these are actually different things - you can be a war hero and a terrorist at the same time.
you get to be called a war hero for having distinguished yourself by fighting in a war. "having distinguished" is decided by someone according to their agenda (nothing inherently wrong with that).
you get to be called a terrorist when you fight for something by committing acts of terror - targeting non-combatants in order to inspire terror, rather then to achieve a military goal. such a tactic could indirectly lead to a military goal (e.g. making a military campaign unsustainable, causing a loss of support for some policy, etc'). what is a terrorist act is reasonably clear, but not everyone who commits acts of terror gets to be called a terrorist. this again gets decided by someone, according to their agenda, etc'.
[a side note on morality: ethics of war contains many grey areas, but targeting non-combatants directly or indirectly is always taken to be immoral (it is possible for non-combatants to get hurt even when not targeted, so that's a grey area).]
I still haven't given up on a simpler solution - I thought about putting up a simple EM cage around the relevant cards (something conductive, grounded and relatively small/light), but I haven't had time yet to improvise.
do you know anything about the feasibility of this? (i.e. - should I even bother?)
in all the systems that I used, I found the amount of noise in the audio output to be very noticeable.
it gets worse the more activity you have in the case (e.g. disk activity).
I'm looking for a way to reduce the EM noise inside the box - I think this is critical to any setup with a PC as the audio source.
while it would be hard to reach these people and to be heard clearer than microsoft, a chance does present itself:
- the people signed on this response are a well respected and interesting group, joining forces.
- the response itself is well phrased and contains some good points about microsofts strategy and how their words and their actions don't seem to meet.
- after the antitrust trial, the public is more aware that there is possibly something wrong with microsoft.
so, if we're lucky, it could reach the general media. this could then end up actually serving to expose open source and its freedoms to the public and to contrast it with microsoft strategy.
hopefully, they may have set themselves up for something they haven't prepared for... (but let's not underestimate ms marketing/communication/fud skills)
This does make sense, and although it can be argued against on some level - my point isn't to argue with it. I don't really mind if the Nvidia-approved driver for their cards is closed source. If it makes sense for them and their customers accept it then it's their own choice to make. My problem is with them not releasing specs. This is what's holding back open-source drivers. I don't mind if the open-source drivers are unofficial. I don't see why Nvidia would stand in the way of such drivers, even if they want the official version to be closed. Even on windows you get to choose between the official reference-drivers from Nvidia and the vendor specific drivers (Creative, Diamond, etc'), So it doesn't seem anyone minds having to choose.
I have enough faith in OSS to think that there is a pretty good chance that the open drivers could become better. Even if not, I would still be happy to know that my card can remain supported whatever happens. - I find nothing in your post that explains why nvidia doesn't release the specs. This is what I'd really like to know...
(btw, if the specs are released, it would create an interesting test case for open source. I'd really like to see that, and I think many people and companies would too...)
Here's a thought: We all know the OSS movement got the initial "nod of approval" for doing server programs - which blow the socks off the corresponding commercial software. This front has (and is) been done well. Now the community focus is turning to desktop applications. It seems, to me, quite logical to assume that once we have these desktop applications, and they are good enough that people actually use them - the community focus will turn to the user interface aspect. Think about this for a moment... The OSS movement is basically a herd of restless programmers pounding on code, improving it by iteration. Every so often somebody notices an area that just wasn't taken care of. In the beginning there is plenty of skepticism, on the grounds of "this area is not sexy enough - no geek will do it" and "geeks just don't have the right attitude - they can't do it". It might take a while, but these voices are then lost in dust left behind the crowd of hackers who have turned to this new frontier - busilly making it "sexy", and learning about it and , well - "getting it". So let's wait a little longer. Once we get the applications, someone is going to start reworking the interface, then another... Remember, being open-source means it is possible to rewrite the UI for an existing application. In short - stay optimistic, the OSS movement just hasn't gotten to it yet - but it will, sooner than you think. And just like the other things which have, and are being done - prepare to be pleasantly surprised.
