Windows and even MacOS.
Shouldn't that read:
MapServer is known to compile on most versions of UNIX/Linux, MacOS and even Microsoft Windows.?
After all, MacOS is UNIX. Of the three platforms listed, Windows is the odd man out due to lack of being derived from (or a version of) UNIX.
I agree. Like Apple, I think they need to advertise more.
But let's talk about Mindstorms. I bought one when they first came out. They cost $200. That is a lot of money for a kid's toy (you can buy a Nintendo DS and two games for that). You can only program them with the Lego Mindstorms software which I found annoying and limited (I soon found the free C complier for it on the internet). I don't even think it would work with my Mac that I have today.
What kind of sensors did you get? As I remember you got.. 2 touch sensors. Or was it 3. And two motors. They offered rotational sensors (cost extra), a vision system (costs a TON extra), etc. I just spent $200 on a Lego set (that didn't include enough pieces, if you ask me), I'm NOT going to go buy a $50-$100 camera for it (I don't know what it costs, wasn't available when I bought it).
I think that was the last Lego set I bought. I used to love Lego. But there isn't anything like it today that I know of. Legos aren't the same. I remember building house kits, airplanes kits, a moon base with a monorail, the trains, and all sorts of other stuff. Today they seem to license half their product lines and there is almost nothing "normal" like I remember.
Maybe Megablocks or one of the other "rip-offs" is better. I don't know. I never looked. But Lego priced themselves out of my market. A quick check on Amazon shows the set is still $200. What can I buy for $200 bucks? Let's look at some of the things I've been looking at lately. I can buy a little stirling engine that will run off sunlight or the heat of my had for $140. Or for the same amount, I can buy a Steam Engine kit. A working kit that includes a whistle, governor, and more. Both of those leave me with $60 to spend (a video game, perhaps?).
The older I got, the fewer Lego products I got as gifts for Christmas and such. While there were things I wanted, they just got more expensive. About the only models I remember wanting to build since I was maybe 10 or 12 (I'm currently 22) cost $100-$200.
Between the proliferation of video games, other electronic gadgets, and issues like I mentioned above, I think Lego will be a gonner soon. My parents had a hell of a time finding me an Erector set when I was a kid. I don't know if that has changed, but between that and Lego, what is there for kids to build things with these days?
So on your list of 8 things, the "game addict boyfriend" gets a pass on... 1. Based on your criteria... you should break up with him.
What is this? Isn't the point of dating trying to find someone you can spend the rest of your life with? So when you find someone who spends all their time playing video games and doesn't seem to be as interested in you as those games, what do you do? Dump them because that's not what you are looking for?
NO!
You start a support group, of course! That way you can complain about him, and stay with him! Then you can marry him and continue to yell at him for doing the same thing he did when you were dating. This is pure genius.
So many people seem to be such idiots these days in these things. If you don't like the guy's personality, DUMP THE GUY.
I have nothing against the Linux way, there is good stuff to say about it. But you if you want to compete, you can't go around saying "We're not windows so you can't criticize us for that." It is a very valid concern.
Maybe this is where some middle-man can make money. If they can create a platform to fix this problem that works on all the distros (or at least most) because they spend time working on it, and can get Linux game makers to target it for a tiny fee ($0.25 per copy?) then they could get established doing this (and giving it free to the users).
Java and Python are obvious. You can always use things like JNI and the Python-C bridge if you feel you need better speed in some parts. As long as those parts don't link to any external code, you won't have any problem. They are both very fast these days, and by using things like PyOpenGL and Java3D you can get accelerated rendering and everything. Plus you would only need one codebase for both windows, linux, and OS X.
As for a static build, you may or may not want to do that. The size of the executable will be much larger, and it will take more memory to run, but you won't have the problem of everyone has a different version. It would solve your problem.
As an odd suggestion: why not build all your code into objects and distribute those with a little script to link them on the client machine into an executable. That would fix the problem right? The problem is you couldn't strip the binary (if you do that) because the linker needs the symbols (right?). But it would solve you problem. This is my understanding of how nVidia's kernel drivers work (they have a little glue source too, which you could include). This way they don't have to put out a version for every combination under the sun.
I hope this helps. This is one area where Linux is (rather far) behind Windows and OS X. It's not much of a problem if you've got the source, but if the application is closed source (like yours) then it can be a headache. This is something that the LSB was trying to solve, but I don't know how far they got (or how many distros follow their guidelines).
I kinda figured that was the problem. I seem to remember reading you can do 8 player if everyone is in the same room, which would point to latency issues.
