I was at slashdot the other day and they were talking about a patent on clicking on things to buy stuff online! Slashdot's patentening online shopping! Those bastards!
</sarcasm>
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
Then it's definitely a web-based download template and is simply an oversight on their part.
Like I said in another post in this thread, a nice, friendly letter will get this cleared up quickly, but I'm sure the Linux community will create a bad impression as always seems to be the result of these kinds of things.
Self-professed linux zealots flaming those in the name of something which they do not understand. Hopefully someone will send them a nice letter (not you Stallman, you stay away from this).
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
You need to re-read my post. I've released quite a bit of software under the GPL, I believe I know what I'm talking about.
I said "are they using GPLed code in their product?"
As far as I have seen, they are not. They wrote a piece of software themselves and licensed it themselves. No distribution involved.
Now, if their download INCLUDES something other than their application, it should be mentioned that that is NOT under their license, only their application is.
The download page implies that it includes ONLY their application software and nothing else (ie, Linux distro).
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
Okay, so it's a DEVICE that runs Linux and the software download is an actual Linux distribution aimed at the device?
I was under the impression that this was a piece of software that ran on it, completely seperate from the kernel.
In that case, I agree with the fact that it's probably a template for web-based downloads. A friendly letter will probably straighten this out. All you crazy bastards don't go off and fire off flames, although I know a bunch of you are going to do it anyway.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
So they wrote a piece of software and put their own license on it. It just happens this piece of software is for Linux. Last time I checked, there was no law that stated that EVERY piece of software for Linux had to be GPLed.
I've looked at the page, it's their software, they put their own license on it. Am I missing something here? Are they USING GPLed code in their product?
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
I don't like Microsoft any more than the next person, but I really wish the courts and the DOJ would start paying attention to the more absurd things going on like Amazon's patents and the MPAA/DeCSS crap.
Why is it that they *always* rule against Microsoft but yet they are always ruling in favor of the MPAA and Amazon and all of these other bullshit lawsuits?
If you ask me, Microsoft is the lesser of two evils.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
I'm sure the person that typed up that cease and desist letter kept a straight face.
I can see that conversation:
Law firm: So you want to sue flying butt monkeys?
DC: Yup.
Law firm: Riiiight...
But anyhow, this is just ridiculous, it's a physical product that sends output like a keyboard, basically, it is a keyboard. We can do anything we want to with it. We can destroy it, we can pee on it, we can set it on fire, we can strap gi joes and 74 bottle rockets to it and boldy send it where no cat-shaped bar code reader has gone before. We paid for it (granted it cost $0), it's ours.
The nerve of this company is absolutely absurd. Tonight, I'm going to write as many useless (maybe even useful) programs that use the scanner as I can just to piss them off.
Really, what is the world coming to (or at least the US)? I feel that there's going to have to be a revolution before too long, ya know? Kill all the stupid people!
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
Nowhere in that post did I say "you should throw away any database you are using now and use the beta version of MySQL because it has transaction support!" I don't care about transaction support nor do I care if anyone else cares about transaction support, I was simply stating a fact.
I don't pretend to know what you use your db for, but I have several databases under MySQL, one of them has a table that has over 7 million rows (RADIUS logs), and it preforms quite well for what I need it for.
Let me reiterate, it preforms quite well for what I need it for.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
I'll give you that, I see where you are coming from. Yes, for the test, Postgres is far more robust than MySQL, and would, in my opinion (flamesuit on), deserve to do far better in such tests where feature set and ANSI SQL support was a factor.
The point I am trying to get out is that making a real-world choice of database based solely on benchmarks, tests, and the basic principle of the sum of a database's worth by feature set is absurd.
Independent test or not, simply looking at a bar chart and picking the one with the longest bar is as good as an unresearched spin-the-bottle decision.
