I was in FIRST a couple of years ago. My school wound up in about the middle of the pack in the Michigan state finals in Pontiac. The winning team had a brilliant design for manipulating the playground balls that are central to the game.
If anyone out there is planning on competing, DON'T USE A CLAW DESIGN. It's not reliable, and it's quite slow, as well. Instead, go with the simpler and much more effective "loop" design. Build two metal circles just a bit wider than the ball's diameter and cover them with the red, grippy textured rubber that comes in the construction kits. Then, mount the two circles an inch or two apart at the end of your manipulation arm, and put a pneumatic pump inside the arm with some more of the grip material at the end of the piston. To move balls, just get the loops over the ball, then activate the pump to lock it in place. This will work much better than a claw which, despite looking really cool, will very frequently drop the ball when jarred.
Actually, I've been working on a pretty large programming project recently, and I find that breaking up the task into several different small programs, written in different languages for convenience, actually makes debugging easier. This allows me to test each program chunk individually under controlled conditions. Compare this to a single monolithic executable, and seeding loops with printf commands to figure out just where it segfaults. This also enables me to identify problem code much earlier in the development process.
One of the primary injustices of Sklyarov's arrest is that US law enforcement officials have no jurisdiction over this matter. Even if his actions did violate US laws, he broke Adobe's encryption while living and working in Russia. It is absurd that the United States government should arrest him while travelling in the United States for a his (legal) actions in another country. Arresting a Russian citizen for an alleged violation of the DMCA, which occured in Russia, if at all, is analogous to arresting a Dutch citizen for smoking marijuana while at home in the Netherlands, where such activity is perfectly legal.
Using sex to sell games demeans the entire industry and prevents gaming from being taken seriously. So what?
The article makes a point that the largest crouds were drawn not by E3 peep shows, but by *gasp* actual games. Blizzard and Maxis, in particular, were very popular. Both make, in my opinion, very high quality, fun games, and have even had breakthrough sucess with "mainstream" computer users. If you don't believe me, take a look at sales charts for the last few years. Starcraft and The Sims have made more cash than most major feature films, and they've done so by word of mouth outside of the gaming community.
The point that I'm trying to make is that good games don't need sex appeal inside or outside of the game to be popular. Companies like Blizzard and Maxis will be around for a long time because they make games that people want to play. Companies that rely on "booth babes" won't, because sex alone does not make for popularity in something that is marketed as a game. The porn industry will crush inferior, over-sexualized games, because it's been around for thousands of years, and knows exactly what it's doing when it comes to satisfying the latent sexual fantasies of the male psyche.
It's evolution at work. It all comes down to whether a game is fun, and fun is a concept that transcends the "geek ghetto". No matter what ammount of gratuitous sex or violence is added, it won't distract people if they're not enjoying themselves. Booth babes, your days are numbered.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
I'm a constituent of Michigan's 5th congressional district (and a minor, by the way, so no vote for me). I've been pleasantly surprised when talking to Democratic Rep. Jim Barcia. I first met Jim as a result of attending a candidate forum held a few days before the 2000 election in my home town. Jim had legislative business in Washington, and as such, couldn't make it, but was represented by a campaign worker.
During the forum, I had a chance to ask a question about whether the congressional candidates had supported the DMCA, and what they thought of its potential ramifications for independent computer scientists. While the worker couldn't provide an answer, she did take my name and phone number, and a few days later, Rep. Barcia called me at my home.
While he was be no means a geek, Jim seemed to have a very good grasp of many issues relating to technology and society (he serves on the house Science and Technology committee). We spoke about DeCSS and Napster in particular. He mentioned that his son is a Napster user, and agreed that modern record contracts are unfair to artists, relating a story about some high school friends of his who sold the rights to a rather popular song of theirs for the price of a new amp.
So, in short, I found Mr. Barcia to be very open-minded and well informed, as far as politicians go. If only the rest of the congress could be as cluefull as reps Boucher and Barcia...
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
With all this talk of implications flying around, I thought that I might mention some of the causes of clone health problems. Once an animal has ended the embryonic stage, the ends of its DNA start to decay whenever they are copied in cell division. For a long time, this is a non-issue, since there is "junk" DNA called teleomeres at the ends of animal DNA strands. Once a cell runs out of teleomeres, however, one of two things can happen: 1. Cell division stops, so the body begins the physical process of aging. 2. Copying goes on, and genetic information is lost, most likely resulting in cancer.
How does this apply to cloning? Well, DNA taken from an adult cell to make a clone has already begun to have it's teleomeres decay. So, while a clone's body may only be a few months old, it's DNA can be much older. Essentially, the aging process runs much faster.
