It's an industry issue. Building automation has been changing from a mechanical, trades-based industry, to a data-driven, high-tech one much more rapidly than the workforce.
The majority of controls technicians have little networking knowledge, even less programming knowledge, approaching 0 design knowledge, and absolutely no data and computer systems foundations yet are pretty well versed in the mechanical systems, engineering, electrical subtrades group. To be a good controls tech these days you need a LOT of all those other things and giving a damn about security requires one to understand why it's important. Most techs assume that if there's a password, it's "secure enough" and "not my problem" yet the systems are extremely complex (for good reason). This Niagara issue is primarily a bad-practices issue as the other poster mentioned. The Niagara Framerwork is not DD-WRT or other such network tool, it's much, much more complex than that and properly securing a system requires some study, some planning (this is almost always missing) and some deliberate attempt to understand the many different levels of access permissions that need to be granted to a system depending on the function of the person logging in. Furthermore, even IF the controls tech from the vendor has done the appropriate work to properly secure a system, once it's turned over to the facility and their maintenance, you're relying on the operators who are by no means experts in the field, to continue to administer the system, issue users and access privileges and maintain some kind of access policy. Can Tridium do more? A little, but not a whole lot. You can already use SSL, HTTPS and certificate based security for all your connections if you wished. You can already granulate the access to every single resource in a system. They could make it more obvious to change the platform (OS level) access, but it would only go so far because the likelihood of vendors making that password universal across all sites is very, very high. There are good eggs out there, don't get me wrong, but as usual, the problem isn't the system, it's lack of knowledge.
For all computer, network and design folks out there, if you really want to challenge yourselves and discover a world you've never even considered existed, try the controls and building automation industry. You need to know a lot of different things, know them really really well, but if you do, you'll print your own money.
I'm going to try and address the "Where do you see yourself in 5 years question?".
I work in an industry where the training required to take someone off the street and be able to fully use them in production is almost a minimum of 2 years. 5 years is about the time someone will become comfortable with the skill set and problem solving paths needed to take in order to work independently. Of course, time varies with the dedication and uptake of the candidate, but the bottom line is that the company has to commit to a substantial time and training investment in you, as a new hire, before it can reap the benefits of hiring you. Not to mention project management and planning for production on such a long training path is a real challenge for the employer. These are not skills you can learn at a school, university or college. Therefore, it is very, very important to assess if the employee is interested in a stable, long term career path rather than just coming in to collect a paycheque. It is very rare that hiring someone means that they'll come in the next day and suddenly they'll make you money. The balance is substantially tilted the other way for a considerable amount of time and a long term plan (the 5 year question) has to ensure a return-on-investment with that candidate, otherwise everyone's time and money is wasted.
Next time you're asked that question, try and figure out if they're just reading it out of a book, or if they have a really good reason to ask. You might be surprised.
If it's BC, I agree with the original poster. HST isn't the plight it's made out to be. I also agree with you that the sneaky way it was brought in, and then the detestable way it was defended, have made it look really bad. HOWEVER, I do not really begrudge or blame them for it. Who will get votes by saying they will introduce a new tax? Even if they'd describe how the new tax is better (which it is), people would only hear "new tax". You know how I know? Proportional representation voting referendum or STV as they tried to call it. Twice they tried, and twice, we as a province, failed to vote "sufficiently" in favour, because people only hear that which they fear if a politician speaks it. As soon as you run for any kind of office, you are no longer a regular person, and the words you say no longer hold the weight of any wisdom, foresight or common decency to the electorate. To them, all you say is tainted by self-interest, greed and dishonesty.
So to all those that signed the anti-HST petition, and to all those that didn't bother look at their daily bills to see how their taxes have actually changed, and to all those who forgive the businesses that have the gall to sit there and say prices are higher because the HST without even a blink to say they'll pass on the savings that the HST provides on the back-end of the business, I say a resounding "grow up and get informed". I don't blame people for not knowing. I blame their lack of desire for insight, and doing any of the work it takes to know these things. As a voter you can't sit on your butt all day and hope the talking heads on TV will always give you the info you want. Sometimes you have to do something for yourself. And when you are informed, and you find out that even though a seemingly slimey, slippery, son-of-a rammed something through in a rather unpleasant way, maybe just let it go if it happens to be a good thing for you, your neighbour and everyone's future in the long run.
I apologize for going on this off-topic rant, and the tongue-in-cheek innuendo at the end. Carry on.
Yup, it took us just over 7 years to "finish" Marathon:Resurrection. I say finish in quotes because these sorts of things are never really finished, but after 7 years we actually managed to finish up all the levels, monsters and story, so it was done. We still want to polish it some more, but life happens...