On a side note, I never took the SATs, but I did make better on the ACT than my valedictorian, I just didn't care about school;)
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
Feature set and ANSI SQL compliance aside, if it does what you want it to do (because a lot of us don't need reverse inside black hole pineapple upside down cake joins with recursive subsubsupersubselects), and you benchmark it yourself and you find one to be faster than the rest, for god's sake, use it and be proud, just don't flame other people's choices, because a good decision should be based on THEIR needs, not yours.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
The logical method of independent testing is to allow the developers of each platform to set up their respective database with whatever tweaks they want, so that you assure that it isn't the tester's fault that the benchmarks are skewed (such as the original Mindcraft test where they like had the Linux box set up all retarded with only 64MB memory enabled, etc, etc).
Then the independent party runs the actual benchmark. Assuming that the independent testing party is TRULY independent, you should get fair benchmarks.
Note that that still doesn't mean one is better than the other than real-world applications, because somebody's real-world application isn't going to be someone else's real-world application.
Real-world is a stupid phrase, since it involves too many ifs.
Like I said in an earlier post, you really need to test them yourself.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
MySQL, starting with 3.23.15, has transaction support. Given, 3.23 is a beta series, but it's been in beta for quite a while, it should be fairly stable. Transaction support has been in the 3.23 series since this May.
Of course I speak with no authority, because I haven't used any of the 3.23 series simply because I don't really need transaction support (although I'll admit I should be using them).
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
What's the saying? If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself, right?
Benchmarks are worthless, even if they are from a supposed "independant" or "unbiased" source.
Benchmarks are just that - benchmarks. They are supposed to be used as a guide.
Really, if you want real-world benchmarks of open-source or freely downloadble databases (even free version of Oracle), download them, set them up, follow the instructions for tweaking the installation for the best performance, plug some sample data in and find out for yourself. If you truly care about the quality of whatever you're developing, this simple couple of hours should be well spent.
My $0.02.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
Really, you're almost asking for trouble with any domain name you register.
I really really hope that none of the domains I own get disputed. I really just don't want to put up with some corporate meany conglomerate knocking on my door and threatening me with legal action because they want a domain I'm using.
Think about it this way. Say I have the 1-800 number 1-800-dom-inoe by pure coincidence. Can Dominoes pizza come sue me take that 1-800 number from me? It's just stupid.
I hate corporate America more and more every day...
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
Heh, if you read the article, at the very end, it says:
Several companies have developed such systems, but most users resist paying for something they can get free from Napster, and some of the systems have been invaded by hackers.
What they mean is that a bunch of us coders dressed in fatigues and stormed their corporate headquarters with snurf guns and snurf-proof vests and took hostages, threatening to blow up the building with snurf bombs.
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
Seriously. Email the people at Napster. I'm sure they realize they have a very tough standpoint to get across.
It's bleak for them. Look at it from an uninformed person's perspective. The basis of it is that this is a utility for trading music for free. The uninformed no nothing about unsigned artists, they only think about mainstream, and that's what the RIAA is trying to prove.
The Napster cause could use a lot more people like yourself. Hell, mp3.com should get all of their unsigned artists to join the fight as well. I'm sure there are loads of people with the mp3.com "label" that would be more than willing to fight against the RIAA.
I really wish the RIAA would just die. They will eventually, they can't live forever.
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
Carmack was interested in the Linux market for their games at one point, pointing out that many industry people were going to watch the sales of Quake III for Linux very closely to see if it was a viable gaming market.
I don't know how those sales figures turned out, but if id is now going to producing games for the x-box, where does Linux fall in all of this? Given: The number one software market is games. It will be more difficult to promote Linux as a viable replacement for the desktop operating system if the xbox is taking a piece of the market share.
I am very unsure what Carmack's interest in the xbox is. I think it would be very dumb of Microsoft not to have Carmack on the board. It would be very beneficial to them to have Carmack on their side.
If this is all fact, I'm just unsure of what Carmack's interest is. Speculation will probably go wild...