This is not to say that making healthy clones is impossible, however. For several years, biochemists have been researching an enzyme called teleomerase. This enzyme repairs teleomeres, so that they never run out (cancerous tumors use teleomerase to grow beyond 90 or so cells). If teleomerase can be synthetically produced in mass quantities, not only will we have healthy clones, but we'll also have cured one of the most signifacant components of aging, dramatically increasing the human lifespan.
The scientific community as a whole has an excellent ethics record when it comes to biotechnology (IP notwithstanding). During the 1970's, when the first genetic engineering experiments were taking place, scientists discovered means of introducing genes for antibiotic resistance into live bacteria. These experiments were carried out in "bio-reactors" with triple air locks and negative pressure seals. Even then, the scientific community realized that they were dealing with potentially epidemic-inducing technology, and they completely stopped all further recombitant DNA research for a period of 6 months.
During that freeze period, guidelines for safe DNA research were established, and special "research strains" of common bacteria were developed (E. Coli strains MM294 and GH5 being two prominent examples). These strains were disabled in half a dozen ways, including the removal of the slime layer that protects bacteria from digestive juices, as well as making the bacteria lycine-dependant (so that they are unable to synthesize proteins outside of the lab). Now, I use those very same strains in my high school Recombitant DNA class. I firmly believe that if the same sort of precaution and careful planning are taken with regards to cloning, we have nothing to fear.
This comment is too revolting to qualify for troll status. Let me expound just why this AC has made my top 5 morons of all time list.
1. OK, Keanu Reeves isn't a fantastic actor. If you want to criticize him, either comment on his lack of talent, or make a clever joke. Don't throw out some made-up tripe about his sexual orientation.
2. What is your problem with homosexuals, anyway? Homosexuals are not some untouchable, evil class. They are human beings who were born with a unique trait which does not affect you in any way. Prejudice against gays is no better than racism.
3. Aids can not be spread by skin contact. The virus does not enter saliva, perspiration, or urine. There is no reason to avoid casually touching a person infected by HIV. Your comment is particularly hurtful to those who did not contrive AIDS by any choice of their own. You are mearly hiding your bigotry in a thin veil of psuedo-pathogenic nonsense.
4. Not all homosexuals have AIDS. Likewise, not all persons who suffer from AIDS are homosexual. The disease has absolutely no preference for sexual orientation. You are just as likely, if not moreso, to encounter a heterosexual person with AIDS as a homosexual one. Of course, this point doesn't really matter (see #3, above).
OpenBSD is widely recognized, both inside and outside of the hacker community, as being an incredibly secure, stable, and robust operating system. Yet when the TrustedBSD project was recently founded to create a *BSD that would eventually be certified for use in the most sensitive areas of the US Government, FreeBSD was used as a starting point. Why do you believe this decision was made? What argument would you make for (or against) the use of OpenBSD in such a case?
It's rather unusual the FreeBSD doesn't boot on Thinkpads just now. I put FreeBSD 3.4 on my cousin's brand new Thinkpad just this summer and, as I understand it, her model (an entry-level celeron) is virtually no different than the newly-renamed boxen. So, logically, there are two options.
1. IBM has altered the hardware of the Thinkpad just slightly, but in such a manner that maliciously causes the normally rock-solid FreeBSD to hang on boot. 2. It's a software change. FreeBSD 4.x may be the culprit. Any time you have major kernel changes (as there were between 3.x and 4.x), particularly with subsystems like PCMCIA, there may be some incompatibilities.
So, should IBM go out of their way to support FreeBSD? Sure. It's a heck of a lot better than the buggy, bloated mess of WinME that they have to go through hardware certification hell for. But, let's be real here, FreeBSD has very low market share outside of the server space, and IBM doesn't have to be fair to FreeBSD just 'cause I say so. Now, as Linux and FreeBSD 3.x still boot (even though they're not officially supported, imagine that!), I say that the easy solution to this problem is good old-fashoned kernel hacking, using the old 3.x tree for reference.
IBM aren't the bad guys for not "officially" supporting free Unices. They aren't the bad guys even if they inadvertently killed FreeBSD booting. BSD has survived clashed with far more malevolent corporations that this (AT&T being the most obvious example).
If your recall Transmeta's initial product anouncement for the Crusoe, you'll remember that the ROM where the code-morphing software resides is flashable. If the "bug" is in the software, problem solved (don't you just love software upgradeable CPUs?). If it's in the hardware, things get a little trickier. For some very specific hardware errors (like the FDIV bug in the original pentium), this shouldn't be too difficult, as they impact one assembly instruction fed a small set of error-inducing data. If the error is more broad, say that there is a major flaw in one or more of the VLIW core's internal instructions, new hardware may be necessary.
But with a chip as simple as the Crusoe, it would be awfully embarrassing to screw up the bare metal that much.
