"although large downloads will still clog up your line." There are QoS scripts out there that prevent such things from happening. In fact, they've been around for years.
If your ping is not consistent, you'll get annoying jittering and server-side compensation will suffer. If you can get a 130ms constant ping, that's OK (to a certain extent), but a ping that varies between 50 and 130ms will lead to issues.
As for the games it happens in, I've had issues with CS:S and UT2004. I don't really play any other FPS games over the internet, so I don't know how other games perform.
Most consumer grade routers have either zero QoS or QoS so bad it doesn't make a noticable difference.
Personally, I have such bad experience with hardware routers that I'm no longer going to bother with them . The extra flexibility a cheap Linux box gives is worth it.
Your ping time means sweet FA. I can show you situations where a 130 ping is unplayable due to momentary spikes in latency. On top of it all, in FiringSquad's review, you lose a massive amount of bandwidth with "GameFuel" enabled (in some situations, 50% of your download disappears), which doesn't happen with Alex's scripts.
According to the ExtremeTech review, the ping times are around 300-400ms when the connection is being heavily utilised. Well, that's useless for the target market. Alex Clouter's QoS scripts did a lot better 2 years ago: http://www.digriz.org.uk/jdg-qos-script/
The only reason non-iPods don't play AAC is because the vast majority of people using AAC are using iTunes and thus the iPod. If there was a market for supporting AAC in a portable, most players that support WMA or Ogg could be firmware upgraded to support it.
As far as I know, no open source software has been found to have mis-appropriated source code in it, yet it has been shown that a number of closed-source products have mis-appropriated code from open source projects in them, making the argument even more silly.
I've done my fair share of under-estimating, but my manager (heh) often estimates up to four times less time than my most optimistic estimates. We did a time-cost exercise for a new feature a few weeks back where I said "that doesn't sound right, there's no way two guys can get this done in two days" and everybody just assumed it was me being my "pessimistic" self. Well, let's just say it's not ready two weeks later.
"Yes, I've managed client relationships before and large (multimillion dollar) implementation and customization projects. I have reasonably good people skills, and still found these problems generally insurmountable when my client's company had a completely nontechnical person in the role of project sponsor and manager on their side." I'm in a similar situation, albeit in a much smaller scope. Care to share some of the techniques you've used to resolve the situation? I could use any help I can get:)
"asking developers how long they think XYZ will take doesn't really work well." Really? They're the people who actually have to do the work, surely they're the *only* ones who know how long something will actually take. If you don't believe their answers, you have bigger issues than your project's schedule.
"So you could safely say, that at the start of the second trimester, plus a bit, is when the baby is a seperate human life, right?" Don't put words in my mouth.
"Well, what happens when one child is born four or five days closer, and 16 weeks? It is going to happen at some point. Medical development is such that sooner or later, probably sooner, it will happen. Then what? Where all those babies aborted at 16 weeks now considered murdered? Or is it a case by case basis? If it's case by case, then any pre-birth age is acceptable, since you could never know." I don't consider abortion murder. Essentially, somebody has to pay the cost of that foetus's development if abortion doesn't occur. If it's the "mother", I don't believe she should be forced to go through the pregnancy if she doesn't want it. After all, there are people forced into pregnancy.
If the mother shouldn't have to pay the cost (emotional, physical and financial), who should? Premature birth means life-support equipment. Who should pay for it? The state? I don't want to end up paying for all the would-be-aborted babies in the world. Call it selfish, but that's the way it is.
So, where does that leave us? Well, some kind benefactor could offer to cover the cost. In that case, the choice should be the mother's. It's a part of her, it's a parasite feeding off her. It's a part of her body, why *shouldn't* she be allowed to have it terminated? With the advancement of medical science, it'll be possible to clone me from a few random cells. Should that be allowed?
Microwaves do one thing: heat whatever's placed inside them (assuming it contains water). Cars do one thing: take you from A to B. TVs do one thing: Display an image from an input signal.
Computers are general purpose devices. They can do many things. With flexibility comes complexity, there's only so much you can do to avoid that.
Define "reasonable compromise." Strangely enough, what may be reasonable to you is not reasonable to me. I have enough computers that I would actually hit the limit of the number of computers I could have my music on under the iTunes limits.
Tell me, what's the reason for restricting iTunes' streaming capabilities? It used to be five simultaneous users, now it's 5 per day. w00t.
The reason people won't accept these so-called "reasonable compromises" is because there is no such thing as a reasonable compromise with DRM. By accepting DRM you're saying it's OK for the RIAA to re-define how you listen to your music on a whim. It's not reasonable at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Client prediction is not perfect. For example, it can't predict when players will make sudden turns round corners.
"although large downloads will still clog up your line."
There are QoS scripts out there that prevent such things from happening. In fact, they've been around for years.
If your ping is not consistent, you'll get annoying jittering and server-side compensation will suffer. If you can get a 130ms constant ping, that's OK (to a certain extent), but a ping that varies between 50 and 130ms will lead to issues.