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
I remember using it about 3 years ago and it still hasn't gotten any prettier (prettier, not better). Since June 12th was the 1.0 release date, and I had used it before then, I'm sure there were pre-1.0 releases. To tell the truth, I don't much remember what version I ran because I didn't like it. It got removed shortly after the first time I used it.:)
I tried a lot of different WMs. fvwm for the minimalistic approach, fvwm95 looked too much like Win95, so it was singled out. Afterstep was nice, but I ended up using enlightenment because it was so much prettier, albeit godawful slow on my p200mmx linux box (boy did that sucker cost a lot).
I used WindowMaker later, it was nice, reminded me of Afterstep with some cooler features.
GNOME, in my opinion, is much prettier than KDE and has about the same functionality, so that is why I prefer it.
If KDE would get rid of QT, maybe I might use it. Sorry, but QT is just ugly.
That's it for this episode of flashback with Mike;)
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
Heh, you know what the funny thing is? I bet that when good ole Linus gets a tune in his head that he has a hankering for hearing, he goes and opens up his copy of Napster or gnap or gnapster or what have you and starts downloading away... It doesn't have to be napster, either, mp3s can be found by using your favorite web browser just as much as by using napster.
Gives new meaning to free speech, eh? I think Andre said it best: "sin all depends on what you believin in"
Personally, I use mp3s to find out if I actually want to buy the CD. If at least one song is good enough, I might shell out the $15 to buy the CD.
I own the respective CDs of most all of the mp3s I have.
I don't think Napster should go down for this. I mean, if you're going to point the finger at them for being a medium, you might as well sue AOL and Microsoft. Hell, they make the two most popular web browsers and you can download mp3s using them. Sue them! Burn them! Evil! Money good! We're greedy bastards!
</rant> =)
Oh, and die RIAA. =)
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
Of course they're introducing display encryption. It's one of those "oooooh, that's neat" type of ideas, but is it really neccessary? Hell no. Let's look at it from a different perspective - from the evil marketing side...
I run in 1280x1024. That's 1310720 individual pixels. And Intel wants to encrypt each and every one of them before they pass through your video card? Then they must be *decrypted*. Does anyone else see what is happening here? Do you know the amount of processing power that it is going to take to decrypt 1310720 pixels at any split second in time with no latency? What if I'm playing Quake at 120 frames per second? That's 157286400 different pixels per second that have to be encrypted and decrypted. What if I'm rendering a 123,000 faced object? I want it to go fast here, I care not about encrypted pixels.
Hmm, seems to me that you'll have to have a hell of a fast computer and a pixel decoder card and a pixel encryption capable monitor and all this other pixel encryption mumbo jumbo. All these items are going to need obscenely fast processors (or multiple ones) to do something that nobody cares about.
And Intel is pushing this? Hello? Huge marketing ploy here. It's the old "introduce new concept that sounds neat and make everyone think they need it because it's the Next Big Thing (tm) and all these companies will make products using our technology and will have to license it from us and need processors from us and we'll make 89456049305435 billion dollars from something that nobody needed in the first place."
Disclaimer: Given, some pixels won't be passed through because they didn't need to be updated, etc, or the technology will work differently, etc, but my simple mathematics and simple scenario weren't meant to be technologically precise, merely accurate. I also didn't read the article, so I'm shooting from the hip here. =)
-Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
This seems to be one of the most dumbest things I've heard of. I mean, whatever floats your boat, but if anyone I know ever did something like this, I'd probably call them morons and make fun of them for the rest of my life.
Quake's fun an all, but goddamn, grow up, please.
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
Slashdot Mirror
I was at slashdot the other day and they were talking about a patent on clicking on things to buy stuff online! Slashdot's patentening online shopping! Those bastards!
</sarcasm>
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
Then it's definitely a web-based download template and is simply an oversight on their part.
Like I said in another post in this thread, a nice, friendly letter will get this cleared up quickly, but I'm sure the Linux community will create a bad impression as always seems to be the result of these kinds of things.
