Re:Why I dislike Halo (and all modern console game
on
Halo 2 Goes Gold
·
· Score: 1
Who are you calling a lousy player? If you think that's the case with sniping... I think it's you who is the lousy player. You should practice mobile sniping with a friend of yours, and also 2x sniping from long range and then no zoom sniping. One of my teammates and I spent an entire night playing games where we could only use the sniper rifle and weren't allowed to zoom in. To increase the difficulty, we made it so that if you hit the other guy but didn't get a head shot (thus he doesn't die), then the confrontation ends and both players go get a health pack and continue. That makes sure you play at head level... and you get damn good.
My point here is that it does not take 5 seconds to kill someone with the sniper rifle. It takes a fraction of a second. And you don't have to zoom in. You only have to know where they are. It just takes practice.
He's referring to the lawsuit (I believe it was in the early-mid 90s) between BSD and AT&T, when AT&T claimed that the newly open source BSD distribution contained a lot of AT&T's Unix source code. However, during the suit it was discovered that all of AT&T's code had been removed and replaced by the BSD coders and AT&T's Unix still had a lot of BSD code, and the lawsuit was dropped/settled.
Just a bit of history... but that's what he was talking about.
That's kind of the problem. In Linux or BSD, you need a package manager. If you don't have one, you have to check all the dependencies yourself, and it'll drive you mad. In Mac OS X, however, a package manager is totally unnecessary. Installing a new program? Drag the icon to the Applications folder. What about the dependencies? Everything it needs is located in the folders hidden behind the icon. Double-clicking executes the application, but the icon itself does not necessarily represent only an executable. You can browse the folders inside, if you like, to check everything it's using. Want to uninstall? Drag it to the trash. All its libraries go with it. I run SuSE and FreeBSD, and I wish it was that easy.
Doesn't that just go to show that Apples are comparable in price to PCs? I don't know how much lower Dell goes, so let's just call that the low end. I know it gets better than that on the PC side, but it's much more expensive. Well, this Dell is more expensive than the low end iMac, isn't as good. Anywhere there is a difference in their specs, the iMac is the better machine (except, of course, the clock speed, but everyone is now familiar with the megahertz myth). And the iMac costs less. The only thing is that the low end Mac goes up against a middle end Dell. *shrugs*
Good points, I don't see how it could work, unless services were developed that either only work with a distributed system or work a million times better in a distributed environment, and then the public was made to want those services/features. Or, if the actual technology per device could be made to not cost all that much and when idle it doesn't impact the performance of the device, manufacturers could start sneaking it into current devices and, in a year or two, the network can really start up because everyone's device has the proper chip.
But you're right. If the vast majority of the general public isn't clamoring for this, it really won't work. There's no reason to start it unless it can be guaranteed to make a lot of money and give users things they want. And there isn't any assurance of either, at this point.
"Hmm, if I buy this now I might get free Internet access two years down the road. In the meantime, everybody's freeloading off of me though (since there's nobody else whose device you could use). I think not."
Not quite. If nobody else had a device which you could use, nobody would be freeloading off of you. It would just be a device that you bought that has a feature that you can't use until other people have compatible devices. If nobody else has compatible devices, you can't use their resources and they can't use your resources.
Hmm. You seem to think that in this situation your handheld would be serving everyone else around you, and all of them are just leeching, and you don't get any service from anywhere, it all originates with you. Well, I should probably point out to you that that's not really how sharing models work. When you're not using your resources, they are shared among your peers who might need them. When you are using resources, if you need more than your machine possesses, your peers share with you. And the wireless grid network spreads across all the devices. You are just a link in the chain. Not the start of the chain. Everyone is not leeching off you. And you aren't paying to make everyone else's experience better. Everyone is paying. And everyone gets more than they would if they were going it alone. That's the point.
Every semi informed person pipes up their opinion without so much as any research or prior thought to the comments they make..
Hmm. Yes, you do.
What? You don't consider yourself a "semi informed person"? Well, that's good, because from your post, neither do I. "Informed" definitely does not apply. Anyway, carry on, Mr. AC Semi-Person.
Disregard my other post. Apparently it was I who responded to the wrong post. Oops. Considering what you were actually responding to... all good points. Carry on.
I think I should point out that it seems you have replied to the wrong post. I understand very thoroughly how an operating system works, and my post was about how a central operating system is necessary. Because without the operating system consolidating the complicated and widely used processes (like TCP/IP, etc) and running the multitasking show, the system would be largely unusable.
Your post would have been better served in response to the one I responded to, because it is he that doesn't seeme to understand operating systems, and it was his post that even contains the problems you describe.
I think the problem with your idea is that you don't seem to have thought it through completely, and you certainly haven't explained it thoroughly. What the other responders are saying is that what you describe is pretty much how things used to be. It's how things currently are in consoles. PCs are more versatile than consoles, and a large part of that (and one of the main advances in operating system technology over the years) is multi-tasking. As in, the ability to run multiple programs at once. Your idea seems to go back to the days when that is impossible. However, assuming that's not what you meant, and you want several programs running concurrently, each with their own operating system, you will soon discover that there are all of a sudden 5 or 6 or more operating systems running on your machine. And the running code... well, there seem to be 5 or 6 or more identical copies. So why not roll that identical code into one process or set of processes, which would dramatically increase efficiency? Well, if we did that, we'd have something I like to call a general purpose "operating system." Basically, you're proposing a step backward that is unnecessary. If you still disagree, please explain.