As for the games it happens in, I've had issues with CS:S and UT2004. I don't really play any other FPS games over the internet, so I don't know how other games perform.
Most consumer grade routers have either zero QoS or QoS so bad it doesn't make a noticable difference.
Personally, I have such bad experience with hardware routers that I'm no longer going to bother with them . The extra flexibility a cheap Linux box gives is worth it.
Your ping time means sweet FA. I can show you situations where a 130 ping is unplayable due to momentary spikes in latency. On top of it all, in FiringSquad's review, you lose a massive amount of bandwidth with "GameFuel" enabled (in some situations, 50% of your download disappears), which doesn't happen with Alex's scripts.
According to the ExtremeTech review, the ping times are around 300-400ms when the connection is being heavily utilised. Well, that's useless for the target market. Alex Clouter's QoS scripts did a lot better 2 years ago:
http://www.digriz.org.uk/jdg-qos-script/
There are some cases you can use bugger where you can't use wanker, though, such as "bugger me backwards with a stiff wire brush."
The only reason non-iPods don't play AAC is because the vast majority of people using AAC are using iTunes and thus the iPod. If there was a market for supporting AAC in a portable, most players that support WMA or Ogg could be firmware upgraded to support it.
As far as I know, no open source software has been found to have mis-appropriated source code in it, yet it has been shown that a number of closed-source products have mis-appropriated code from open source projects in them, making the argument even more silly.
And that's different from closed-source software how?
The /3GB switch does not expand the address space of all programs, though:/ 12/213468.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/08
Windows NT used the Alpha in 32-bit mode, not 64-bit.
By default, 32-bit XP gives user-mode applications 2GB of addressable space, leaving 2GB for the kernel's address space.
That's the sound of millions of dollars going down the drain!
I've done my fair share of under-estimating, but my manager (heh) often estimates up to four times less time than my most optimistic estimates. We did a time-cost exercise for a new feature a few weeks back where I said "that doesn't sound right, there's no way two guys can get this done in two days" and everybody just assumed it was me being my "pessimistic" self. Well, let's just say it's not ready two weeks later.
"Yes, I've managed client relationships before and large (multimillion dollar) implementation and customization projects. I have reasonably good people skills, and still found these problems generally insurmountable when my client's company had a completely nontechnical person in the role of project sponsor and manager on their side." :)
I'm in a similar situation, albeit in a much smaller scope. Care to share some of the techniques you've used to resolve the situation? I could use any help I can get
"asking developers how long they think XYZ will take doesn't really work well."
Really? They're the people who actually have to do the work, surely they're the *only* ones who know how long something will actually take. If you don't believe their answers, you have bigger issues than your project's schedule.
"So you could safely say, that at the start of the second trimester, plus a bit, is when the baby is a seperate human life, right?"
Don't put words in my mouth.
"Well, what happens when one child is born four or five days closer, and 16 weeks? It is going to happen at some point. Medical development is such that sooner or later, probably sooner, it will happen. Then what? Where all those babies aborted at 16 weeks now considered murdered? Or is it a case by case basis? If it's case by case, then any pre-birth age is acceptable, since you could never know."
I don't consider abortion murder. Essentially, somebody has to pay the cost of that foetus's development if abortion doesn't occur. If it's the "mother", I don't believe she should be forced to go through the pregnancy if she doesn't want it. After all, there are people forced into pregnancy.
If the mother shouldn't have to pay the cost (emotional, physical and financial), who should? Premature birth means life-support equipment. Who should pay for it? The state? I don't want to end up paying for all the would-be-aborted babies in the world. Call it selfish, but that's the way it is.
So, where does that leave us? Well, some kind benefactor could offer to cover the cost. In that case, the choice should be the mother's. It's a part of her, it's a parasite feeding off her. It's a part of her body, why *shouldn't* she be allowed to have it terminated? With the advancement of medical science, it'll be possible to clone me from a few random cells. Should that be allowed?
Try removing a foetus any time inside the first trimester and see if it survives.
Microwaves do one thing: heat whatever's placed inside them (assuming it contains water). Cars do one thing: take you from A to B. TVs do one thing: Display an image from an input signal.
Computers are general purpose devices. They can do many things. With flexibility comes complexity, there's only so much you can do to avoid that.
A friend of mine has written some QoS scripts that do just that:
http://www.digriz.org.uk/jdg-qos-script/
Care to back up those statements with some evidence?
Err....no. You're thinking of trademarks.
Fair point, but the five per day limit would actually impact on myself and my housemates, thus it's yet another reason for me to avoid it.
Define "reasonable compromise." Strangely enough, what may be reasonable to you is not reasonable to me. I have enough computers that I would actually hit the limit of the number of computers I could have my music on under the iTunes limits.
Tell me, what's the reason for restricting iTunes' streaming capabilities? It used to be five simultaneous users, now it's 5 per day. w00t.
The reason people won't accept these so-called "reasonable compromises" is because there is no such thing as a reasonable compromise with DRM. By accepting DRM you're saying it's OK for the RIAA to re-define how you listen to your music on a whim. It's not reasonable at all.