Self-professed linux zealots flaming those in the name of something which they do not understand. Hopefully someone will send them a nice letter (not you Stallman, you stay away from this).
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
You need to re-read my post. I've released quite a bit of software under the GPL, I believe I know what I'm talking about.
I said "are they using GPLed code in their product?"
As far as I have seen, they are not. They wrote a piece of software themselves and licensed it themselves. No distribution involved.
Now, if their download INCLUDES something other than their application, it should be mentioned that that is NOT under their license, only their application is.
The download page implies that it includes ONLY their application software and nothing else (ie, Linux distro).
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
Okay, so it's a DEVICE that runs Linux and the software download is an actual Linux distribution aimed at the device?
I was under the impression that this was a piece of software that ran on it, completely seperate from the kernel.
In that case, I agree with the fact that it's probably a template for web-based downloads. A friendly letter will probably straighten this out. All you crazy bastards don't go off and fire off flames, although I know a bunch of you are going to do it anyway.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
How is this a GPL violation?
So they wrote a piece of software and put their own license on it. It just happens this piece of software is for Linux. Last time I checked, there was no law that stated that EVERY piece of software for Linux had to be GPLed.
I've looked at the page, it's their software, they put their own license on it. Am I missing something here? Are they USING GPLed code in their product?
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
SMP == symmetric multiprocessing
MacOS has never had symmetric multiprocessing.
It had support for multiple processors, but it was very asymmetric.
Basically all of the processors played hot potato with tasks until one of them got fed up and did it. =)
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
"This is an outrage! It should be called GNU/Qt!"
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
I don't like Microsoft any more than the next person, but I really wish the courts and the DOJ would start paying attention to the more absurd things going on like Amazon's patents and the MPAA/DeCSS crap.
Why is it that they *always* rule against Microsoft but yet they are always ruling in favor of the MPAA and Amazon and all of these other bullshit lawsuits?
If you ask me, Microsoft is the lesser of two evils.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
I'm sure the person that typed up that cease and desist letter kept a straight face.
I can see that conversation:
Law firm: So you want to sue flying butt monkeys?
DC: Yup.
Law firm: Riiiight...
But anyhow, this is just ridiculous, it's a physical product that sends output like a keyboard, basically, it is a keyboard. We can do anything we want to with it. We can destroy it, we can pee on it, we can set it on fire, we can strap gi joes and 74 bottle rockets to it and boldy send it where no cat-shaped bar code reader has gone before. We paid for it (granted it cost $0), it's ours.
The nerve of this company is absolutely absurd. Tonight, I'm going to write as many useless (maybe even useful) programs that use the scanner as I can just to piss them off.
Really, what is the world coming to (or at least the US)? I feel that there's going to have to be a revolution before too long, ya know? Kill all the stupid people!
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
...but they still look like idiots. The story has a screenshot of the link, plain as day, with the URL intact.
On a side note, can screenshots be presented as legal evidence?
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
I hope that wasn't directed at me.
Nowhere in that post did I say "you should throw away any database you are using now and use the beta version of MySQL because it has transaction support!" I don't care about transaction support nor do I care if anyone else cares about transaction support, I was simply stating a fact.
I don't pretend to know what you use your db for, but I have several databases under MySQL, one of them has a table that has over 7 million rows (RADIUS logs), and it preforms quite well for what I need it for.
Let me reiterate, it preforms quite well for what I need it for.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
I'll give you that, I see where you are coming from. Yes, for the test, Postgres is far more robust than MySQL, and would, in my opinion (flamesuit on), deserve to do far better in such tests where feature set and ANSI SQL support was a factor.
;)
The point I am trying to get out is that making a real-world choice of database based solely on benchmarks, tests, and the basic principle of the sum of a database's worth by feature set is absurd.
Independent test or not, simply looking at a bar chart and picking the one with the longest bar is as good as an unresearched spin-the-bottle decision.