"I think Radiohead went overboard. There is not a valid business model when you say, "Pay whatever you want". A lot of people are making this argument, and I think it's missing the point. Radiohead didn't do what they did with "In Rainbows" in order to test the validity of a "business model". They did what they did in order to the test the validity of one method (among many) of distribution and compensation for said distribution method for one product in their "product line". Radiohead's business isn't to sell you "In Rainbows". Radiohead's business (and most other music or entertainment enterprises) is to successfully live off their art exhibition in order to create more art and have a decent standard of living. If this means giving away some part of their product, in order to motivate other sales (their box set, the CD that comes out in actual hard media form in January, or attending their concerts) then so be it. What they did with the "In Rainbows" online release is called "promotional material". And the real kicker, the really brilliant thing, is that they made a fair amount of money out of "promotional material".
In essence..."pay whatever you want" wasn't, nor will it be a business model. It's a very successful marketing promotion that, incredibly, makes everyone win (except the RIAA).
I'm surprised at the large number of replies moderated highly, which completely miss the point of such an undertaking. I'm not saying a soap opera is the most astute way to go about this, but it IS important to create an environment where the idea of women in science/tech/IT/=your male dominated trade here=/ isn't unusual.
People that say things like "why do we need them there" or "why push them if they don't want to" or "making up a problem that doesn't exist" are simply not really understanding the issue. If you live your entire life (from birth to death) in an environment where it is highly unusual for people like you to do a particular thing, chances are you won't naturally gravitate towards that. This is how you create generations of gendered behaviour. This can translate to all sorts of things as well, not just women in the workplace...pick your poison..racism/prejudices/wanting to blow up Israelis/wanting to blow up Palestinians/etc.
Consequently, if we create an environment where behaviours are almost predetermined along gender lines, we're indirectly making people's choices outside their gender much more dubious, perhaps even impossible. Not to mention all the rest of the problems that arise with acceptance of such gender behaviours...i.e. why is pink and male such a taboo combination..why is crying + male = weakness and crying + female = sensible. It goes on and on...Essentially, gender roles and behaviours are intertwined. Presuming that we live in a world where we're unaffected by this is simply shortsighted...if you doubt that, think about what you've just read next time you laugh about a guy being emotional at a "chick flick" (touche) or find it odd that a woman "mans" the backhoe on your construction site.
My problem, in general, with insurance and all this jazz is not so much about coverage and how much, but rather the responsibility of shared interest in the relationship between employee and employer.
Rationally, the relationship should always be an equal exchange. One's time and labour in a fair exchange for currency. The employer is not doing the employee any "favour" for allowing him/her to work, nor is the reverse true, it's an exchange, and this gets overlooked all the time. A job should be a fair exchange of resources (labour for money), otherwise it's either exploitation or robbery (depending on perspective).
Henceforth, it would only be reasonable, that negative impact which was a direct cause of either side should be dealt with, and be the responsibility of either side. The argument of "well, if he was genetically susceptible, we shouldn't have to cover" is short sighted. I'm genetically susceptible to death, and if my employer kills me, they damn better pay my family.
The employer hires someone that can fulfill their needs, and likewise, a worker offers services if he believes it is a fair monetary exchange. This includes arrangements of insurance, pensions, health care etc. The critical thing is that the terms of this exchange need to be discussed, as opposed to just changed at the whim of either side. Therefore, the story describes something I wholeheartedly disagree with, if it was done post-agreement and without notice, notwithstanding ethical implications of such practices.
This is a feature that ICQ has had for some time. iChat also allows you to see if the person you're talking to has started typing. Neither shows you what they've typed until they send the carriage return, but the indicator is there.
I'd conspire and go even further to suggest that perhaps Judge West's decision for his ruling was insidious enough for him to make sure that this DNC list doesn't get challenged again and force Congress to officially legitimize it. He could have easily been a very sly fox and successfully pulled the wool over everyone's eyes with the proper outcome playing out in a matter of days.
It's a stretched out supposition, but not entirely out of the question...
I highly suspect that without having lived under an opressive regime (which, being an America, you haven't) you have no clue what you're talking about in-so-far as saying that the people of Iraq "should have just done away with Saddam themselves" and to "stop whining". Given enough despair and helplessness the end of the rope _may_ be reached but it takes a very long time..and that time is filled with despair and helplessness in the face of the regime. Opressive regimes tend of a have a very large number of secret service informants among the population...nobody ever knows how safe or how private their conversations are. You talk to a friend one day who made a joke about the wrong person, and the next day he's hauled off to jail. I'm not telling fairytales..I speak from experience...so until you actually know what you're talking about when it comes to toppling a truly oppresive regime from the inside, stick to topics you're truly informed about.