Of course this doesn't apply to all games. I doubt whether pure combat games would benefit from a finely wrought storyline:)
I must disagree. The obvious example is the game HALF-LIFE (which, if you enjoy fps games - you simply MUST try). This game uses the Quake II engine, but is a far better game - IMHO. The reason for this is a story line - which is executed brilliantly. They went so far as to hire a horror story author to write the story for them. The story is very good and since - through the game - you live it, you get an incredible sense of immersion. They also did excellent work in having the gameplay balance be just right and consistent with the story. The resulting game is, again - incredible, and has justly won over 50 "best game of the year" awards. This is a lesson in game design, and yes - we want more games like this!
There is a lesson here: the Quake II engine was very good for its time and was capable of holding a (nearly) storyless game. This seemed very natural for a "story-less" genre like FPS. However, ONLY when a great story was put into the same engine did a truly great game come out.
Valve actually had an earlier design, which they threw away because it was too boring and regular. Only the second time they did it right. The entire story - which is very interesting, BTW - can be read at this link: Valve's Cabal Process. I recommend this article for everyone with an interest in game design and even plain program design.
2 reasons: a. Most people do not have comfortable access to a computer with an internet connection, so news on paper are the only way to go. b. Monitors suck: they're too small, hard on the eyes and unwieldy. If I know I'm going to spend a couple of hours of my time on reading something I do prefer it on paper - this way I can reposition myself anywhere and anyway I like. I suppose we will have a real portable computer (or monitor) or soon enough, but the first step is probably to have a flat screen that can be taken of its mount and put on your lap - for example - still connected by cable to the box. I suppose this is nearly possible already (- but expensive).
The way I see it, the moment it becomes just as comfortable to read from the computer as it is from paper, anyone who has the option will not bother with the paper medium. I would still like to read the longer articles, editorials and opinion pieces, but I would be happy to do it online. Once paper is irrelevant newspapers will HAVE to reinvent themselves, since they will have to adapt to being online - both in content and in how they get paid for it.
Slashdot Mirror
these are actually different things - you can be a war hero and a terrorist at the same time.
you get to be called a war hero for having distinguished yourself by fighting in a war. "having distinguished" is decided by someone according to their agenda (nothing inherently wrong with that).
you get to be called a terrorist when you fight for something by committing acts of terror - targeting non-combatants in order to inspire terror, rather then to achieve a military goal. such a tactic could indirectly lead to a military goal (e.g. making a military campaign unsustainable, causing a loss of support for some policy, etc').
what is a terrorist act is reasonably clear, but not everyone who commits acts of terror gets to be called a terrorist. this again gets decided by someone, according to their agenda, etc'.
[a side note on morality:
ethics of war contains many grey areas, but targeting non-combatants directly or indirectly is always taken to be immoral (it is possible for non-combatants to get hurt even when not targeted, so that's a grey area).]
thanks, I'll see if this helps me.
the worst by far, btw, is the noise I get on my pci tv card - I especially hope it will help that.
I still haven't given up on a simpler solution - I thought about putting up a simple EM cage around the relevant cards (something conductive, grounded and relatively small/light), but I haven't had time yet to improvise.
do you know anything about the feasibility of this? (i.e. - should I even bother?)
in all the systems that I used, I found the amount of noise in the audio output to be very noticeable.
it gets worse the more activity you have in the case (e.g. disk activity).
I'm looking for a way to reduce the EM noise inside the box - I think this is critical to any setup with a PC as the audio source.
any ideas?
while it would be hard to reach these people and to be heard clearer than microsoft, a chance does present itself:
- the people signed on this response are a well respected and interesting group, joining forces.
- the response itself is well phrased and contains some good points about microsofts strategy and how their words and their actions don't seem to meet.
- after the antitrust trial, the public is more aware that there is possibly something wrong with microsoft.
so, if we're lucky, it could reach the general media. this could then end up actually serving to expose open source and its freedoms to the public and to contrast it with microsoft strategy.
hopefully, they may have set themselves up for something they haven't prepared for... (but let's not underestimate ms marketing/communication/fud skills)
This does make sense, and although it can be argued against on some level - my point isn't to argue with it. I don't really mind if the Nvidia-approved driver for their cards is closed source. If it makes sense for them and their customers accept it then it's their own choice to make.
