This is a really nasty thing MS is doing, but that's just the default OpenGL version that comes with Windows, right? What's to keep games from including newer/special versions of the dlls?
This all has to do with the Aeroglass desktop effect. To use OpenGL and retain the Aeroglass, you must use the MS OpenGL implementation. Once an OpenGL ICD is loaded, Vista will detect this and turn off the Aeroglass effect, and users will go "gosh, this app makes my pretty desktop look dull!".
hey have nothing to do with HP-UX or Unix of any kind. They are Tadem machines (feel free to look that up).
Here seems to be an article that explains a bit how Tandems work, and a bit about the NonStop line from HP. Here's what they say about the Tandem approach:
Basically, instead of doubling up on server hardware (that's the 2n approach) and using high availability clustering software to keep systems in synch, Tandem created the n+1 approach, which says create a clustered system that spreads the database over many nodes that share nothing and throw in an extra one that can take over if one fails. The Tandem approach makes for complex interconnection, but it also does not require companies to double up on their processing capacity.
Here's interesting quote on how triply reduntant systems work:
In a triply redundant system, like the one used in the Space Shuttle, all of the redundant parts run the same instruction code against the same data in exactly the same sequence. To finish a transaction, the three redundant computers to vote for each transaction they process. If all three machines agree, the transaction continues; if two out of three agree, the one that does not agree is taken offline and the transaction progresses until a spare is brought online. If none of the nodes agree, several people have lost their jobs.
I'm not really convinced that the distinction that you are making (i.e. between understanding and behaviour memorisation) really exists.
I'm certain there is a distinction. When I first implemented a texture mapper (for my very first 3d "engine"), I basically copied one from an article. Afterwards, I kept tinkering with it, reimplementing it etc etc.
Each time I grasped a little more, why it was doing this, why that had to be done that way and so on. One day, I finally "got it". Before then, I could (almost) write it from memory, but I didn't understand why it was doing all the things it did.
I've had similar experiences with other concepts, where I've gone from beeing able to duplicate something, to understand how it works, and why it works.
This is a particularly pervasive myth. Of course, the folklore is incorrect: according to basic thermodynamics, a quantity of warm water will invariably take longer to freeze than an equal quantity of cold water.
It seems that under certain conditions, hot water can indeed freeze faster than cool water. Just why and how exactly this happens seems be under discussion though, and might be a combination of a variety of factors, including:
Evaporation could reduce the volume to be frozen
Cold water can contain more disolved gasses, which can alter the freezing point and the ability to form convection currents
Hot water will form convection currents faster, which aids in the cooling process
The moon orbits around the earth because it is in the earths gravitational field much like how earth is in the sun's gravitational field. If we begin building things on the moon would this not eventually lead to it's overall mass becoming greater thus giving the posibilty of the moon being pulled closer to the earth or possibly being thrown off (balance/it's axis)?
Yes, building things on the moon would change it's tilt and orbit due to the added mass. How much depends of course on how much mass we're talking about here.
Let's say we build ten thousand structures each with the same mass as the Empire State Building. Empire State Building has a mass of approximately 3.31 × 10^8 kg, so the combined mass of our structures would be about 3.31 × 10^12 kg. That's certainly not a small number! However, the moon is a bit larger than it appears in the night sky. In fact, it's mass is about 7.35 × 10^22 kg.
This means that our new moon "village" makes up about 0.0000000045% of the combined mass. I don't think that's gonna make the moon behave much differently anytime soon.
But anyone saavy enough to set up linux workstations running Samba is saavy enough to setup a linux file/print server running samba, nfs, lpd, cups, et al.
Uhm? Sounds like you got it the other way around. Imagine all your machines are using Windows (horrible, yet common:). You have a PDC, you have a file / print server, which the workstations use via normal Windows shares. In this case, Samba could compete with the file / print server as you could set it up to directly replace a Windows file/print server and not doing anything on the clients.
A "kill -9" equivalent that doesn't take 20 seconds to perform its function... Seriously, Windows is somewhat better than it was, but why the hell does it take so long to kill a damn process?
Taskman tries to send the window a WM_QUIT first, and if that times out, then it terminates it. Afaik that is:)
Samba is not a competitor to Microsoft. Samba does not run on Microsoft Windows. Microsoft does not sell or market it's SMB protocols separately from Windows. Microsofts SMB protocols have not been ported to any other operating system on which Samba runs.
I think you could claim that Samba is a competing product, in the sense that SMB is built into Windows, and thus you might replace a Windows installation with another OS + Samba if all you use that Windows installation for is file and print serving, which a lot of Windows boxes do.
