Now if it just doesn't crash your browser? My browser never needed help crashing itself...As much as I liked Netscape releasing their browser for linux, it's not the most stable package in the world...
Actually some people have claimed that there is no real racial divide in terms on net access, but it's rather a reflection of racial disparities in terms of economics. An article at the New York Times (the cgi-enhanced http address doesn't work if I paste it here; do a search for "racial" in the Technology section) mentions a few interesting studies done on the subject. The point, I think, should be made in terms of class rather than race; poorer Americans are much less likely to use the internet, and presumably will be less likely to vote online.
Just out of curiousity, was this read/edited by a lawyer to make it legally ironclad? Seems straightforward enough, just like the GPL, but just curious as to how well it can stand up in court.
Anyone else worried about what this might really mean? I mean, it's not really a console, it's just a PC. Does this mean MS is moving into the hardware arena (beyond their peripherals)? I think that's a lot more significant than just some new game console...I hope they put the same quality engineering into it as they do into their software (maybe they should paint the blue death screen on the monitor and save on the electricity); at least they won't be able to make the same old "it's the hardware's fault, not Windows'" excuse. Is that coherent? I can't tell anymore, I've been up for too long.
Why do you call XML proprietary? Seems just about as open as a data format can be, and it's gaining popularity as a syndication format over formats like RSS or anpa precisely because of that openness...
I've tried them, and thought while they were better than most of the stuff that's being thrown at us, the user interface was a little too slow. Combat seemed to take too long, and there was too much of it. But maybe I've just gotten too old and impatient.
Just like in a lot of other industries, the money drove out the creativity. There's more drama, creativity, and dignity in Nethack than in the ostentatious, 3-D accelerated pieces of fluff that come out now. The problem seems to be the same thing that hit the movie industry; design by focus group. Paradoxically the games have gotten less complex from a player's perspective as they get more so from a designer's viewpoint. Look how much they fit into Wasteland or Ultima V; instead of filling the CDs with 500 meg cut scenes I'd love to see a version of those old games with more modest graphics and a much bigger world to explore.
Another case of software development being years ahead of the hardware and infrastructure? Software development has always been years behind hardware development; the bandwidth problem is valid, but it's one of the few times in the history of computers that it's happened, and rather than being a result of faulty design it's simply vastly increased volume in internet traffic.
This actually isn't the only degree program in game programming. Digipen University in Vancouver (there's a Redmond campus too, though I don't know how suspicious we should be about that) has offered one for a few years, and it is reportedly quite rigorous. I'm not sure how broad the program is in terms of the non-technical disciplines. It was sponsored by Nintendo in an attempt to address a perceived industry shortage in game programmers...
I can just picture it; I'm walking down the street, and the phone rings. A HAL 9000-like voice: "I really think you should enter the Sears to your left and purchase a new gas grill."
I wonder what would happen if it were granted; could those individuals whose genetic material is being used as the basis for the human genome project patent themselves, then gain royalties from all derived research? Though if it IS granted then it would just mean that reality makes even less sense than I thought.
The patent system in the U.S. has become almost ludicrously open in terms of what can be patented. Particularly repellent is the patenting of human genomes (who cares about medical research when there's profits to be made: http://www.latimes.com//business/updates/lat_paten t000207.htm). The fact that companies have started patenting things that they didn't even develop, like Amazon or RiceTec(http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/T ED/basmati.htm) is really digusting. Compared to them, Microsoft doesn't even seem that bad anymore.
Here we pay a fixed rate for a local call, regardless of how much time we're on. Nothing like paying 12 cents for a 13 hour ISP call... poor Europeans...
I can't think of a single MAJOR difference between buying something online and ordering it over the phone. So it's a little easier, and a little more flexible. It doesn't have some moral superiority that people have tried to give to it; what seems to have happened is that people have mixed up the vision for the internet 10 years ago with the vision that corporate America has coopted. I buy a lot online, but I wouldn't lose any sleep if we saw a reduction in the e-commerce that has turned every web page into a billboard.
I agree; higher resolution would be a lot more useful and pleasing to the eye. Wait until you can't differentiate between a printed page and a palm screen.....as for the battery life, as much as I love my Vx, it doesn't stay powered up for that long. Though it's designers probably intended it be more for quickly jotting down notes than playing lengthy games of PocketChess....