At the same time, comparing pre-Revolutionary War American and British relations and sanctions to current day-to-day life in Iraq is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a long time. Fighting a foreign government is an entirely different thing than fighting your own government...
"Hell, even ART is supposed to be a medium for "information." "
Actually, art is communication...and while some communication is informative, it doesn't have to be.
As far as going off on this tangent about artists and information, I ask you again to make a distinction between information and communication. Not everything you see online or in print is information. At the same time...art comes in many forms and through many mediums..some is visual, some is audible and some is even edible.
There are all sorts of artists in the world. Some are good, some not so..and some you may or may not get depending on how well you identify with what they are trying to communicate to you. Some use HTML as a medium to communicate, and some do it well, and some don't and many don't care...design and art can and does co-exist with information..you'll find that most often it's the individual that can't co-exist with some design and art...out of purely subjective (albeit valid) reasons.
In short...most often (not always) something sucks because you don't like..that doesn't make it bad.
...trying out the packages, but mostly trying to figure out what 3D tasks you specifically need. Various programs have various strengths. Some programs have amazing modeling tools (Maya) some have great texturing tools (C4D is pretty good), some are good all around with a top notch renderer (Lightwave). Your needs define what package you should use, not the other way around..so the biggest question to ask yourself is what you know you need. Saying "everything" will cause you grief:) I've been doing 3D on a mac for many years, and I can honestly tell you that I've had to use different tools at different times. Lately I've been staying pretty much in Maya. The built-in renderer has it's flaws but it is by no means poor...Your lighting, shading, texturing skills will play a larger role than the renderer, plus that are plug-ins to export to a Renderman compatible renderer.
There are some other cheap options that are pretty decent programs..they aren't mainstream, but if you're only using 3D as a secondary tool to add to your illustration/presentation arsenal, it might be cheaper and better in the long run. I can safely recommend things like Pixels3D (http://www.pixels.net) and Hash Animation Master (http://www.hash.com). Pixels just came out with Mac OS X version too which is looking pretty decent, and their Tempest renderer is pretty nice too.
The short and the skinny...if 3D is your primary focus, decide on your needs. Maya is an amazing all around tool and the renderer simply stands out because everything else about the program is so great, that the renderer simple seems like the sore thumb out. If your needs with 3D are secondary, a cheaper package would suit you better and will provide the tools you'd need for reasonably advanced 3D.
Last but not least..everyone's got their favorite and it all means fuzz-all to you...you need to decide what suits you best by trying out as much as you can.
"All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. All men are Socrates"
Mac OS X is like UNIX as much as we are like Socrates..really close, but still has it's own flavour. This isn't bad..it's quite good really..but to say it's the same would be a bit of a stretch.
I agree with kreyg. I believe quite often people (at least in our North American society) get far too attached to things that if you were to step out of yourself and observe the situation objectively (in true slashdot fashion) would seem ridiculous. I mean...this is a movie. It's a wildly successful one and George Lucas chooses to do it mosty the way he'd like it...that's that. If you happen to enjoy it and he makes money off of it then great for both, otherwise just get off your butt and go figure out something else..
I suggest to anyone reading slashdot to take their wonderful objective minds and go listen to a song called Dogma by KMFDM. I don't wholeheartedly agree with it, but it gives you a lot to think about it and reconsider one's priorities and values.
Alias|Wavefront are the makers of Alias PowerAnimator also nowadays known as Maya
They make a few other high-end products such as Maya Fusion. Maya is high-end 3D modeling/animation software for TV, Film, Games etc. Things like the characters in Phantom Menace are modeled in Maya (stress the characters and not the other stuff) and animated in SoftImage. The cheapest version (Maya Complete) is over $7500 USD. I'm currently using both Maya and SoftImage and they are very very very nice packages BUT..there are other very very nice 3D packages at a fraction of the cost.
As far as the money...you can lease Maya...or SoftImage heh
as a write, I imagine compensation and moral satisfaction is one of the hardest things to get, and this/. crowd hasn't been to generous with that. How do you get motivated to write and what is the satisfaction derived from it?