Just thought that I'd point out that this is NOT the first DVD-R drive, and I'm not reffering to DVD-RAM either. For quite some time now, several manufacturers have been offering drives (costing a few thousand dollars apeice, mind you) that write DVD-R discs that can be read in normal DVD-ROM drives and set-top DVD players. The blanks have run a little rich at $30 each, but what with double layering, double-siding, MPEG-4, etc. that's a lotta movies (or data).
This new drive may be the first cheap commercially available DVD recorder, but affordable drives with similar specs have been available in Japan for several months now. Of course, I'm not complaining now that we'll get them in the states, but I just thought I'd point out that this is nothing new.
It's my understanding that the LithTech engine, first used in Shogo, should be very easy to port to Linux, Amiga, and other alternative OSes.
Monolith Software was in collaboration with Microsoft very early on in development. MS did all they could to support development of LithTech as the Quake-killer, the DirectX engine that would finally topple id's OpenGL-driven dominance. But, alas, Monolith and MS had a falling out, and monolith decided that they weren't going to take any more of Microsoft's crap.
They started making most of the core Lithtech code OS and API independant. In fact, the original intent was to simultaneously release Shogo for the Windows PC and the Nintendo 64. They never finished the N64 version, but a pleasant side affect of it's incomplete development is that we have a modular, portable 3D engine that will take very little modification to run on Linux with GL. Or Amiga with whatever 3D API they're using (I assume GL as well).
It's always nice to have engine competition. Now if we can just convince Carmack to open-source Q3...
Both major party candidates have come out in favor of some means of censoring "inappropriate" material on the Internet so that it is not accessable to children. Would you and/or your party support some type of Internet Censorship?
If so, how do you reconcile your position with the fact that in the last 20 years, when interactive violent entertainment has become widely available, youth violence as a whole has seen a decline? Also, how would you implement such restrictions affecting an international data network while still respecting the sovereignty of other nations?
If not, who should be able to dictate what material is available to children? Is it a job for federal, state, or local government? Should it be left to industry self-regulation? Or are Parents the only party with a legitimate right to decide what constitutes acceptable material for children? Should the federal government provide tools and information for parents to use at their own will?
I agree, Glide, despite it's good performance for games and other low-polygon-count applications, is a bad API. This is mainly because it is entirely proprietary. However, Glide is just as Linux-friendly as GL. For more than a year it has been possible to download FULL SOURCE CODE for Voodoo drivers and the Glide API for Linux, and compile scripts have been provided with them. I'm not defending 3DFX's attempt to monopolize the industry with a proprietary game API, I'm just saying that Glide is not so bad on Linux.
Battlebots only recently became a Comedy Central property. It has been a regular on most PBS affiliates for some time now, with an entirely different (read: more intelligent) cast. Also, last year's Battlebots championship was carried on the computer network ZDTV (now TechTV). Commentary was provided by ZDTV's own thoroughly geeky staff. Comedy Central, while enjoyed by many geeks (including myself), caters mainly to a different audience. They must convince this audience that robots are cool with sports-like commentary and a hot blonde (gee, no one's thought of that before), whereas geeks are already set on this point, and want to hear something a little more in depth than Bill Nye's blurb.
So what can be done? I suggest that someone set up a streaming media radio station and give us some live commentary every wednesday night. Most teams have websites with plenty of background information, so that shouldn't pose a problem. So, who wants to do it?
No One Lives Forever is NOT a James Bond-based game. It is a spy shooter set in the 1960's. It has several things in common with bond, such as a british secret agent as the protagonist (to quote the developers, "The female James Bond"), but it is Monolith software's own creation.
It seems to me that the DVD CCA's comments go beyond ignorance to the realm of sheer bigotry. As I'm sure most slashdot readers know, the open source community is dedicated to sharing *their own* ideas and material, and believe that doing so results in greater freedom for developers and users, as well as better software.
The open source movement is not about so-called piracy. In fact, many OSS leaders, including Larry Wall and Linus, have come out as saying that the choice of wether copyrighted material she be redistributable should be up to the copyright holder. Sure, some open-sourcers (myself included) believe that copyrights are a bad idea and should be disobeyed in favor of complete freedom of information. But this is NOT a core tenant of the open-source movement, it is an opinion that I have formed seperately from my involvement with OSS.
This whole case is made worse by the fact that unlike Napster, DeCSS is not something that is explicitly a distribution method. DeCSS allows people to watch Movies, and possibly decrypt them and save them to their hard drives. DeCSS is functionally very similar to a VCR. It allows playback and recording, and has no built in copyright protection. In fact, DeCSS is harder to use for piracy, since DVD blanks cost more than the movies themselves (not to mention the enormous cost of drives), and the ammount of bandwidth required for internet distribution is obscene. On the other hand, I can make a VHS dub and pass it to my friend with little quality loss, and only a couple dollars investment.