The first one is talking about using the controller as a baton for a music game. They talk to the guys at Harmonix (very cool company, they just released the AMAZING Guitar Hero). While the guy didn't seem to know it, the game Mad Maestro for the PS2 could be played this way with a baton controller (which I don't think was released in the US, only Japan got the controller). It was actually supposed to be a good game. Still you could easily use a pair of controllers to play onscreen drums, I think that would work great.
They mention using the controller as a sword or lightsaber. I agree with the mention that this would be problematic because there is no "feel" to it. While you can make it rumble, I don't think that will be enough. You swing your sword and your opponent blocks you. But your controller keeps going (maybe with a rumbling). I think that would be a problem.
They talk to the guy behind Trauma Center for the DS. While it is an interesting idea, I agree that the surgery wouldn't work as well as on the DS because you aren't touching a screen like with the DS. But the idea of using the controller in other parts of the game for diagnosis (otoscope, test reflexes, etc.) sounds very interesting. I like the idea he suggests about hooking up a DS for the surgery part and using the revolution controller for the rest.
That's all I can remember right now. I'll post back with more if I think of it and I think it's worth it.
I can't wait for the revolution. I don't know about its graphics. I don't know of a single game for it (they have confirmed various sequels and such but we've never seen anything about them). But I as still far more excited by it than anything else. Between the unique controller and Nintendo continuing to push against "more of the same", I can't wait. When they do something, they tend to do it right.
I hear a full 45% of Mario Kart DS owners are playing online. They may have waited to do it, but it sounds like they knew what they were doing. I haven't picked up the game yet (I intend to), but it looks great. The only thing I wish is I hear the online races are only four players. It would be nice if it was 8 (even if each DS supplied one computer player). But that is a minor gripe.
Sony's CEO recently promised they would sell in the PS3 for $300-$400, which puts them at an initial loss of $200-$300 per unit.
That said, are you sure you want to build your own PC? I built my own for years but finally got tired of it. At a certain point I decided the time wasn't worth it, and I wanted to be able to call the manufacturer if something went wrong and say "fix it".
I bought a laptop (Dell) and never regretted that I didn't build another computer. When things happened, I could call dell about it instead of searching forms on the internet to try to diagnose whatever odd thing might happen. When the capacitors on my motherboard died, I had no one to turn to. It took me forever to figure out what it was, and then I had to contact the motherboard manufacturer and get it fixed at my own cost then rebuild it myself and it was all a huge hassle that I didn't have time for at the time. I would have loved to call up Dell and say "fix it" (which I have done for a motherboard problem in a very old dell years ago) and have them come over and fix it fast.
I later switched to the Mac which has been even more hassle free than with my Dell laptop (which was very nice).
Building your own computer is nice and if you want something very special you practically have to (when I did it I wanted a dually rig which were only available pre-built in servers at the time). But if you are just building it to say "I built it" and you have done it before, you may want to skip it. It often isn't worth it any more. When you can buy a very nice Dell for $300 or less, many of the arguments for building your own are gone.
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad I built my own. I wish more people would for the experience and understanding. But if you have done it, you should think long and hard about if this is what you want for the next few years or if you want something that is manufacturer supported. I don't know how old you are or how long you have been building computers, but at a certain point you'll probably begin to think like me and my post's parent.
You may see me build a special little weird box in a few years to play with, but for an every day computer, I'll buy one.
The first thing you need to decide is things like do you want a little computer (like a Shuttle) or something special (dual-cpu SLI) etc. The odder your request, the more your field is automatically narrowed down. The rest of this will apply, but I"ll assume you just want a normal (probably 1, maybe 2 CPU) board without SLI.
Start with the big one. Do you want Intel or AMD? I would go with AMD at this moment, but the choice is yours. So now that you know that, you eliminate a large chunk of stuff. So lets say you want AMD (same basic things for Intel).
Do you want dual processor (NOT CORE, PROCESSOR). If you want multiple sockets (dual rules, but you could get the same benefit with a dual core these days). If you do, that will severely limit your chipset choices and motherboard choices (because most dual-cpu boards are designed for servers). So by reading articles on the CPU you want, you can find out which chipsets support it. Make sure to future-proof. Even if you don't want a dual-core Athlon 64 today, get a chipset that would support it. This will cut down your chipset choices further.
Then look up the chipsets (with reviews of those). These will let you see the features to find something you'd really like that would narrow things down (say SLI as only a few chipsets support that). That way you can find the chipset you want (or at least a list of those you DON'T want).
Now you know your processor type, and a chipset (or small list). Now if want SLI then based on your graphics brand many of these decisions are made for you. With this information you can go out looking various motherboard manufacturers' sites looking for boards that have what you want (or close to it). From here you read reviews and narrow things down.