For the massive group of/. whiners:
Grow up!! What's this whining about "I have Jon Katz filtered! I don't want to read anything about JonKatz!" mixed with copius amounts of curses and, foul language and bad grammar. Is scrolling by and not reading an article really that hard??? Does Rob and Hemos etc need to hold your hand and wipe the drool from your mouth? Come on people..I don't like everything I see here, I don't like everything I see everywhere...so? Does me ranting and raving about any of that actually help anything??? If you think JonKatz sucks then don't read it..get on with your life. Perhaps, you should write a piece yourself that's much better. This is not a popularity contest, it's an information resource and open discussions. In a discussion, each party contributes with reasonable arguments in a polite manner for bettering our understanding on various issues.
Slashdot is what it is..take it or leave it, but whining is pointless...arguably, much like this posting will become.
The QuickTime penguin has been around as the QuickTime mascot for at least 4 years if not more..it's hardly new, and it was merely an example of what QuickDraw 3D at the time could do.
Ok, so after reading comments and the article, what comes to mind is a generalization of geeks and autism, for if you used corollaries (probably spelled wrong) if you're a geek you're most likley autistic and if you're austistic you'll most likely be a geek.
So then..what happens to people who are huge geeks (like myself) but don't seem to be autistic. I'm sure there are lots of people who are very "geeky" who, like myself, love computers, get happy when there's talk about crypto, beg to talk about wormholes, plasma engines, Esher, Turing etc etc etc, but have absolutely no problem with their social life.
I think a lot of this "autism" is circumstancial. I've developed my social "skills" because I've had an odd (unusal) life so far and it's been necessary. I think the point to see with geeks is not to treat it as a condition, but rather a choice. You see..I think geeks could be and many are perfectly good social butterflies, but most chose not to bother..they DO have priorities.
I don't see why people bother to classify geekism as a condition. Sure there are traits that can be found in all geeks, that doesn't make it at all a sickness or problem..just similar habits and priorities...
Allright...this is not specific to this story, but rather a question about Linux and Free Software in general.
I've been reading Linux and Open Source stuff on and off and I try to keep informed, but there's one thing that doesn't make much sense to me. I hope someone can explain this reasonably.
How does a software develpment company make any money if theoritcally, software should be free?
Support..that doesn't make sense, since you try to make software good enough for it to require less and less support. If someone uses your software and knows everything about it and needs no support than how is that useful to you (other than word of mouth advertising perhaps)?
Say more and more pople start making free software. What happens to companies that just make software? Sure, competition "should" make a product better, but you simply can't compete with FREE.
The dilema is...ok, you make software and it's good and you ask for money..but people will much rather prefer to "other" software that's free. How do you make money making software? All the people working for software companies now would lose their jobs and will have to learn to be an assembly line worker? To suggest that making software "shouldn't" be a profitable business in the marketplace is ridiculous...someone's efforts and brainpower _should_ allow him/her to live (get paid).
So then..Linux is good and free, but doesn't widespread use of this model mean the complete wipe out of "the software programmer" as a job. Doesn't that seem very, very, very bizzare and scarry. I'm sure lots of you are software progammers now..what happens if you stop getting paid for making software?
Ok...almost every post on this topic has been referring to this guy's "cluelesness". Whether he is or not, is highly debatable..he said some suspicious things, but it's impossible for him to know everything about everything in perfect detail...
His story was agreeing mostly with Carmack's points. He had some well to the point doubts about their accuracy, but he mostly agreed with the fact that a lot of the low-level OS parts are _bad_ or non-existent. The point in bringing up Mac OS X here was to show YOU that Apple knows this...they want to fix it.
His story intended to show people that Carmack was looking at the Mac architecture overall from a low-level user's point of you and his point of view does not, and will not apply to every mac user out there.
Some people were wondering why he sustained that OpenGL is average...well..because it is. OpenGL has some very nice features and it is quite fast, but it doesn't have the benefits that QuickDraw 3D brings..file format, different shaders etc. This is not to say OpenGL is bad...it isn't..it's very good...but in many ways QuickDraw 3D is better (if you don't believe me, check out QD3D documentation and compare it to OpenGL).
Some people were complaining about what happened to Rhapsody..it's now available in the form of Mac OS X Server..it's expensive, that's true..but you go ahead and use it as a server OS for a week and you come back and tell me if it isn't worth it.
I don't realize why Carmack crashed his machine the way he did...If he is the God people say he is (he may very well be, and I think you need to be to put out something like Quake) he should, would have been able to figure out his mac..but he's new to the platform so it's perfectly understandable to not know the Toolbox in and out right away. I hardly doubt that say...any of the Bungie engineers crashed their machines as much while developing Myth (and equally demanding if not more game engine).