The blame game is only effective on inexperienced users. All 3 companies know pretty well that your average Oracle/BEA/AIX user is no fool. I would imagine that you have at least enough experience with server administration to know which of only 3 peices of major software to blame when something goes wrong. Even if a company denies responsibility, a few, um, harsh words to a tech (I'd like to speak to your supervisor. Don't make me give you bad press, etc.) will have them quickly sending an expert to your location.
I should also mention that since you'll be running AIX, you'll also be using IBM hardware, which makes them a fallback point. They may say that they don't support your particular configuration, but once again, they'll fold under pressure. I've done it before with IBM (OK, so it was a Thinkpad running Linux, not a massive AIX server, but still).
For many embedded systems, IBM PowerPC boards are great (think Tivo). They are small, cheap, they run cool, and they're still reasonably fast and powerful. For battery operated devices such as handhelds and webpads however, they use considerably more power than their competition: The StrongARM, the Crusoe, and the (admitedly far less powerful) Dragonball and Coldfire. Performance-wise, the StrongARM is in about the same class as embedded PowerPC models, and the Crusoe is set to blow everyone away.
So in short, if there's a power outlet handy, go with PowerPC, but to maximize battery life, StrongARM and Crusoe are the way to go.
Sun's new embedded architecture is JINI. JINI provides a framework for small java programs to be shared between intelligent devices, allowing devices to access eachother's features without intermediate computers, drivers, etc. For example, a JINI-enabled television could print vidcaps straight to a JINI-enabled printer wirelessly.
The JINI specification is not OS-centric. A JINI device could be a MAJC chip running a minimal Java VM, or a system-on-a-chip running Linux (with a Java VM). It doesn't really matter as long as there is a VM and some sort of wireless networking in place for exchanging objects. So really, Linux Systems on a chip fit in perfectly with what Sun is doing with JINI.
These appliances are supposed to be cheap or free with long term service contracts. For the most part, these fees are similar to standard dialup access (in some cases, like that of Virgin, much less). What isn't considered in this pricing model is that appliances are intended to become a normal part of the home. You may have a set-top box in your living room, an I-opener-like device in your kitchen, a PDA in your pocket, and a webpad in your bedroom. If we're really expected to pay for service and not the devices themselves, it becomes almost impossible to fulfill the purpose that internet appliances were meant for in the first place: ubiquitous access. I'd much rather keep spending $20 a month for access from my ISP and drop a few hundred bucks on whatever appliances that I want then spend $200 a month covering all of the service fees that keep the "free" machines working.
The article seems to say that C# will be platform independent. While it was hard to see through the marketing haze, it looks like M$ may be offering a VM for executing C# code across a variety of OSes and even processors.
This seems self-defeating for the Microsoft of today, since it makes developers less reliant on windows (but more reliant on M$ compilers). Theoretically, though, this could be the flagship product of the "applications company" that may be created in the Microsoft split. When you can't have a self-perpetuating monopoly in the OS feild, you can simply create one in the language feild and have basically the same situation that you started with: An applications barrier of entry caused by proprietary software.
Then again, the M$ definition of "portable" may mean that it will compile once and run on Win9X, WinNT, and WinCE (x86 version only).
First, even if DirectX were ported, you wouldn't be able to just install windows games straight to linux, as they depend on other win32 APIs and libraries as well (although combining WINE with the DirectX port might allow this to be achieved).
As far as OpenGL vs. DirectX, I tend to lean towards OpenGL. It's an open standard, and there are (mostly) compatible implementations offered by SGI, Microsoft, and a host of others (including the open-source MESA). OpenGL was designed with portability in mind, whereas DirectX was created to one-up Apple when quicktime was the hot multimedia format. DirectX is just barely portable to other versions of windows besides 9X (they had to redesign NT's hardware interface layer to make it work in Win2K), let alone UNIX/X11.
OpenGL does default to much higher precision than DirectX, which makes it theoretically slower, but in practice it bests the other API considerably when weilded by a good 3D programmer. Also, let's not forget that OpenGL was originally concieved by SGI, and the feature-sets of SGI chips tend to be a few years ahead of everybody else's. Therefore, "new" features like hardware T&L are already supported by OpenGL and used by all existing GL applications, whereas DirectX has to catch up to the hardware. In fact, even when upgrading to a new version of DirectX, old apps don't benefit from new hardware features.
I've had my current debian installation for more than a year, and I've never had to upgrade MESA. Windows folks haven't needed a GL upgrade since it was first included by default in a service release to Win95, whereas someone with the same version of windows has probably been through at least 4 upgrades to DirectX.
