Sorry. You can't own Xena. She's copyrighted. Callisto on the other hand is public domain so you can do whatever you want with her. Although remember that she's actually a nymph (and unfortunately not a nympho, unless you happen to be Zeus)
Surely it would have been nicer to have let the QNX people know first so that they could let their customers know the problem.
Re:Not quake! ??? what then...
on
Carmack Speaks
·
· Score: 4
ID's next game will be a totally original departure called PaqMan. This will involve guiding a tough yellow circle around a maze, and blowing the hell out of ghosts.
Surely everyone realises that webcams have been around for a lot longer than this. The Cambridge Coffee pot claims to be the first, dating back to 1991. It wasn't strictly a webcam at the time since the web hadn't been invented yet, but the principles the same.
They would complain to you first, assuming that you have a meaty server and hundreds of customers. From far enough away, its not possible to tell what sort of connection you have.
Then you have the possibility of having multiple dialups. Call charges in the UK are a bit prohibitive though.
I think the idea is based on the concept of taking a bomb on a plane, so that you know that if there is a bomb, you have it and you know you won't set it off.
The idea here is that since there are going to be n security flaws, Microsoft might as well know where they are, so they put in deliberate ones.
If you could prove loss of earnings as a direct result of someone threatening libel, and making unfounded claims then you could sue them for defamation and loss of earnings.
Not that I'd like to see this. It would mean an escalation of the problem rather than a solution.
ISP's are responsible for deciding whether content on their servers is libelous or not If they decide something isn't libelous and the courts disagree with them, then they have to pay a lot of money If they decide something is libelous when it isn't, they lose a few hundred pounds in revenue from web hosting. Of course they chooses the safer option.
The whole situation is totaly screwed up. Why should it be up to the ISP to decide what is and isn't defamatory? Internet publishing is different from dead tree publishing in that articles can be immediately unpublished. We need fair laws to cover the internet, and should not try to shoehorn existing laws to fit. Perhaps false accusations of libel should also be considered libelous.
The German Music Industry is already planing a filter system
How nice of them. I trust that this will be an open protocol rather than a specific implementation, and it will give no false positives. And I'm sure that this can be implemented at no cost at all to the ISP's or Germany's total bandwidth. After all, I'm sure they realise that only a small proportion of internet traffic is actually illegal music.
Actually, how will this work? If it just dumps infringing packets, they'll simply be resent with a smaller packet size.
Although the article seems fairly clueless, I think that this was actually a discussion forum. This could mean that the data was merely being sent through their servers.
It did close the forum after learning that it was being used illegally.
DirectX includes DirectDraw, DirectSound, Direct3D, DirectInput. All of these are designed to work together. OpenGL has glut. One point to DX for flexibility.
OpenGL has had implicit support for accelerated hardware Transform and lighting since Beta versions. DirectX has only had support for this since version 7. Applications have to be specifically coded to support it. Score is 1-1 so far.
Claims that DirectX is faster due to lower function call overhead are not strictly speaking true. Use of Display lists will speed up OpenGL. I think I'll call this one a draw.
OpenGL has a very easy to understand API. DirectX is cryptic, and still requires some Windows coding to set up the display. Another point to OpenGL.
Direct3D allows you to test whether operations are hardware accelerated and turn them off if the quality improvement isn't worth the speed loss. OpenGL will always emulate this in software Since this is about fast games, I think DirectX deserves a point here.
DirectX has better software emulation speed.
DirectX has better Windows hardware support OpenGL has better non Windows support. This includes Macs. This reduces the cost of porting games.
This points to a general benefit to using DirectX, but does not make it "Far superior". What OpenGL really needs is a set of other API's that are suitable for games, and are compatible (and similar in structure).
Pfah! You and your PC's! The difference engine was doing what the modern PC does years ago (take up a lot of space for no major benefit). If you want a real computer then use a giant stone circle.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it was a joke. It is a windows version, just not a Windows version.
It was used in the cartoon series allegedly. Paramount has copyright on that.
Sorry. You can't own Xena. She's copyrighted. Callisto on the other hand is public domain so you can do whatever you want with her. Although remember that she's actually a nymph (and unfortunately not a nympho, unless you happen to be Zeus)
but you literally could write an xfiles plot generator.
Like This one perhaps?
And Dot would be... Dorothy from Wizard of Oz?
I'm starting to see the Wizard of Oz in a different way.
I just logged into the building and used lynx on it to look at the site.
Is there going to be a port of the X Window System for this display?
Surely it would have been nicer to have let the QNX people know first so that they could let their customers know the problem.
ID's next game will be a totally original departure called PaqMan. This will involve guiding a tough yellow circle around a maze, and blowing the hell out of ghosts.