The whole point to this post is to check your own cluelesness before accusing anyone of it. Don't pre-judge someone based on the camp they are talking from. Heck..if it were that way I should completely dismiss Carmack's comments before even reading them because he's always been a PC guy..but I don't..he's got good points and I appreciate seeing them. Keep and open mind guys/gals...don't rant just for ranting. Use a computer for what it does for you, not because it's cool(er) is cheap(er) or is neat(er). Live on...
Slashdot Mirror
In this case, it's not that simple.
It's an industry issue. Building automation has been changing from a mechanical, trades-based industry, to a data-driven, high-tech one much more rapidly than the workforce.
The majority of controls technicians have little networking knowledge, even less programming knowledge, approaching 0 design knowledge, and absolutely no data and computer systems foundations yet are pretty well versed in the mechanical systems, engineering, electrical subtrades group. To be a good controls tech these days you need a LOT of all those other things and giving a damn about security requires one to understand why it's important. Most techs assume that if there's a password, it's "secure enough" and "not my problem" yet the systems are extremely complex (for good reason). This Niagara issue is primarily a bad-practices issue as the other poster mentioned. The Niagara Framerwork is not DD-WRT or other such network tool, it's much, much more complex than that and properly securing a system requires some study, some planning (this is almost always missing) and some deliberate attempt to understand the many different levels of access permissions that need to be granted to a system depending on the function of the person logging in. Furthermore, even IF the controls tech from the vendor has done the appropriate work to properly secure a system, once it's turned over to the facility and their maintenance, you're relying on the operators who are by no means experts in the field, to continue to administer the system, issue users and access privileges and maintain some kind of access policy. Can Tridium do more? A little, but not a whole lot. You can already use SSL, HTTPS and certificate based security for all your connections if you wished. You can already granulate the access to every single resource in a system. They could make it more obvious to change the platform (OS level) access, but it would only go so far because the likelihood of vendors making that password universal across all sites is very, very high. There are good eggs out there, don't get me wrong, but as usual, the problem isn't the system, it's lack of knowledge.
For all computer, network and design folks out there, if you really want to challenge yourselves and discover a world you've never even considered existed, try the controls and building automation industry. You need to know a lot of different things, know them really really well, but if you do, you'll print your own money.
I'm going to try and address the "Where do you see yourself in 5 years question?".
I work in an industry where the training required to take someone off the street and be able to fully use them in production is almost a minimum of 2 years. 5 years is about the time someone will become comfortable with the skill set and problem solving paths needed to take in order to work independently. Of course, time varies with the dedication and uptake of the candidate, but the bottom line is that the company has to commit to a substantial time and training investment in you, as a new hire, before it can reap the benefits of hiring you. Not to mention project management and planning for production on such a long training path is a real challenge for the employer. These are not skills you can learn at a school, university or college. Therefore, it is very, very important to assess if the employee is interested in a stable, long term career path rather than just coming in to collect a paycheque. It is very rare that hiring someone means that they'll come in the next day and suddenly they'll make you money. The balance is substantially tilted the other way for a considerable amount of time and a long term plan (the 5 year question) has to ensure a return-on-investment with that candidate, otherwise everyone's time and money is wasted.
Next time you're asked that question, try and figure out if they're just reading it out of a book, or if they have a really good reason to ask. You might be surprised.
If it's BC, I agree with the original poster. HST isn't the plight it's made out to be. I also agree with you that the sneaky way it was brought in, and then the detestable way it was defended, have made it look really bad. HOWEVER, I do not really begrudge or blame them for it. Who will get votes by saying they will introduce a new tax? Even if they'd describe how the new tax is better (which it is), people would only hear "new tax". You know how I know? Proportional representation voting referendum or STV as they tried to call it. Twice they tried, and twice, we as a province, failed to vote "sufficiently" in favour, because people only hear that which they fear if a politician speaks it. As soon as you run for any kind of office, you are no longer a regular person, and the words you say no longer hold the weight of any wisdom, foresight or common decency to the electorate. To them, all you say is tainted by self-interest, greed and dishonesty.
So to all those that signed the anti-HST petition, and to all those that didn't bother look at their daily bills to see how their taxes have actually changed, and to all those who forgive the businesses that have the gall to sit there and say prices are higher because the HST without even a blink to say they'll pass on the savings that the HST provides on the back-end of the business, I say a resounding "grow up and get informed". I don't blame people for not knowing. I blame their lack of desire for insight, and doing any of the work it takes to know these things. As a voter you can't sit on your butt all day and hope the talking heads on TV will always give you the info you want. Sometimes you have to do something for yourself. And when you are informed, and you find out that even though a seemingly slimey, slippery, son-of-a rammed something through in a rather unpleasant way, maybe just let it go if it happens to be a good thing for you, your neighbour and everyone's future in the long run.