On a side note, I never took the SATs, but I did make better on the ACT than my valedictorian, I just didn't care about school
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
Feature set and ANSI SQL compliance aside, if it does what you want it to do (because a lot of us don't need reverse inside black hole pineapple upside down cake joins with recursive subsubsupersubselects), and you benchmark it yourself and you find one to be faster than the rest, for god's sake, use it and be proud, just don't flame other people's choices, because a good decision should be based on THEIR needs, not yours.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
The logical method of independent testing is to allow the developers of each platform to set up their respective database with whatever tweaks they want, so that you assure that it isn't the tester's fault that the benchmarks are skewed (such as the original Mindcraft test where they like had the Linux box set up all retarded with only 64MB memory enabled, etc, etc).
Then the independent party runs the actual benchmark. Assuming that the independent testing party is TRULY independent, you should get fair benchmarks.
Note that that still doesn't mean one is better than the other than real-world applications, because somebody's real-world application isn't going to be someone else's real-world application.
Real-world is a stupid phrase, since it involves too many ifs.
Like I said in an earlier post, you really need to test them yourself.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
MySQL, starting with 3.23.15, has transaction support. Given, 3.23 is a beta series, but it's been in beta for quite a while, it should be fairly stable. Transaction support has been in the 3.23 series since this May.
Of course I speak with no authority, because I haven't used any of the 3.23 series simply because I don't really need transaction support (although I'll admit I should be using them).
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
What's the saying? If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself, right?
Benchmarks are worthless, even if they are from a supposed "independant" or "unbiased" source.
Benchmarks are just that - benchmarks. They are supposed to be used as a guide.
Really, if you want real-world benchmarks of open-source or freely downloadble databases (even free version of Oracle), download them, set them up, follow the instructions for tweaking the installation for the best performance, plug some sample data in and find out for yourself. If you truly care about the quality of whatever you're developing, this simple couple of hours should be well spent.
My $0.02.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
Eh, so sue me. I don't eat there anyways, can't stand their pizza.
;)
Papa Johns forever.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
Really, you're almost asking for trouble with any domain name you register.
I really really hope that none of the domains I own get disputed. I really just don't want to put up with some corporate meany conglomerate knocking on my door and threatening me with legal action because they want a domain I'm using.
Think about it this way. Say I have the 1-800 number 1-800-dom-inoe by pure coincidence. Can Dominoes pizza come sue me take that 1-800 number from me? It's just stupid.
I hate corporate America more and more every day...
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
Heh, if you read the article, at the very end, it says:
Several companies have developed such systems, but most users resist paying for something they can get free from Napster, and some of the systems have been invaded by hackers.
What they mean is that a bunch of us coders dressed in fatigues and stormed their corporate headquarters with snurf guns and snurf-proof vests and took hostages, threatening to blow up the building with snurf bombs.
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
Seriously. Email the people at Napster. I'm sure they realize they have a very tough standpoint to get across.
It's bleak for them. Look at it from an uninformed person's perspective. The basis of it is that this is a utility for trading music for free. The uninformed no nothing about unsigned artists, they only think about mainstream, and that's what the RIAA is trying to prove.
The Napster cause could use a lot more people like yourself. Hell, mp3.com should get all of their unsigned artists to join the fight as well. I'm sure there are loads of people with the mp3.com "label" that would be more than willing to fight against the RIAA.
I really wish the RIAA would just die. They will eventually, they can't live forever.
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
Well, this is very interesting indeed.
Carmack was interested in the Linux market for their games at one point, pointing out that many industry people were going to watch the sales of Quake III for Linux very closely to see if it was a viable gaming market.
I don't know how those sales figures turned out, but if id is now going to producing games for the x-box, where does Linux fall in all of this? Given: The number one software market is games. It will be more difficult to promote Linux as a viable replacement for the desktop operating system if the xbox is taking a piece of the market share.