My problem is with them not releasing specs. This is what's holding back open-source drivers.
I don't mind if the open-source drivers are unofficial. I don't see why Nvidia would stand in the way of such drivers, even if they want the official version to be closed. Even on windows you get to choose between the official reference-drivers from Nvidia and the vendor specific drivers (Creative, Diamond, etc'), So it doesn't seem anyone minds having to choose.
I have enough faith in OSS to think that there is a pretty good chance that the open drivers could become better. Even if not, I would still be happy to know that my card can remain supported whatever happens.
- I find nothing in your post that explains why nvidia doesn't release the specs. This is what I'd really like to know...
(btw, if the specs are released, it would create an interesting test case for open source. I'd really like to see that, and I think many people and companies would too...)
Here's a thought:
We all know the OSS movement got the initial "nod of approval" for doing server programs - which blow the socks off the corresponding commercial software. This front has (and is) been done well. Now the community focus is turning to desktop applications. It seems, to me, quite logical to assume that once we have these desktop applications, and they are good enough that people actually use them - the community focus will turn to the user interface aspect.
Think about this for a moment... The OSS movement is basically a herd of restless programmers pounding on code, improving it by iteration. Every so often somebody notices an area that just wasn't taken care of. In the beginning there is plenty of skepticism, on the grounds of "this area is not sexy enough - no geek will do it" and "geeks just don't have the right attitude - they can't do it". It might take a while, but these voices are then lost in dust left behind the crowd of hackers who have turned to this new frontier - busilly making it "sexy", and learning about it and , well - "getting it".
So let's wait a little longer. Once we get the applications, someone is going to start reworking the interface, then another... Remember, being open-source means it is possible to rewrite the UI for an existing application.
In short - stay optimistic, the OSS movement just hasn't gotten to it yet - but it will, sooner than you think. And just like the other things which have, and are being done - prepare to be pleasantly surprised.
Of course this doesn't apply to all games. I doubt whether pure combat games would benefit from a finely wrought storyline :)
I must disagree. The obvious example is the game HALF-LIFE (which, if you enjoy fps games - you simply MUST try). This game uses the Quake II engine, but is a far better game - IMHO. The reason for this is a story line - which is executed brilliantly. They went so far as to hire a horror story author to write the story for them. The story is very good and since - through the game - you live it, you get an incredible sense of immersion.
They also did excellent work in having the gameplay balance be just right and consistent with the story. The resulting game is, again - incredible, and has justly won over 50 "best game of the year" awards. This is a lesson in game design, and yes - we want more games like this!
There is a lesson here: the Quake II engine was very good for its time and was capable of holding a (nearly) storyless game. This seemed very natural for a "story-less" genre like FPS. However, ONLY when a great story was put into the same engine did a truly great game come out.
Valve actually had an earlier design, which they threw away because it was too boring and regular. Only the second time they did it right. The entire story - which is very interesting, BTW - can be read at this link:
Valve's Cabal Process.
I recommend this article for everyone with an interest in game design and even plain program design.
2 reasons:
a. Most people do not have comfortable access to a computer with an internet connection, so news on paper are the only way to go.
b. Monitors suck: they're too small, hard on the eyes and unwieldy. If I know I'm going to spend a couple of hours of my time on reading something I do prefer it on paper - this way I can reposition myself anywhere and anyway I like. I suppose we will have a real portable computer (or monitor) or soon enough, but the first step is probably to have a flat screen that can be taken of its mount and put on your lap - for example - still connected by cable to the box. I suppose this is nearly possible already (- but expensive).
The way I see it, the moment it becomes just as comfortable to read from the computer as it is from paper, anyone who has the option will not bother with the paper medium. I would still like to read the longer articles, editorials and opinion pieces, but I would be happy to do it online. Once paper is irrelevant newspapers will HAVE to reinvent themselves, since they will have to adapt to being online - both in content and in how they get paid for it.