I've stopped following all this stuff closely as I moved to laptops and then Mac (neither of which can you build your own). I'd say the most important thing would be the processor right now. You need to decide how much you want this system. Because while there are always new revisions coming out every few months, we are about to see some big changes. Intel is going to release their new chips (Yonah?) based on the Pentium M for the desktop. AMD will be moving to a new socket soon to enable them to use DDR2. So you may want to wait. On the other hand, the new Intel processor might not be enough for you wait, and you may see DDR as just fine (because when they first hit the street, the new CPUs and boards will be expensive and might not be worth it to you).
You've got homework to do, but if you just go looking at motherboards for features you like and try to decide the other factors (SLI, CPU, memory, etc) based on that you can be easily overwhelmed at one manufacturer's site.
I hope this helps. This is the process that I went through every time I built a computer, but like I said I used to keep up with this stuff much more than it sounds like you do (I'm now where you seem to be: I know some general stuff but I'd need a bunch of research before even starting to look at parts to buy).
All and all I think it is pretty sad. I haven't minded all the 360 coverage, but for something like this to get through seems like they aren't even checking any more. Either that or we've got a zealot on our hands (because no one objective would allow that "developer" story to get posted without at least noting it had nothing to do with developers), or they've given up on all the 360 stories and are just green-lighting many of them so people don't keep submitting them.
That article is pointless. While it has some info, the people in it are not developers, they are (in order): a president, a marketing guy, another marketing guy, another president, a designer, and a product manager.
Why the designer is almost there, the rest aren't even CLOSE to developers. I want DEVELOPER information. I've heard little bits (easier SDK than last time, hard to get full potential out of, etc.) but I would love some more in-depth info (that didn't get filtered through marketing to remove anything negative).
There is a bit in the article (many of them mentioned how they think they "Core System" is a terrible mistake, I agree), but there isn't that much. I think the last question of the three they ask is the worst. They ask "which games would you buy on launch day". OK. Whatever. How about "Would you buy one on launch day, and if so what would you buy with it?" That would show much more about how they feel about the system.
Are there any developers out there who would like to give us some better info on what it is like to develop for the 360 (or any next-gen console)? Good/bad/whatever? How are the tools? Run into any weird gotchas (I once heard that with the PS1 if you wanted to make a large flat surface (like a wall) you had to split it into many smaller polygons instead of 1 or 2 because the texture would look so terrible if you didn't)).
There is enough pointless hype around this launch anyway (it deserves hype, but there is still too much) without a bunch of guys from marketing pretending to be developers.
Why didn't they ask the janitor at a game company? Surely he has an opinion.
They don't even mention if the companies these people are from are working with the 360 or not. For all we know, none of these companies have anything to do with console games based on the information give (name only, so if you don't recognize it, you know nothing about them).
I have little doubt that I'll pick one up sooner or later, but I think I'll wait until the real thing (not the core) is $300 or so and there is a game or two I really want. Until then, I'll wait.
For what it's worth, a few minutes ago (and after my original post) I saw a entry on Joystiq about them plugging an iPod in where they showed the screenshots and everything confirming what you said.
I don't know if the 360 can read the playlist info, but that would be even better. I doubt it (Apple wouldn't tell 'em, they'd have to reverse engineer it).
But this ability is a great little feature. It takes something that was too hard to use on the XBox (because of having to rerip my CDs) and makes it easily available.
Second: No one inside the US should buy music for their phone. There are MP3 player phones out there (plus the ROKR). Of course, Sony is going to start selling Movies for cellphones; which continues to prove that the quantity of idiots in any country is always significantly greater than 0.
Third: SonyEricsson won't put iTunes on their phones. Other companies will, but not SonyEricsson. If Sony Music has any pull at all, they won't let it happen. Which is too bad. Sony is such a great company (if you don't count Sony Music and Sony Pictures).
When it gets approved, you just add the code on the back and you're all set.
Plus you could let your manager or client play with it. Put all the buttons and fields on there and set things up, then let him drag 'em around, change font sizes, etc. Sure it will probably be hideous, but he'll be happy :). They even did something like this for Steve Jobs when making the original Mac (story here at Folklore.org.)
I started college in 2001 right before the bubble burst (it was just starting). I can't tell you how many idiots there were who entered CS along with me. There were people there who had never used a computer (literally). People who didn't know how to type, people with no math skills (I'm talking sub-algebra), etc. Those people were obviously in it for the money (which they all freely admitted). There was one or two (usually older adults) who decided to do it to learn more ("I don't know anything about computers, and I wanted to learn what made them tick."), but the vast majority were in it for the cash. Even among those who were more qualified, there were many who were in it for the money. You could tell who was who pretty easily. Those with the real passion already knew many things from studying it themselves. Those who wanted the cash tended to do the bare minimum and write horrid code ("As long as it works!").