I apologize for going on this off-topic rant, and the tongue-in-cheek innuendo at the end. Carry on.
Yup, it took us just over 7 years to "finish" Marathon:Resurrection. I say finish in quotes because these sorts of things are never really finished, but after 7 years we actually managed to finish up all the levels, monsters and story, so it was done. We still want to polish it some more, but life happens...
In essence..."pay whatever you want" wasn't, nor will it be a business model. It's a very successful marketing promotion that, incredibly, makes everyone win (except the RIAA).
I'm surprised at the large number of replies moderated highly, which completely miss the point of such an undertaking. I'm not saying a soap opera is the most astute way to go about this, but it IS important to create an environment where the idea of women in science/tech/IT/=your male dominated trade here=/ isn't unusual.
People that say things like "why do we need them there" or "why push them if they don't want to" or "making up a problem that doesn't exist" are simply not really understanding the issue. If you live your entire life (from birth to death) in an environment where it is highly unusual for people like you to do a particular thing, chances are you won't naturally gravitate towards that. This is how you create generations of gendered behaviour. This can translate to all sorts of things as well, not just women in the workplace...pick your poison..racism/prejudices/wanting to blow up Israelis/wanting to blow up Palestinians/etc.
Consequently, if we create an environment where behaviours are almost predetermined along gender lines, we're indirectly making people's choices outside their gender much more dubious, perhaps even impossible. Not to mention all the rest of the problems that arise with acceptance of such gender behaviours...i.e. why is pink and male such a taboo combination..why is crying + male = weakness and crying + female = sensible. It goes on and on...Essentially, gender roles and behaviours are intertwined. Presuming that we live in a world where we're unaffected by this is simply shortsighted...if you doubt that, think about what you've just read next time you laugh about a guy being emotional at a "chick flick" (touche) or find it odd that a woman "mans" the backhoe on your construction site.
My problem, in general, with insurance and all this jazz is not so much about coverage and how much, but rather the responsibility of shared interest in the relationship between employee and employer.
Rationally, the relationship should always be an equal exchange. One's time and labour in a fair exchange for currency. The employer is not doing the employee any "favour" for allowing him/her to work, nor is the reverse true, it's an exchange, and this gets overlooked all the time. A job should be a fair exchange of resources (labour for money), otherwise it's either exploitation or robbery (depending on perspective).
Henceforth, it would only be reasonable, that negative impact which was a direct cause of either side should be dealt with, and be the responsibility of either side. The argument of "well, if he was genetically susceptible, we shouldn't have to cover" is short sighted. I'm genetically susceptible to death, and if my employer kills me, they damn better pay my family.
The employer hires someone that can fulfill their needs, and likewise, a worker offers services if he believes it is a fair monetary exchange. This includes arrangements of insurance, pensions, health care etc. The critical thing is that the terms of this exchange need to be discussed, as opposed to just changed at the whim of either side. Therefore, the story describes something I wholeheartedly disagree with, if it was done post-agreement and without notice, notwithstanding ethical implications of such practices.
This is a feature that ICQ has had for some time. iChat also allows you to see if the person you're talking to has started typing. Neither shows you what they've typed until they send the carriage return, but the indicator is there.
I'd conspire and go even further to suggest that perhaps Judge West's decision for his ruling was insidious enough for him to make sure that this DNC list doesn't get challenged again and force Congress to officially legitimize it. He could have easily been a very sly fox and successfully pulled the wool over everyone's eyes with the proper outcome playing out in a matter of days.
It's a stretched out supposition, but not entirely out of the question...
I highly suspect that without having lived under an opressive regime (which, being an America, you haven't) you have no clue what you're talking about in-so-far as saying that the people of Iraq "should have just done away with Saddam themselves" and to "stop whining". Given enough despair and helplessness the end of the rope _may_ be reached but it takes a very long time..and that time is filled with despair and helplessness in the face of the regime. Opressive regimes tend of a have a very large number of secret service informants among the population...nobody ever knows how safe or how private their conversations are. You talk to a friend one day who made a joke about the wrong person, and the next day he's hauled off to jail. I'm not telling fairytales..I speak from experience...so until you actually know what you're talking about when it comes to toppling a truly oppresive regime from the inside, stick to topics you're truly informed about.
At the same time, comparing pre-Revolutionary War American and British relations and sanctions to current day-to-day life in Iraq is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a long time. Fighting a foreign government is an entirely different thing than fighting your own government...
"Hell, even ART is supposed to be a medium for "information." "
Actually, art is communication...and while some communication is informative, it doesn't have to be.