Slashdot Mirror
I was in FIRST a couple of years ago. My school wound up in about the middle of the pack in the Michigan state finals in Pontiac. The winning team had a brilliant design for manipulating the playground balls that are central to the game.
If anyone out there is planning on competing, DON'T USE A CLAW DESIGN. It's not reliable, and it's quite slow, as well. Instead, go with the simpler and much more effective "loop" design. Build two metal circles just a bit wider than the ball's diameter and cover them with the red, grippy textured rubber that comes in the construction kits. Then, mount the two circles an inch or two apart at the end of your manipulation arm, and put a pneumatic pump inside the arm with some more of the grip material at the end of the piston. To move balls, just get the loops over the ball, then activate the pump to lock it in place. This will work much better than a claw which, despite looking really cool, will very frequently drop the ball when jarred.
Actually, I've been working on a pretty large programming project recently, and I find that breaking up the task into several different small programs, written in different languages for convenience, actually makes debugging easier. This allows me to test each program chunk individually under controlled conditions. Compare this to a single monolithic executable, and seeding loops with printf commands to figure out just where it segfaults. This also enables me to identify problem code much earlier in the development process.
One of the primary injustices of Sklyarov's arrest is that US law enforcement officials have no jurisdiction over this matter. Even if his actions did violate US laws, he broke Adobe's encryption while living and working in Russia. It is absurd that the United States government should arrest him while travelling in the United States for a his (legal) actions in another country. Arresting a Russian citizen for an alleged violation of the DMCA, which occured in Russia, if at all, is analogous to arresting a Dutch citizen for smoking marijuana while at home in the Netherlands, where such activity is perfectly legal.
Using sex to sell games demeans the entire industry and prevents gaming from being taken seriously. So what?
The article makes a point that the largest crouds were drawn not by E3 peep shows, but by *gasp* actual games. Blizzard and Maxis, in particular, were very popular. Both make, in my opinion, very high quality, fun games, and have even had breakthrough sucess with "mainstream" computer users. If you don't believe me, take a look at sales charts for the last few years. Starcraft and The Sims have made more cash than most major feature films, and they've done so by word of mouth outside of the gaming community.
The point that I'm trying to make is that good games don't need sex appeal inside or outside of the game to be popular. Companies like Blizzard and Maxis will be around for a long time because they make games that people want to play. Companies that rely on "booth babes" won't, because sex alone does not make for popularity in something that is marketed as a game. The porn industry will crush inferior, over-sexualized games, because it's been around for thousands of years, and knows exactly what it's doing when it comes to satisfying the latent sexual fantasies of the male psyche.
It's evolution at work. It all comes down to whether a game is fun, and fun is a concept that transcends the "geek ghetto". No matter what ammount of gratuitous sex or violence is added, it won't distract people if they're not enjoying themselves. Booth babes, your days are numbered.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
I'm a constituent of Michigan's 5th congressional district (and a minor, by the way, so no vote for me). I've been pleasantly surprised when talking to Democratic Rep. Jim Barcia. I first met Jim as a result of attending a candidate forum held a few days before the 2000 election in my home town. Jim had legislative business in Washington, and as such, couldn't make it, but was represented by a campaign worker.
During the forum, I had a chance to ask a question about whether the congressional candidates had supported the DMCA, and what they thought of its potential ramifications for independent computer scientists. While the worker couldn't provide an answer, she did take my name and phone number, and a few days later, Rep. Barcia called me at my home.
While he was be no means a geek, Jim seemed to have a very good grasp of many issues relating to technology and society (he serves on the house Science and Technology committee). We spoke about DeCSS and Napster in particular. He mentioned that his son is a Napster user, and agreed that modern record contracts are unfair to artists, relating a story about some high school friends of his who sold the rights to a rather popular song of theirs for the price of a new amp.
So, in short, I found Mr. Barcia to be very open-minded and well informed, as far as politicians go. If only the rest of the congress could be as cluefull as reps Boucher and Barcia...
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
With all this talk of implications flying around, I thought that I might mention some of the causes of clone health problems. Once an animal has ended the embryonic stage, the ends of its DNA start to decay whenever they are copied in cell division. For a long time, this is a non-issue, since there is "junk" DNA called teleomeres at the ends of animal DNA strands. Once a cell runs out of teleomeres, however, one of two things can happen: 1. Cell division stops, so the body begins the physical process of aging. 2. Copying goes on, and genetic information is lost, most likely resulting in cancer.
How does this apply to cloning? Well, DNA taken from an adult cell to make a clone has already begun to have it's teleomeres decay. So, while a clone's body may only be a few months old, it's DNA can be much older. Essentially, the aging process runs much faster.