I didn't say for the benefit of the market, I just said they realized that they were not, and could not be, the sole provider of those technologies to the world. The second-source rule was a government requirement; Intel probably thought that a substantial portion of buyers would be government workers, so acted accordingly. Microsoft is getting government pressure to open the system, and they're fighting it. Two different reactions to similar situations.
Corporate loyalty bordering on fanatacism seems to be a trait that a lot of companies try to instill in their employees. I wouldn't want a career at Microsoft, but I wouldn't mind working there for a few weeks, just out of curiousity. As for the posts praising Microsoft's organizational ability, there isn't really much need to develop a succesful management strategy when your profit margins are unbelievably high. In a less wealthy company employees wouldn't be able to spend most their time "waiting" for someone to give them something to do. Which also brings up the question as to how good are the people they recruit? We've all dealt with the substandard software, how many first-rate programmers can they actually have working there? Maybe the reason they don't release the source as open is because they're too embarassed to show it...(an op-ed piece that appeared in the NYT quotes a former programmer on the issue: there's a copy at http://www.reason.com/opeds/vp110899.html)
Other companies have been in Microsoft's position, and they haven't behaved that way. Intel opened up the architecture to the 8086 chip; IBM opened up the architecture for their desktop system; both of them could have held a substantial monopoly in the PC field, but they didn't. I'm not saying they did it out of altruism, but they at least recognized that it was more beneficial to help create a larger market than to try for 100% market share.
I could see.cx domains becoming sort of a international, non-commercial domain. No indigenous population and an ethnic mix means (hopefully) no intense nationalism and resentment over "foreigners" taking up.cx addresses. Maybe in a few years most sites with something real to say (instead of products to sell) will have.cx in their addresses...
Slashdot Mirror
Now if it just doesn't crash your browser? My browser never needed help crashing itself...As much as I liked Netscape releasing their browser for linux, it's not the most stable package in the world...
Corel recently announced they'd release a free (beer not speech of course) version of photo-paint 9 this summer...
Actually some people have claimed that there is no real racial divide in terms on net access, but it's rather a reflection of racial disparities in terms of economics. An article at the New York Times (the cgi-enhanced http address doesn't work if I paste it here; do a search for "racial" in the Technology section) mentions a few interesting studies done on the subject. The point, I think, should be made in terms of class rather than race; poorer Americans are much less likely to use the internet, and presumably will be less likely to vote online.
Just out of curiousity, was this read/edited by a lawyer to make it legally ironclad? Seems straightforward enough, just like the GPL, but just curious as to how well it can stand up in court.
Anyone else worried about what this might really mean? I mean, it's not really a console, it's just a PC. Does this mean MS is moving into the hardware arena (beyond their peripherals)? I think that's a lot more significant than just some new game console...I hope they put the same quality engineering into it as they do into their software (maybe they should paint the blue death screen on the monitor and save on the electricity); at least they won't be able to make the same old "it's the hardware's fault, not Windows'" excuse. Is that coherent? I can't tell anymore, I've been up for too long.
Since when do you have to put the port number in during telnet? It defaults to 23, which is ta-da, exactly the port the telnet server defaults to.
Why do you call XML proprietary? Seems just about as open as a data format can be, and it's gaining popularity as a syndication format over formats like RSS or anpa precisely because of that openness...
I've tried them, and thought while they were better than most of the stuff that's being thrown at us, the user interface was a little too slow. Combat seemed to take too long, and there was too much of it. But maybe I've just gotten too old and impatient.
Just like in a lot of other industries, the money drove out the creativity. There's more drama, creativity, and dignity in Nethack than in the ostentatious, 3-D accelerated pieces of fluff that come out now. The problem seems to be the same thing that hit the movie industry; design by focus group. Paradoxically the games have gotten less complex from a player's perspective as they get more so from a designer's viewpoint. Look how much they fit into Wasteland or Ultima V; instead of filling the CDs with 500 meg cut scenes I'd love to see a version of those old games with more modest graphics and a much bigger world to explore.