As far as going off on this tangent about artists and information, I ask you again to make a distinction between information and communication. Not everything you see online or in print is information. At the same time...art comes in many forms and through many mediums..some is visual, some is audible and some is even edible.
There are all sorts of artists in the world. Some are good, some not so..and some you may or may not get depending on how well you identify with what they are trying to communicate to you. Some use HTML as a medium to communicate, and some do it well, and some don't and many don't care...design and art can and does co-exist with information..you'll find that most often it's the individual that can't co-exist with some design and art...out of purely subjective (albeit valid) reasons.
In short...most often (not always) something sucks because you don't like..that doesn't make it bad.
...trying out the packages, but mostly trying to figure out what 3D tasks you specifically need. Various programs have various strengths. Some programs have amazing modeling tools (Maya) some have great texturing tools (C4D is pretty good), some are good all around with a top notch renderer (Lightwave). Your needs define what package you should use, not the other way around..so the biggest question to ask yourself is what you know you need. Saying "everything" will cause you grief :)
I've been doing 3D on a mac for many years, and I can honestly tell you that I've had to use different tools at different times. Lately I've been staying pretty much in Maya. The built-in renderer has it's flaws but it is by no means poor...Your lighting, shading, texturing skills will play a larger role than the renderer, plus that are plug-ins to export to a Renderman compatible renderer.
There are some other cheap options that are pretty decent programs..they aren't mainstream, but if you're only using 3D as a secondary tool to add to your illustration/presentation arsenal, it might be cheaper and better in the long run. I can safely recommend things like Pixels3D (http://www.pixels.net) and Hash Animation Master (http://www.hash.com). Pixels just came out with Mac OS X version too which is looking pretty decent, and their Tempest renderer is pretty nice too.
The short and the skinny...if 3D is your primary focus, decide on your needs. Maya is an amazing all around tool and the renderer simply stands out because everything else about the program is so great, that the renderer simple seems like the sore thumb out. If your needs with 3D are secondary, a cheaper package would suit you better and will provide the tools you'd need for reasonably advanced 3D.
Last but not least..everyone's got their favorite and it all means fuzz-all to you...you need to decide what suits you best by trying out as much as you can.
You know...there's a Woody Allen quote:
"All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. All men are Socrates"
Mac OS X is like UNIX as much as we are like Socrates..really close, but still has it's own flavour. This isn't bad..it's quite good really..but to say it's the same would be a bit of a stretch.
I agree with kreyg. I believe quite often people (at least in our North American society) get far too attached to things that if you were to step out of yourself and observe the situation objectively (in true slashdot fashion) would seem ridiculous. I mean...this is a movie. It's a wildly successful one and George Lucas chooses to do it mosty the way he'd like it...that's that. If you happen to enjoy it and he makes money off of it then great for both, otherwise just get off your butt and go figure out something else..
I suggest to anyone reading slashdot to take their wonderful objective minds and go listen to a song called Dogma by KMFDM. I don't wholeheartedly agree with it, but it gives you a lot to think about it and reconsider one's priorities and values.
I simply bought myself a multiple button mouse. Ingenious for a Mac user isn't it? I model quite well now =)
Alias|Wavefront are the makers of Alias PowerAnimator also nowadays known as Maya
They make a few other high-end products such as Maya Fusion. Maya is high-end 3D modeling/animation software for TV, Film, Games etc. Things like the characters in Phantom Menace are modeled in Maya (stress the characters and not the other stuff) and animated in SoftImage. The cheapest version (Maya Complete) is over $7500 USD. I'm currently using both Maya and SoftImage and they are very very very nice packages BUT..there are other very very nice 3D packages at a fraction of the cost.
As far as the money...you can lease Maya...or SoftImage heh
For JonKatz:
/. crowd hasn't been to generous with that. How do you get motivated to write and what is the satisfaction derived from it?
/. whiners:
as a write, I imagine compensation and moral satisfaction is one of the hardest things to get, and this
For the massive group of
Grow up!! What's this whining about "I have Jon Katz filtered! I don't want to read anything about JonKatz!" mixed with copius amounts of curses and, foul language and bad grammar. Is scrolling by and not reading an article really that hard??? Does Rob and Hemos etc need to hold your hand and wipe the drool from your mouth? Come on people..I don't like everything I see here, I don't like everything I see everywhere...so? Does me ranting and raving about any of that actually help anything??? If you think JonKatz sucks then don't read it..get on with your life. Perhaps, you should write a piece yourself that's much better. This is not a popularity contest, it's an information resource and open discussions. In a discussion, each party contributes with reasonable arguments in a polite manner for bettering our understanding on various issues.