Okay. Got that off my chest. But I should just point out that Python programmers can write the code as fast as anyone else. (It was kind of a main talking point for Paul Graham: great hackers like it because it communicates what they want to get done very quickly and with few lines.)
Um, no. If you'll notice, the story I linked to involves a program called xTunes that was forced by Apple to change their name. So they changed it to Sumi, in reference to Apple's changing of the sound to Sosumi.
Um, no. The graph does not assume "a constant number of units sold." It's a parabola. He describes the graph in terms of Revenue = Units Sold * Price. If you keep units sold a constant, it is quite clear that the graph would then be a line. Linear. Not a parabola. His graph takes into account the fact that the higher the price is, the fewer units will be sold. Which of course is what you go on to "clarify." Bear in mind, of course, that the author did say it's a ridiculously simplified model.
First there was iTunes. Then there was myTunes. (Here we will ignore getTunes, which is Mac-only and completely destroys you.) Okay, I->My->??? We? Our? Oh, wait. There is no extension of that line, because from I to My there is no link, other than first person. They're not even the same grammatical declension. So it should be "weTunes" no more than it should be "ourTunes" and as the other responder said, they named it based on their agenda.
Boo!
Haha, I feel like a troll. I'm not though. Sorry about that.
No, I don't think it is I who has the problem with being disconnected from reality. You seem to really have it in for the environmentalists, which is rather strange to me. If they're not idiots, they'll love fusion power. And, regardless of your or anyone else's opinion, they are not idiots. Just because environmentalists have opposed something you wanted before does not mean they will always oppose everything. They want what's best for the environment. (Thus the title 'environmentalist.') So, instead of whining about how they always oppose everything and whining about their political clout, why not show them something? Why not give them reasons they should be supporting this? Why not try to get all that political clout on your side?
Basically, bury the hatchet with "environmentalists" and do something right.
Slashdot Mirror
Who are you calling a lousy player? If you think that's the case with sniping ... I think it's you who is the lousy player. You should practice mobile sniping with a friend of yours, and also 2x sniping from long range and then no zoom sniping. One of my teammates and I spent an entire night playing games where we could only use the sniper rifle and weren't allowed to zoom in. To increase the difficulty, we made it so that if you hit the other guy but didn't get a head shot (thus he doesn't die), then the confrontation ends and both players go get a health pack and continue. That makes sure you play at head level ... and you get damn good.
My point here is that it does not take 5 seconds to kill someone with the sniper rifle. It takes a fraction of a second. And you don't have to zoom in. You only have to know where they are. It just takes practice.
He's referring to the lawsuit (I believe it was in the early-mid 90s) between BSD and AT&T, when AT&T claimed that the newly open source BSD distribution contained a lot of AT&T's Unix source code. However, during the suit it was discovered that all of AT&T's code had been removed and replaced by the BSD coders and AT&T's Unix still had a lot of BSD code, and the lawsuit was dropped/settled.
... but that's what he was talking about.
Just a bit of history
That's kind of the problem. In Linux or BSD, you need a package manager. If you don't have one, you have to check all the dependencies yourself, and it'll drive you mad. In Mac OS X, however, a package manager is totally unnecessary. Installing a new program? Drag the icon to the Applications folder. What about the dependencies? Everything it needs is located in the folders hidden behind the icon. Double-clicking executes the application, but the icon itself does not necessarily represent only an executable. You can browse the folders inside, if you like, to check everything it's using. Want to uninstall? Drag it to the trash. All its libraries go with it. I run SuSE and FreeBSD, and I wish it was that easy.
Optimists make the best hackers. "What can I make this do?" And then they do it.
my 18" McCulloch WoodMeister2000.
Damn! I thought I had a creative and original name for my penis, but you use it too?! Back to the drawing board, I suppose...
Doesn't that just go to show that Apples are comparable in price to PCs? I don't know how much lower Dell goes, so let's just call that the low end. I know it gets better than that on the PC side, but it's much more expensive. Well, this Dell is more expensive than the low end iMac, isn't as good. Anywhere there is a difference in their specs, the iMac is the better machine (except, of course, the clock speed, but everyone is now familiar with the megahertz myth). And the iMac costs less. The only thing is that the low end Mac goes up against a middle end Dell. *shrugs*
Good points, I don't see how it could work, unless services were developed that either only work with a distributed system or work a million times better in a distributed environment, and then the public was made to want those services/features. Or, if the actual technology per device could be made to not cost all that much and when idle it doesn't impact the performance of the device, manufacturers could start sneaking it into current devices and, in a year or two, the network can really start up because everyone's device has the proper chip.
But you're right. If the vast majority of the general public isn't clamoring for this, it really won't work. There's no reason to start it unless it can be guaranteed to make a lot of money and give users things they want. And there isn't any assurance of either, at this point.