I am very unsure what Carmack's interest in the xbox is. I think it would be very dumb of Microsoft not to have Carmack on the board. It would be very beneficial to them to have Carmack on their side.
If this is all fact, I'm just unsure of what Carmack's interest is. Speculation will probably go wild...
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
KDE has been around for a while.
:)
;)
I remember using it about 3 years ago and it still hasn't gotten any prettier (prettier, not better). Since June 12th was the 1.0 release date, and I had used it before then, I'm sure there were pre-1.0 releases. To tell the truth, I don't much remember what version I ran because I didn't like it. It got removed shortly after the first time I used it.
I tried a lot of different WMs. fvwm for the minimalistic approach, fvwm95 looked too much like Win95, so it was singled out. Afterstep was nice, but I ended up using enlightenment because it was so much prettier, albeit godawful slow on my p200mmx linux box (boy did that sucker cost a lot).
I used WindowMaker later, it was nice, reminded me of Afterstep with some cooler features.
GNOME, in my opinion, is much prettier than KDE and has about the same functionality, so that is why I prefer it.
If KDE would get rid of QT, maybe I might use it. Sorry, but QT is just ugly.
That's it for this episode of flashback with Mike
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
Heh, you know what the funny thing is? I bet that when good ole Linus gets a tune in his head that he has a hankering for hearing, he goes and opens up his copy of Napster or gnap or gnapster or what have you and starts downloading away... It doesn't have to be napster, either, mp3s can be found by using your favorite web browser just as much as by using napster.
Gives new meaning to free speech, eh?
I think Andre said it best: "sin all depends on what you believin in"
Personally, I use mp3s to find out if I actually want to buy the CD. If at least one song is good enough, I might shell out the $15 to buy the CD.
I own the respective CDs of most all of the mp3s I have.
I don't think Napster should go down for this. I mean, if you're going to point the finger at them for being a medium, you might as well sue AOL and Microsoft. Hell, they make the two most popular web browsers and you can download mp3s using them. Sue them! Burn them! Evil! Money good! We're greedy bastards!
</rant> =)
Oh, and die RIAA. =)
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
Of course they're introducing display encryption. It's one of those "oooooh, that's neat" type of ideas, but is it really neccessary? Hell no. Let's look at it from a different perspective - from the evil marketing side...
I run in 1280x1024. That's 1310720 individual pixels. And Intel wants to encrypt each and every one of them before they pass through your video card? Then they must be *decrypted*. Does anyone else see what is happening here? Do you know the amount of processing power that it is going to take to decrypt 1310720 pixels at any split second in time with no latency? What if I'm playing Quake at 120 frames per second? That's 157286400 different pixels per second that have to be encrypted and decrypted. What if I'm rendering a 123,000 faced object? I want it to go fast here, I care not about encrypted pixels.
Hmm, seems to me that you'll have to have a hell of a fast computer and a pixel decoder card and a pixel encryption capable monitor and all this other pixel encryption mumbo jumbo. All these items are going to need obscenely fast processors (or multiple ones) to do something that nobody cares about.
And Intel is pushing this? Hello? Huge marketing ploy here. It's the old "introduce new concept that sounds neat and make everyone think they need it because it's the Next Big Thing (tm) and all these companies will make products using our technology and will have to license it from us and need processors from us and we'll make 89456049305435 billion dollars from something that nobody needed in the first place."
Disclaimer:
Given, some pixels won't be passed through because they didn't need to be updated, etc, or the technology will work differently, etc, but my simple mathematics and simple scenario weren't meant to be technologically precise, merely accurate. I also didn't read the article, so I'm shooting from the hip here. =)
-Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
My thoughts exactly.
This seems to be one of the most dumbest things I've heard of. I mean, whatever floats your boat, but if anyone I know ever did something like this, I'd probably call them morons and make fun of them for the rest of my life.
Quake's fun an all, but goddamn, grow up, please.
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."