This is not to say that making healthy clones is impossible, however. For several years, biochemists have been researching an enzyme called teleomerase. This enzyme repairs teleomeres, so that they never run out (cancerous tumors use teleomerase to grow beyond 90 or so cells). If teleomerase can be synthetically produced in mass quantities, not only will we have healthy clones, but we'll also have cured one of the most signifacant components of aging, dramatically increasing the human lifespan.
The scientific community as a whole has an excellent ethics record when it comes to biotechnology (IP notwithstanding). During the 1970's, when the first genetic engineering experiments were taking place, scientists discovered means of introducing genes for antibiotic resistance into live bacteria. These experiments were carried out in "bio-reactors" with triple air locks and negative pressure seals. Even then, the scientific community realized that they were dealing with potentially epidemic-inducing technology, and they completely stopped all further recombitant DNA research for a period of 6 months.
During that freeze period, guidelines for safe DNA research were established, and special "research strains" of common bacteria were developed (E. Coli strains MM294 and GH5 being two prominent examples). These strains were disabled in half a dozen ways, including the removal of the slime layer that protects bacteria from digestive juices, as well as making the bacteria lycine-dependant (so that they are unable to synthesize proteins outside of the lab). Now, I use those very same strains in my high school Recombitant DNA class. I firmly believe that if the same sort of precaution and careful planning are taken with regards to cloning, we have nothing to fear.
The headline should read "Worse Than Though", not "then". After all, we are making a comparison, not indicating a generic time.
This comment is too revolting to qualify for troll status. Let me expound just why this AC has made my top 5 morons of all time list.
1. OK, Keanu Reeves isn't a fantastic actor. If you want to criticize him, either comment on his lack of talent, or make a clever joke. Don't throw out some made-up tripe about his sexual orientation.
2. What is your problem with homosexuals, anyway? Homosexuals are not some untouchable, evil class. They are human beings who were born with a unique trait which does not affect you in any way. Prejudice against gays is no better than racism.
3. Aids can not be spread by skin contact. The virus does not enter saliva, perspiration, or urine. There is no reason to avoid casually touching a person infected by HIV. Your comment is particularly hurtful to those who did not contrive AIDS by any choice of their own. You are mearly hiding your bigotry in a thin veil of psuedo-pathogenic nonsense.
4. Not all homosexuals have AIDS. Likewise, not all persons who suffer from AIDS are homosexual. The disease has absolutely no preference for sexual orientation. You are just as likely, if not moreso, to encounter a heterosexual person with AIDS as a homosexual one. Of course, this point doesn't really matter (see #3, above).
OpenBSD is widely recognized, both inside and outside of the hacker community, as being an incredibly secure, stable, and robust operating system. Yet when the TrustedBSD project was recently founded to create a *BSD that would eventually be certified for use in the most sensitive areas of the US Government, FreeBSD was used as a starting point. Why do you believe this decision was made? What argument would you make for (or against) the use of OpenBSD in such a case?
It's rather unusual the FreeBSD doesn't boot on Thinkpads just now. I put FreeBSD 3.4 on my cousin's brand new Thinkpad just this summer and, as I understand it, her model (an entry-level celeron) is virtually no different than the newly-renamed boxen. So, logically, there are two options.
1. IBM has altered the hardware of the Thinkpad just slightly, but in such a manner that maliciously causes the normally rock-solid FreeBSD to hang on boot.
2. It's a software change. FreeBSD 4.x may be the culprit. Any time you have major kernel changes (as there were between 3.x and 4.x), particularly with subsystems like PCMCIA, there may be some incompatibilities.
So, should IBM go out of their way to support FreeBSD? Sure. It's a heck of a lot better than the buggy, bloated mess of WinME that they have to go through hardware certification hell for. But, let's be real here, FreeBSD has very low market share outside of the server space, and IBM doesn't have to be fair to FreeBSD just 'cause I say so. Now, as Linux and FreeBSD 3.x still boot (even though they're not officially supported, imagine that!), I say that the easy solution to this problem is good old-fashoned kernel hacking, using the old 3.x tree for reference.
IBM aren't the bad guys for not "officially" supporting free Unices. They aren't the bad guys even if they inadvertently killed FreeBSD booting. BSD has survived clashed with far more malevolent corporations that this (AT&T being the most obvious example).
If your recall Transmeta's initial product anouncement for the Crusoe, you'll remember that the ROM where the code-morphing software resides is flashable. If the "bug" is in the software, problem solved (don't you just love software upgradeable CPUs?). If it's in the hardware, things get a little trickier. For some very specific hardware errors (like the FDIV bug in the original pentium), this shouldn't be too difficult, as they impact one assembly instruction fed a small set of error-inducing data. If the error is more broad, say that there is a major flaw in one or more of the VLIW core's internal instructions, new hardware may be necessary.
But with a chip as simple as the Crusoe, it would be awfully embarrassing to screw up the bare metal that much.