All of the images are good (especially the office), but far from photorealistic. What is keeping designers from making completely photorealistic renderings?
Last time I checked out POV-Ray, the evolutionary roots showed. It was never built to be a physically based ray tracer, and it shows. It certainly has become better over the years, but to really generate photorealistic images, I think you need a raytracer who was designed to be physically correct from the ground up, as this image illustrates (imho).
However that's still not enough. Most shaders used to describe various materials, while physically "sound", are not based on direct physical simlulation. Thus the artist can't punch in some known physical values and get that right kind of blue plastic. He/she has to fiddle with a lot of parameters to make it look like the real thing.
I once asked RMS in a conference what he thought about products with a short shelf life value, like games. There are not too many ways to create a profit out of a game if you make it open source.
All the content would obviously not be open sourced, and that's really what you pay for when you purchase a game isn't it?
However, how exactly would, for instance, Epic earn money by open sourcing their Unreal Engine? Sure they could make a few bucks off another Unreal (Tournament) game, basically selling the game content. But lets face it, they're not planning on making big bucks on that.
Tim Sweeney thinks this is the direction the industry is headed: "We also see middleware as one of the major cost-saving directions for the industry as software complexity increases. It's certainly not economical for hundreds of teams to write their own multithreaded game engines and tool sets."
Where should Epic get their R & D money from, in RMS' opinion?
Unless Adobe is going into operating systems and office software or Microsoft is going into graphics design the two companies have pretty close to zero overlap.
I've been thinking, wouldn't Avalon be competing with Flash and possibly Shockwave? From the Avalon homepage: "Avalon provides the foundation for building applications and high fidelity experiences, blending together application UI, documents, and media content, while exploiting the full power of your computer."
Perhaps Adobe wanted Flash for integration with its products, and though Microsoft might be interested in it because of Avalon?
So, why are they not compatible? Are they using WMP hooks or DLLs that are no longer present?
If they used the ActiveX control, for instance, in the same way many use IE's ActiveX control to embed a browser into their programs. It's quick, it's easy, and it's free. If someone wanted to make a replacement for that ActiveX control (which should be possible), they would have to implement all the interfaces in the same way that WMP/IE does.
After reading it over and over again, I still get from the article that Einstein's Cosmological Constant was added to the theory to explain the expansion. But didn't His theory already explain expansion? And if so, why would He "repudiate" something that was experimentally verified a few years later by Edwin Hubble? Then if His theory already predicted expansion, then the only purpose of introducing the Cosmological Constant that explains expansion would be to enhance the prediction in expansion rate, would it not?
Yes, Enstein saw that his model expanded, and added the constant to compensate for the expansion. This was because at that time, the current view was that the universe was static.
However, from what I've gathered, what we've been discovering in recent time is that the expansion is accelerating, and that this acceleration could be explained by re-introducing Einstein's constant. Here's a quote I found: "Unlike Einstein's famous fudge factor, the cosmological constant in its present incarnation doesn't delicately (and artificially) balance gravity in order to maintain a static universe; instead, it has "negative pressure" that causes expansion to accelerate."
Of course I could be very wrong on the last part, I just enjoy reading about these things. Exciting times!:)
Firefox just ignores the local internet connection settings, which say, "Use this proxy", and as far as I know, even if it was installed on the computer's, there's no way to set that, and make it secure
So why haven't they simply made the gateway route all 80 and 443 traffic through the proxy? No need to configure any clients.
...and then warned the user specifically to NOT say yes. The idiot said yes anyway.
I think there's a bigger problem with users getting "trained" to click "ok" or "yes" on all sorts of dialog boxes without understanding why the dialog box appeared or what the consequences are. Like when we "techies" casually say "Oh, yeah, just click ok on that one".
Part of the reason, imho, is that dialog boxes are abused. I think software authors and especially Microsoft should try to think much harder about dialog boxes, especially when to use them and how to present them. For one, include a "if you are unsure, do X" (like the Linux kernel config menu, very good example). I think that would help users to not just "I don't want to do anything wrong, so I'll click Yes".
Web browsers should also have visually different windows for popups and similar, so that casual users could have an easier time distinguising between real dialogs and "copycat" ads.
The point is, you still fail the "pick up a random piece of consumer hardware and have it work out of the box" test.
My friend just experienced this. He went to get a gigabit network card, and they were out of the Linksys card he was planning to get. They did however have an Intel card at a slightly higher price, so he got that. When he got home he discovered there was almost no Linux support for the Linksys, and that his Intel was fully supported.