Slashdot is what it is..take it or leave it, but whining is pointless...arguably, much like this posting will become.
The QuickTime penguin has been around as the QuickTime mascot for at least 4 years if not more..it's hardly new, and it was merely an example of what QuickDraw 3D at the time could do.
Ok, so after reading comments and the article, what comes to mind is a generalization of geeks and autism, for if you used corollaries (probably spelled wrong) if you're a geek you're most likley autistic and if you're austistic you'll most likely be a geek.
So then..what happens to people who are huge geeks (like myself) but don't seem to be autistic. I'm sure there are lots of people who are very "geeky" who, like myself, love computers, get happy when there's talk about crypto, beg to talk about wormholes, plasma engines, Esher, Turing etc etc etc, but have absolutely no problem with their social life.
I think a lot of this "autism" is circumstancial. I've developed my social "skills" because I've had an odd (unusal) life so far and it's been necessary. I think the point to see with geeks is not to treat it as a condition, but rather a choice. You see..I think geeks could be and many are perfectly good social butterflies, but most chose not to bother..they DO have priorities.
I don't see why people bother to classify geekism as a condition. Sure there are traits that can be found in all geeks, that doesn't make it at all a sickness or problem..just similar habits and priorities...
Allright...this is not specific to this story, but rather a question about Linux and Free Software in general.
I've been reading Linux and Open Source stuff on and off and I try to keep informed, but there's one thing that doesn't make much sense to me. I hope someone can explain this reasonably.
How does a software develpment company make any money if theoritcally, software should be free?
Support..that doesn't make sense, since you try to make software good enough for it to require less and less support. If someone uses your software and knows everything about it and needs no support than how is that useful to you (other than word of mouth advertising perhaps)?
Say more and more pople start making free software. What happens to companies that just make software? Sure, competition "should" make a product better, but you simply can't compete with FREE.
The dilema is...ok, you make software and it's good and you ask for money..but people will much rather prefer to "other" software that's free. How do you make money making software? All the people working for software companies now would lose their jobs and will have to learn to be an assembly line worker? To suggest that making software "shouldn't" be a profitable business in the marketplace is ridiculous...someone's efforts and brainpower _should_ allow him/her to live (get paid).
So then..Linux is good and free, but doesn't widespread use of this model mean the complete wipe out of "the software programmer" as a job. Doesn't that seem very, very, very bizzare and scarry. I'm sure lots of you are software progammers now..what happens if you stop getting paid for making software?
I hope some insight will make this clear for me.
Thank You and Good Day.
Ok...almost every post on this topic has been referring to this guy's "cluelesness". Whether he is or not, is highly debatable..he said some suspicious things, but it's impossible for him to know everything about everything in perfect detail...
His story was agreeing mostly with Carmack's points. He had some well to the point doubts about their accuracy, but he mostly agreed with the fact that a lot of the low-level OS parts are _bad_ or non-existent. The point in bringing up Mac OS X here was to show YOU that Apple knows this...they want to fix it.
His story intended to show people that Carmack was looking at the Mac architecture overall from a low-level user's point of you and his point of view does not, and will not apply to every mac user out there.
Some people were wondering why he sustained that OpenGL is average...well..because it is. OpenGL has some very nice features and it is quite fast, but it doesn't have the benefits that QuickDraw 3D brings..file format, different shaders etc. This is not to say OpenGL is bad...it isn't..it's very good...but in many ways QuickDraw 3D is better (if you don't believe me, check out QD3D documentation and compare it to OpenGL).
Some people were complaining about what happened to Rhapsody..it's now available in the form of Mac OS X Server..it's expensive, that's true..but you go ahead and use it as a server OS for a week and you come back and tell me if it isn't worth it.
I don't realize why Carmack crashed his machine the way he did...If he is the God people say he is (he may very well be, and I think you need to be to put out something like Quake) he should, would have been able to figure out his mac..but he's new to the platform so it's perfectly understandable to not know the Toolbox in and out right away. I hardly doubt that say...any of the Bungie engineers crashed their machines as much while developing Myth (and equally demanding if not more game engine).
The whole point to this post is to check your own cluelesness before accusing anyone of it. Don't pre-judge someone based on the camp they are talking from. Heck..if it were that way I should completely dismiss Carmack's comments before even reading them because he's always been a PC guy..but I don't..he's got good points and I appreciate seeing them. Keep and open mind guys/gals...don't rant just for ranting. Use a computer for what it does for you, not because it's cool(er) is cheap(er) or is neat(er). Live on...
Regards.