Just thought that I'd point out that this is NOT the first DVD-R drive, and I'm not reffering to DVD-RAM either. For quite some time now, several manufacturers have been offering drives (costing a few thousand dollars apeice, mind you) that write DVD-R discs that can be read in normal DVD-ROM drives and set-top DVD players. The blanks have run a little rich at $30 each, but what with double layering, double-siding, MPEG-4, etc. that's a lotta movies (or data).
This new drive may be the first cheap commercially available DVD recorder, but affordable drives with similar specs have been available in Japan for several months now. Of course, I'm not complaining now that we'll get them in the states, but I just thought I'd point out that this is nothing new.
It's my understanding that the LithTech engine, first used in Shogo, should be very easy to port to Linux, Amiga, and other alternative OSes.
Monolith Software was in collaboration with Microsoft very early on in development. MS did all they could to support development of LithTech as the Quake-killer, the DirectX engine that would finally topple id's OpenGL-driven dominance. But, alas, Monolith and MS had a falling out, and monolith decided that they weren't going to take any more of Microsoft's crap.
They started making most of the core Lithtech code OS and API independant. In fact, the original intent was to simultaneously release Shogo for the Windows PC and the Nintendo 64. They never finished the N64 version, but a pleasant side affect of it's incomplete development is that we have a modular, portable 3D engine that will take very little modification to run on Linux with GL. Or Amiga with whatever 3D API they're using (I assume GL as well).
It's always nice to have engine competition. Now if we can just convince Carmack to open-source Q3...
Both major party candidates have come out in favor of some means of censoring "inappropriate" material on the Internet so that it is not accessable to children. Would you and/or your party support some type of Internet Censorship?
If so, how do you reconcile your position with the fact that in the last 20 years, when interactive violent entertainment has become widely available, youth violence as a whole has seen a decline? Also, how would you implement such restrictions affecting an international data network while still respecting the sovereignty of other nations?
If not, who should be able to dictate what material is available to children? Is it a job for federal, state, or local government? Should it be left to industry self-regulation? Or are Parents the only party with a legitimate right to decide what constitutes acceptable material for children? Should the federal government provide tools and information for parents to use at their own will?
I agree, Glide, despite it's good performance for games and other low-polygon-count applications, is a bad API. This is mainly because it is entirely proprietary. However, Glide is just as Linux-friendly as GL. For more than a year it has been possible to download FULL SOURCE CODE for Voodoo drivers and the Glide API for Linux, and compile scripts have been provided with them. I'm not defending 3DFX's attempt to monopolize the industry with a proprietary game API, I'm just saying that Glide is not so bad on Linux.
Battlebots only recently became a Comedy Central property. It has been a regular on most PBS affiliates for some time now, with an entirely different (read: more intelligent) cast. Also, last year's Battlebots championship was carried on the computer network ZDTV (now TechTV). Commentary was provided by ZDTV's own thoroughly geeky staff. Comedy Central, while enjoyed by many geeks (including myself), caters mainly to a different audience. They must convince this audience that robots are cool with sports-like commentary and a hot blonde (gee, no one's thought of that before), whereas geeks are already set on this point, and want to hear something a little more in depth than Bill Nye's blurb.
So what can be done? I suggest that someone set up a streaming media radio station and give us some live commentary every wednesday night. Most teams have websites with plenty of background information, so that shouldn't pose a problem. So, who wants to do it?
No One Lives Forever is NOT a James Bond-based game. It is a spy shooter set in the 1960's. It has several things in common with bond, such as a british secret agent as the protagonist (to quote the developers, "The female James Bond"), but it is Monolith software's own creation.
It seems to me that the DVD CCA's comments go beyond ignorance to the realm of sheer bigotry. As I'm sure most slashdot readers know, the open source community is dedicated to sharing *their own* ideas and material, and believe that doing so results in greater freedom for developers and users, as well as better software.
The open source movement is not about so-called piracy. In fact, many OSS leaders, including Larry Wall and Linus, have come out as saying that the choice of wether copyrighted material she be redistributable should be up to the copyright holder. Sure, some open-sourcers (myself included) believe that copyrights are a bad idea and should be disobeyed in favor of complete freedom of information. But this is NOT a core tenant of the open-source movement, it is an opinion that I have formed seperately from my involvement with OSS.
This whole case is made worse by the fact that unlike Napster, DeCSS is not something that is explicitly a distribution method. DeCSS allows people to watch Movies, and possibly decrypt them and save them to their hard drives. DeCSS is functionally very similar to a VCR. It allows playback and recording, and has no built in copyright protection. In fact, DeCSS is harder to use for piracy, since DVD blanks cost more than the movies themselves (not to mention the enormous cost of drives), and the ammount of bandwidth required for internet distribution is obscene. On the other hand, I can make a VHS dub and pass it to my friend with little quality loss, and only a couple dollars investment.