He was rather happy they were out of Linksys that day.:)
Slashdot Mirror
The swiss army knife can do a lot of things, but it can't do anything it wasn't meant to.
You obviously need to watch more MacGyver.
This is a really nasty thing MS is doing, but that's just the default OpenGL version that comes with Windows, right? What's to keep games from including newer/special versions of the dlls?
This all has to do with the Aeroglass desktop effect. To use OpenGL and retain the Aeroglass, you must use the MS OpenGL implementation. Once an OpenGL ICD is loaded, Vista will detect this and turn off the Aeroglass effect, and users will go "gosh, this app makes my pretty desktop look dull!".
The research purpose of the research is...
Wait, research has research purpose? When did this happen?
My pet peeve is "ping". What the hell is a "great ping"?
It's slang/abbreviation for "great ping times". You know, the same way "I've searched google" became "I googled".
Here seems to be an article that explains a bit how Tandems work, and a bit about the NonStop line from HP. Here's what they say about the Tandem approach:
Here's interesting quote on how triply reduntant systems work:
I'm not really convinced that the distinction that you are making (i.e. between understanding and behaviour memorisation) really exists.
I'm certain there is a distinction. When I first implemented a texture mapper (for my very first 3d "engine"), I basically copied one from an article. Afterwards, I kept tinkering with it, reimplementing it etc etc.
Each time I grasped a little more, why it was doing this, why that had to be done that way and so on. One day, I finally "got it". Before then, I could (almost) write it from memory, but I didn't understand why it was doing all the things it did.
I've had similar experiences with other concepts, where I've gone from beeing able to duplicate something, to understand how it works, and why it works.
Uh, Unreal Engine 3 is made by Epic, not id.
The joke was supposed to be something along the lines that Doom3 is barely more than Id's engine.
I'm already aware of Unreal Engine 3, but that isn't a game alone.
;)
Someone should tell Id that
It seems it's not a myth after all, and has a name: the Mpemba effect.
It seems that under certain conditions, hot water can indeed freeze faster than cool water. Just why and how exactly this happens seems be under discussion though, and might be a combination of a variety of factors, including:
The moon orbits around the earth because it is in the earths gravitational field much like how earth is in the sun's gravitational field. If we begin building things on the moon would this not eventually lead to it's overall mass becoming greater thus giving the posibilty of the moon being pulled closer to the earth or possibly being thrown off (balance/it's axis)?
Yes, building things on the moon would change it's tilt and orbit due to the added mass. How much depends of course on how much mass we're talking about here.
Let's say we build ten thousand structures each with the same mass as the Empire State Building. Empire State Building has a mass of approximately 3.31 × 10^8 kg, so the combined mass of our structures would be about 3.31 × 10^12 kg. That's certainly not a small number! However, the moon is a bit larger than it appears in the night sky. In fact, it's mass is about 7.35 × 10^22 kg.
This means that our new moon "village" makes up about 0.0000000045% of the combined mass. I don't think that's gonna make the moon behave much differently anytime soon.
Also, auto save isn't a bad thing
And neither is using CPU time that's otherwise spent in the System Idle Process.
But anyone saavy enough to set up linux workstations running Samba is saavy enough to setup a linux file/print server running samba, nfs, lpd, cups, et al.
:). You have a PDC, you have a file / print server, which the workstations use via normal Windows shares. In this case, Samba could compete with the file / print server as you could set it up to directly replace a Windows file /print server and not doing anything on the clients.
Uhm? Sounds like you got it the other way around. Imagine all your machines are using Windows (horrible, yet common
A "kill -9" equivalent that doesn't take 20 seconds to perform its function... Seriously, Windows is somewhat better than it was, but why the hell does it take so long to kill a damn process?
:)
Taskman tries to send the window a WM_QUIT first, and if that times out, then it terminates it. Afaik that is
Samba is not a competitor to Microsoft. Samba does not run on Microsoft Windows. Microsoft does not sell or market it's SMB protocols separately from Windows. Microsofts SMB protocols have not been ported to any other operating system on which Samba runs.
I think you could claim that Samba is a competing product, in the sense that SMB is built into Windows, and thus you might replace a Windows installation with another OS + Samba if all you use that Windows installation for is file and print serving, which a lot of Windows boxes do.
All of the images are good (especially the office), but far from photorealistic. What is keeping designers from making completely photorealistic renderings?
Last time I checked out POV-Ray, the evolutionary roots showed. It was never built to be a physically based ray tracer, and it shows. It certainly has become better over the years, but to really generate photorealistic images, I think you need a raytracer who was designed to be physically correct from the ground up, as this image illustrates (imho).