Nothing!? Okay, its perfectly adequate at what it does, but how about these for some things that are wrong with it
Its windows only
It requires a load of cryptic Windows programming before you start
Its a lot harder to learn than OpenGL.
Still, As a low level API essentially used as a driver interface, is not too bad.
Persistence of vision (i.e no percieved flicker) is somewhere around 25-30Hz. It is still possible to spot events that take less time.
I wonder how the latency between rendering a frame and displaying aframe is affected though.
Surely everyone realises that webcams have been around for a lot longer than this. The Cambridge Coffee pot claims to be the first, dating back to 1991. It wasn't strictly a webcam at the time since the web hadn't been invented yet, but the principles the same.
Everyone wants to be famous (well, maybe not absolutely everyone....) This is just a way to do it.
They would complain to you first, assuming that you have a meaty server and hundreds of customers. From far enough away, its not possible to tell what sort of connection you have.
Then you have the possibility of having multiple dialups. Call charges in the UK are a bit prohibitive though.
I think the idea is based on the concept of taking a bomb on a plane, so that you know that if there is a bomb, you have it and you know you won't set it off.
The idea here is that since there are going to be n security flaws, Microsoft might as well know where they are, so they put in deliberate ones.
3) Sue the person who complained
If you could prove loss of earnings as a direct result of someone threatening libel, and making unfounded claims then you could sue them for defamation and loss of earnings.
Not that I'd like to see this. It would mean an escalation of the problem rather than a solution.
To summarize the whole situation:
ISP's are responsible for deciding whether content on their servers is libelous or not
If they decide something isn't libelous and the courts disagree with them, then they have to pay a lot of money
If they decide something is libelous when it isn't, they lose a few hundred pounds in revenue from web hosting.
Of course they chooses the safer option.
The whole situation is totaly screwed up. Why should it be up to the ISP to decide what is and isn't defamatory? Internet publishing is different from dead tree publishing in that articles can be immediately unpublished. We need fair laws to cover the internet, and should not try to shoehorn existing laws to fit. Perhaps false accusations of libel should also be considered libelous.
Okay, rant over.
It should be relatively easy to encrypt data that is impossible to distinguish from noise...
I think if it becomes possible to distinguish from noise, you've found the key.
They would have to have reasonable cause to suspect that the random noise was encrypted data.
Of course with the right key (especially a simple one like an XOR based system), any data could be used to represent any message of the same length.
The German Music Industry is already planing a filter system
How nice of them. I trust that this will be an open protocol rather than a specific implementation, and it will give no false positives. And I'm sure that this can be implemented at no cost at all to the ISP's or Germany's total bandwidth. After all, I'm sure they realise that only a small proportion of internet traffic is actually illegal music.
Actually, how will this work? If it just dumps infringing packets, they'll simply be resent with a smaller packet size.
Then there's BeOS
2D support -
1. Turn on.
Or for 3D support -
1. Buy Graphics card company
2. Hire a team of skilled driver writers
3........
Although the article seems fairly clueless, I think that this was actually a discussion forum. This could mean that the data was merely being sent through their servers.
It did close the forum after learning that it was being used illegally.
DirectX includes DirectDraw, DirectSound, Direct3D, DirectInput. All of these are designed to work together.
OpenGL has glut.
One point to DX for flexibility.
OpenGL has had implicit support for accelerated hardware Transform and lighting since Beta versions.
DirectX has only had support for this since version 7. Applications have to be specifically coded to support it.
Score is 1-1 so far.
Claims that DirectX is faster due to lower function call overhead are not strictly speaking true. Use of Display lists will speed up OpenGL.
I think I'll call this one a draw.
OpenGL has a very easy to understand API.
DirectX is cryptic, and still requires some Windows coding to set up the display.
Another point to OpenGL.
Direct3D allows you to test whether operations are hardware accelerated and turn them off if the quality improvement isn't worth the speed loss.
OpenGL will always emulate this in software
Since this is about fast games, I think DirectX deserves a point here.
DirectX has better software emulation speed.
DirectX has better Windows hardware support
OpenGL has better non Windows support. This includes Macs. This reduces the cost of porting games.
This points to a general benefit to using DirectX, but does not make it "Far superior". What OpenGL really needs is a set of other API's that are suitable for games, and are compatible (and similar in structure).
Pfah! You and your PC's! The difference engine was doing what the modern PC does years ago (take up a lot of space for no major benefit). If you want a real computer then use a giant stone circle.
I just think it's a shame that 19th century engineering wasn't up to the manufacture of these things
Didn't they use the same precision that was available at the time to prove it could have been done?
I know. Its disgraceful the way Corel visit people and hold a gun to their head until they agree to buy WordPerfect!
A friend of mine put "I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you" as an answer to a maths question. The University really didn't like that.