The blame game is only effective on inexperienced users. All 3 companies know pretty well that your average Oracle/BEA/AIX user is no fool. I would imagine that you have at least enough experience with server administration to know which of only 3 peices of major software to blame when something goes wrong. Even if a company denies responsibility, a few, um, harsh words to a tech (I'd like to speak to your supervisor. Don't make me give you bad press, etc.) will have them quickly sending an expert to your location.
I should also mention that since you'll be running AIX, you'll also be using IBM hardware, which makes them a fallback point. They may say that they don't support your particular configuration, but once again, they'll fold under pressure. I've done it before with IBM (OK, so it was a Thinkpad running Linux, not a massive AIX server, but still).
For many embedded systems, IBM PowerPC boards are great (think Tivo). They are small, cheap, they run cool, and they're still reasonably fast and powerful. For battery operated devices such as handhelds and webpads however, they use considerably more power than their competition: The StrongARM, the Crusoe, and the (admitedly far less powerful) Dragonball and Coldfire. Performance-wise, the StrongARM is in about the same class as embedded PowerPC models, and the Crusoe is set to blow everyone away.
So in short, if there's a power outlet handy, go with PowerPC, but to maximize battery life, StrongARM and Crusoe are the way to go.
Sun's new embedded architecture is JINI. JINI provides a framework for small java programs to be shared between intelligent devices, allowing devices to access eachother's features without intermediate computers, drivers, etc. For example, a JINI-enabled television could print vidcaps straight to a JINI-enabled printer wirelessly.
The JINI specification is not OS-centric. A JINI device could be a MAJC chip running a minimal Java VM, or a system-on-a-chip running Linux (with a Java VM). It doesn't really matter as long as there is a VM and some sort of wireless networking in place for exchanging objects. So really, Linux Systems on a chip fit in perfectly with what Sun is doing with JINI.
These appliances are supposed to be cheap or free with long term service contracts. For the most part, these fees are similar to standard dialup access (in some cases, like that of Virgin, much less). What isn't considered in this pricing model is that appliances are intended to become a normal part of the home. You may have a set-top box in your living room, an I-opener-like device in your kitchen, a PDA in your pocket, and a webpad in your bedroom. If we're really expected to pay for service and not the devices themselves, it becomes almost impossible to fulfill the purpose that internet appliances were meant for in the first place: ubiquitous access. I'd much rather keep spending $20 a month for access from my ISP and drop a few hundred bucks on whatever appliances that I want then spend $200 a month covering all of the service fees that keep the "free" machines working.
The article seems to say that C# will be platform independent. While it was hard to see through the marketing haze, it looks like M$ may be offering a VM for executing C# code across a variety of OSes and even processors.
This seems self-defeating for the Microsoft of today, since it makes developers less reliant on windows (but more reliant on M$ compilers). Theoretically, though, this could be the flagship product of the "applications company" that may be created in the Microsoft split. When you can't have a self-perpetuating monopoly in the OS feild, you can simply create one in the language feild and have basically the same situation that you started with: An applications barrier of entry caused by proprietary software.
Then again, the M$ definition of "portable" may mean that it will compile once and run on Win9X, WinNT, and WinCE (x86 version only).
Just a few thoughts on your comment.
First, even if DirectX were ported, you wouldn't be able to just install windows games straight to linux, as they depend on other win32 APIs and libraries as well (although combining WINE with the DirectX port might allow this to be achieved).
As far as OpenGL vs. DirectX, I tend to lean towards OpenGL. It's an open standard, and there are (mostly) compatible implementations offered by SGI, Microsoft, and a host of others (including the open-source MESA). OpenGL was designed with portability in mind, whereas DirectX was created to one-up Apple when quicktime was the hot multimedia format. DirectX is just barely portable to other versions of windows besides 9X (they had to redesign NT's hardware interface layer to make it work in Win2K), let alone UNIX/X11.
OpenGL does default to much higher precision than DirectX, which makes it theoretically slower, but in practice it bests the other API considerably when weilded by a good 3D programmer. Also, let's not forget that OpenGL was originally concieved by SGI, and the feature-sets of SGI chips tend to be a few years ahead of everybody else's. Therefore, "new" features like hardware T&L are already supported by OpenGL and used by all existing GL applications, whereas DirectX has to catch up to the hardware. In fact, even when upgrading to a new version of DirectX, old apps don't benefit from new hardware features.
I've had my current debian installation for more than a year, and I've never had to upgrade MESA. Windows folks haven't needed a GL upgrade since it was first included by default in a service release to Win95, whereas someone with the same version of windows has probably been through at least 4 upgrades to DirectX.