"Hmm, if I buy this now I might get free Internet access two years down the road. In the meantime, everybody's freeloading off of me though (since there's nobody else whose device you could use). I think not."
Not quite. If nobody else had a device which you could use, nobody would be freeloading off of you. It would just be a device that you bought that has a feature that you can't use until other people have compatible devices. If nobody else has compatible devices, you can't use their resources and they can't use your resources.
Hmm. You seem to think that in this situation your handheld would be serving everyone else around you, and all of them are just leeching, and you don't get any service from anywhere, it all originates with you. Well, I should probably point out to you that that's not really how sharing models work. When you're not using your resources, they are shared among your peers who might need them. When you are using resources, if you need more than your machine possesses, your peers share with you. And the wireless grid network spreads across all the devices. You are just a link in the chain. Not the start of the chain. Everyone is not leeching off you. And you aren't paying to make everyone else's experience better. Everyone is paying. And everyone gets more than they would if they were going it alone. That's the point.
Every semi informed person pipes up their opinion without so much as any research or prior thought to the comments they make..
Hmm. Yes, you do.
What? You don't consider yourself a "semi informed person"? Well, that's good, because from your post, neither do I. "Informed" definitely does not apply. Anyway, carry on, Mr. AC Semi-Person.
20 dollars worth of boobies? Wow. They're a currency now, too.
Disregard my other post. Apparently it was I who responded to the wrong post. Oops. Considering what you were actually responding to ... all good points. Carry on.
I think I should point out that it seems you have replied to the wrong post. I understand very thoroughly how an operating system works, and my post was about how a central operating system is necessary. Because without the operating system consolidating the complicated and widely used processes (like TCP/IP, etc) and running the multitasking show, the system would be largely unusable.
Your post would have been better served in response to the one I responded to, because it is he that doesn't seeme to understand operating systems, and it was his post that even contains the problems you describe.
I think the problem with your idea is that you don't seem to have thought it through completely, and you certainly haven't explained it thoroughly. What the other responders are saying is that what you describe is pretty much how things used to be. It's how things currently are in consoles. PCs are more versatile than consoles, and a large part of that (and one of the main advances in operating system technology over the years) is multi-tasking. As in, the ability to run multiple programs at once. Your idea seems to go back to the days when that is impossible. However, assuming that's not what you meant, and you want several programs running concurrently, each with their own operating system, you will soon discover that there are all of a sudden 5 or 6 or more operating systems running on your machine. And the running code ... well, there seem to be 5 or 6 or more identical copies. So why not roll that identical code into one process or set of processes, which would dramatically increase efficiency? Well, if we did that, we'd have something I like to call a general purpose "operating system." Basically, you're proposing a step backward that is unnecessary. If you still disagree, please explain.
"It turned out that the software was even better than us, picking up spam we'd incorrectly classified as legitimate emails."
Heh. Does anyone else see that as a good way to downplay false positives?
"Oh, good point, Computer. That email from my boss actually was spam. I didn't realize that until you mentioned it."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Okay. Got that off my chest. But I should just point out that Python programmers can write the code as fast as anyone else. (It was kind of a main talking point for Paul Graham: great hackers like it because it communicates what they want to get done very quickly and with few lines.)
Um, no. If you'll notice, the story I linked to involves a program called xTunes that was forced by Apple to change their name. So they changed it to Sumi, in reference to Apple's changing of the sound to Sosumi.
I said what I meant.
Don't you mean ... sumi?
Um, no. The graph does not assume "a constant number of units sold." It's a parabola. He describes the graph in terms of Revenue = Units Sold * Price. If you keep units sold a constant, it is quite clear that the graph would then be a line. Linear. Not a parabola. His graph takes into account the fact that the higher the price is, the fewer units will be sold. Which of course is what you go on to "clarify." Bear in mind, of course, that the author did say it's a ridiculously simplified model.
No, they probably just dislike Apple. Whatever.
First there was iTunes. Then there was myTunes. (Here we will ignore getTunes, which is Mac-only and completely destroys you.) Okay, I->My->??? We? Our? Oh, wait. There is no extension of that line, because from I to My there is no link, other than first person. They're not even the same grammatical declension. So it should be "weTunes" no more than it should be "ourTunes" and as the other responder said, they named it based on their agenda.
Boo!
Haha, I feel like a troll. I'm not though. Sorry about that.
That is, of course, assuming that a new version comes out every year.
Obligatory Simpsons:
Gates: You didn't think I got to be the richest man in the world by writing a bunch of checks...
No, I don't think it is I who has the problem with being disconnected from reality. You seem to really have it in for the environmentalists, which is rather strange to me. If they're not idiots, they'll love fusion power. And, regardless of your or anyone else's opinion, they are not idiots. Just because environmentalists have opposed something you wanted before does not mean they will always oppose everything. They want what's best for the environment. (Thus the title 'environmentalist.') So, instead of whining about how they always oppose everything and whining about their political clout, why not show them something? Why not give them reasons they should be supporting this? Why not try to get all that political clout on your side?
Basically, bury the hatchet with "environmentalists" and do something right.
How is someone dangerous if they're given a gun with no ammo?
*ducks*