However that's still not enough. Most shaders used to describe various materials, while physically "sound", are not based on direct physical simlulation. Thus the artist can't punch in some known physical values and get that right kind of blue plastic. He/she has to fiddle with a lot of parameters to make it look like the real thing.
This was covered yesterday.
:)
I think you left out "dis" before "covered"
I once asked RMS in a conference what he thought about products with a short shelf life value, like games. There are not too many ways to create a profit out of a game if you make it open source.
All the content would obviously not be open sourced, and that's really what you pay for when you purchase a game isn't it?
However, how exactly would, for instance, Epic earn money by open sourcing their Unreal Engine? Sure they could make a few bucks off another Unreal (Tournament) game, basically selling the game content. But lets face it, they're not planning on making big bucks on that.
Tim Sweeney thinks this is the direction the industry is headed: "We also see middleware as one of the major cost-saving directions for the industry as software complexity increases. It's certainly not economical for hundreds of teams to write their own multithreaded game engines and tool sets."
Where should Epic get their R & D money from, in RMS' opinion?
Unless Adobe is going into operating systems and office software or Microsoft is going into graphics design the two companies have pretty close to zero overlap.
I've been thinking, wouldn't Avalon be competing with Flash and possibly Shockwave?
From the Avalon homepage: "Avalon provides the foundation for building applications and high fidelity experiences, blending together application UI, documents, and media content, while exploiting the full power of your computer."
Perhaps Adobe wanted Flash for integration with its products, and though Microsoft might be interested in it because of Avalon?
My question is really at what point would movement of tonnage from earth to the moon start having a noticable effect(tides, rotation, etc).
All the dams around the world has already changed the rotational speed and tilt of the earth, and you don't see many worrying about it do you?
So, why are they not compatible? Are they using WMP hooks or DLLs that are no longer present?
If they used the ActiveX control, for instance, in the same way many use IE's ActiveX control to embed a browser into their programs. It's quick, it's easy, and it's free. If someone wanted to make a replacement for that ActiveX control (which should be possible), they would have to implement all the interfaces in the same way that WMP/IE does.
Any ideas on that RTL bug that makes Delphi7 compiled apps sometimes crash
Have you checked out QualityCentral?
After reading it over and over again, I still get from the article that Einstein's Cosmological Constant was added to the theory to explain the expansion. But didn't His theory already explain expansion? And if so, why would He "repudiate" something that was experimentally verified a few years later by Edwin Hubble? Then if His theory already predicted expansion, then the only purpose of introducing the Cosmological Constant that explains expansion would be to enhance the prediction in expansion rate, would it not?
:)
Yes, Enstein saw that his model expanded, and added the constant to compensate for the expansion. This was because at that time, the current view was that the universe was static.
However, from what I've gathered, what we've been discovering in recent time is that the expansion is accelerating, and that this acceleration could be explained by re-introducing Einstein's constant. Here's a quote I found: "Unlike Einstein's famous fudge factor, the cosmological constant in its present incarnation doesn't delicately (and artificially) balance gravity in order to maintain a static universe; instead, it has "negative pressure" that causes expansion to accelerate."
Of course I could be very wrong on the last part, I just enjoy reading about these things. Exciting times!
Firefox just ignores the local internet connection settings, which say, "Use this proxy", and as far as I know, even if it was installed on the computer's, there's no way to set that, and make it secure
So why haven't they simply made the gateway route all 80 and 443 traffic through the proxy? No need to configure any clients.
...and then warned the user specifically to NOT say yes. The idiot said yes anyway.
I think there's a bigger problem with users getting "trained" to click "ok" or "yes" on all sorts of dialog boxes without understanding why the dialog box appeared or what the consequences are. Like when we "techies" casually say "Oh, yeah, just click ok on that one".
Part of the reason, imho, is that dialog boxes are abused. I think software authors and especially Microsoft should try to think much harder about dialog boxes, especially when to use them and how to present them. For one, include a "if you are unsure, do X" (like the Linux kernel config menu, very good example). I think that would help users to not just "I don't want to do anything wrong, so I'll click Yes".
Web browsers should also have visually different windows for popups and similar, so that casual users could have an easier time distinguising between real dialogs and "copycat" ads.
Just my thoughts on the issue.
The point is, you still fail the "pick up a random piece of consumer hardware and have it work out of the box" test.
:)
My friend just experienced this. He went to get a gigabit network card, and they were out of the Linksys card he was planning to get. They did however have an Intel card at a slightly higher price, so he got that. When he got home he discovered there was almost no Linux support for the Linksys, and that his Intel was fully supported.
He was rather happy they were out of Linksys that day.