Another case of software development being years ahead of the hardware and infrastructure? Software development has always been years behind hardware development; the bandwidth problem is valid, but it's one of the few times in the history of computers that it's happened, and rather than being a result of faulty design it's simply vastly increased volume in internet traffic.
This actually isn't the only degree program in game programming. Digipen University in Vancouver
(there's a Redmond campus too, though I don't know how suspicious we should be about that) has offered one for a few years, and it is reportedly quite rigorous. I'm not sure how broad the program is in terms of the non-technical disciplines. It was sponsored by Nintendo in an attempt to address a perceived industry shortage
in game programmers...
I can just picture it; I'm walking down the street, and the phone rings. A HAL 9000-like voice: "I really think you should enter the Sears to your left and purchase a new gas grill."
I've been sitting here for 5 minutes trying to think of a witty/sarcastic thing to type, but words fail me.
I wonder what would happen if it were granted; could those individuals whose genetic material is being used as the basis for the human genome project patent themselves, then gain royalties from all derived research? Though if it IS granted then it would just mean that reality makes even less sense than I thought.
The patent system in the U.S. has become almost ludicrously open in terms of what can be patented. Particularly repellent is the patenting of human genomes (who cares about medical research when there's profits to be made: http://www.latimes.com//business/updates/lat_paten t000207.htm). The fact that companies have started patenting things that they didn't even develop, like Amazon or RiceTec(http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/T ED/basmati.htm) is really digusting. Compared to them, Microsoft doesn't even seem that bad anymore.
Here we pay a fixed rate for a local call, regardless of how much time we're on. Nothing like paying 12 cents for a 13 hour ISP call... poor Europeans...
I can't think of a single MAJOR difference between buying something online and ordering it over the phone. So it's a little easier, and a little more flexible. It doesn't have some moral superiority that people have tried to give to it; what seems to have happened is that people have mixed up the vision for the internet 10 years ago with the vision that corporate America has coopted. I buy a lot online, but I wouldn't lose any sleep if we saw a reduction in the e-commerce that has turned every web page into a billboard.
Because of copyright issues I'd assume. A lot of companies (quite understandably) like to have control over whatever has their logo.
of course, you all could have seen it in NYC while you were at the linuxworld expo...
I agree; higher resolution would be a lot more useful and pleasing to the eye. Wait until you can't differentiate between a printed page and a palm screen.....as for the battery life, as much as I love my Vx, it doesn't stay powered up for that long. Though it's designers probably intended it be more for quickly jotting down notes than playing lengthy games of PocketChess....
I didn't say for the benefit of the market, I just said they realized that they were not, and could not be, the sole provider of those technologies to the world. The second-source rule was a government requirement; Intel probably thought that a substantial portion of buyers would be government workers, so acted accordingly. Microsoft is getting government pressure to open the system, and they're fighting it. Two different reactions to similar situations.
Corporate loyalty bordering on fanatacism seems to be a trait that a lot of companies try to instill in their employees. I wouldn't want a career at Microsoft, but I wouldn't mind working there for a few weeks, just out of curiousity. As for the posts praising Microsoft's organizational ability, there isn't really much need to develop a succesful management strategy when your profit margins are unbelievably high. In a less wealthy company employees wouldn't be able to spend most their time "waiting" for someone to give them something to do. Which also brings up the question as to how good are the people they recruit? We've all dealt with the substandard software, how many first-rate programmers can they actually have working there? Maybe the reason they don't release the source as open is because they're too embarassed to show it...(an op-ed piece that appeared in the NYT quotes a former programmer on the issue: there's a copy at http://www.reason.com/opeds/vp110899.html)
Laidback, easy life? Where exactly did you get that idea?
Other companies have been in Microsoft's position, and they haven't behaved that way. Intel opened up the architecture to the 8086 chip; IBM opened up the architecture for their desktop system; both of them could have held a substantial monopoly in the PC field, but they didn't. I'm not saying they did it out of altruism, but they at least recognized that it was more beneficial to help create a larger market than to try for 100% market share.
I could see .cx domains becoming sort of a international, non-commercial domain. No indigenous population and an ethnic mix means (hopefully) no intense nationalism and resentment over "foreigners" taking up .cx addresses. Maybe in a few years most sites with something real to say (instead of products to sell) will have .cx in their addresses...