Now that the bubble has burst, those people aren't there. If you want to compare enrollment numbers, look at the numbers from 1992 or 1995 so (before the bubble). I don't know what those numbers are, but I would think they would be more representative.
From what I hear, bio-med is the new CS. That (along with possibly accounting) is where you go if you want money as it is the new in industry with high pay.
It would be interesting to see how enrollment has changed over the last 10-20 years if you could filter out the gold-diggers. It would still be higher during the bubble from people who went into computers because they found them interesting (as they became more popular, more people became exposed, so more become interested). I'd love to see that.
As to the question "Have geeks gone mainstream"? No. They haven't. They never will. They existed in the '50s. They existed in the '70s. They existed in the '90s. They exist today. That is nearly 60 years and they haven't gone "mainstream" yet. Blacks have gone mainstream in that time (they are no longer outcasts). Gays have gone mainstream (you may say they're not there yet, but they are more than geeks). And geeks existed before the 1950s too. I don't think it will ever happen. We may get some acceptance, some respect, but we're not going to be mainstream. We're never going to see "pro-geeks" like we see "pro-atheletes".
At least not any time soon.
It's odd that so many things are "free speech" and people will rush to defend them as though the country would fall apart without them (many pieces of "art") yet are silent on real free speech (some journalistic blogs). Whether that is due to ignorance ("All blogs are just people writing about what their cat did today and other pointless stuff"), an agenda ("I support the views of the first group, not the second above"), or some third reason is left as an exercise to the reader.
But I agree. Having to enumerate who qualifies for "free speech" is a dangerous trend. Hopefully it will reverse its self soon.
But, for ever 100 why we should get rid of free speech, there is one or two why we shouldn't. And those are always the large one. For every "I did insane thing x to piss people off but they can't get mad because I call it art" one comes across, there is that need for "The government is doing evil thing z" and "We need a fix for problem q that people want to sweep under the rug."
It's like that old saying: "Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others." As bad as free speech can be, that can't compare to how bad things could be without it.
I agree with you. It is sad that we had to get bloggers declared "Journalists". What is the difference between a blogger and a reporting writing a little bit every day for a newspaper about the story he is investigating as he follows it (as some have done in the past) besides the immediacy?
Not all bloggers are Journalists, but that doesn't mean no Journalists are bloggers.
Read the reviews of the games. The games visual quality varries drastically (reportadly). Take the GameSpot review of NBA 2K6. If you have a SDTV, it is almost indistinguisable between the XBox and XBox 360 versions (there are slight differences, but nothing noticible). But if you have an HDTV, things look agazing. During replays they say you could easily mistake it for real footage. There is supposed to be tons of animation and detail (ex: the player's shirts get wet with sweat during the course of the game). But while that looks great, they say that the croud and coach look almost like they did in the XBox version (so when compared to players, it is a bit of a visual jolt because of the quality difference). If you have an HDTV, it is supposed to be great.
Now take Tony Hawk's American Wasteland. With SDTV, it looks like the XBox version. At HDTV, it looks worse. That's what Gamespot says. The low resolution of the textures become apparent, they shimmer, and the models obviously have low poly counts (they mention it especially with the story footage scenes, as opposed to in game). This is what quick & dirty XBox 360 ports will often look like, I bet. If the game isn't designed for the system (or next gen) then it will probably look like this.
But the most important thing I've taken away in all the reviews is while things look beatuiful, there isn't that much difference if you still have a SDTV (like me). While I will buy an HDTV one day, it really sounds like buying an XBox 360 wouldn't be worth it right now for me (on a pure graphics basis). A killer game would be one thing, but they don't have any killer-apps for me yet (I want to play PGR3, but not that much).
I wonder how much this trend will continue. Will later games (1.5, 2nd gen) look better at SDTV than current games (excluding a little anti-aliasing), or have we reached the end of what SDTV can show us. My guess is the first category (because with games like Shadow of the Colossus you could have higher poly counts on the large monsters), but we'll see.
I've only seen the 360 in real life for about 5 minutes playing Call of Duty 2 on a 20" screen at Best Buy. While it looked nice, it looked just like any PC game to me (given: Call of Duty IS a PC game, so I realize that).
We'll have to reserve graphics judgements untill more native games come out (the few that are designed for the 360 like PGR3 are supposed to be amazing). But this SDTV thing is something I think more people should be aware of. I wonder how many people will plug in their 360 and their copy of Madden or NBA 2K6 and say to themselves "I spent HOW MUCH for this? It looks just like my XBox" because they only have a SDTV.