Vista wasn't bug free for many people. Bluescreens abounded due to a late change in the graphics driver model that forced NVidia and ATI to scramble to get new drivers out the door in a hurry (IIRC).
Backporting significantly increases the cost of development and it is not fair to early adopters who want to see HTML 5 and CSS 3 actions and run applets but can't due to a 11 year old OS and browser.
Again you still don't get it. There is nothing preventing HTML5 working in WinXP (since Firefox and Chrome can do it). There is nothing prevent steroscopic 3D working in Windows XP (since OpenGL does it). You are trying to make technical argument that doesn't hold water. I'm a developer and know all about backporting - but use technologies that work on Windows XP as well as everywhere else - it is just that you have your blinkers on regarding technology, at least from my point of view - and even the uninformed can see through the bullshit arguments Microsoft is making, once you point it out (hence the umbrage taken by myself and other informed posters). I'm not against Microsoft, just the way they sometimes do business.
You simply don't get it. I'm not saying that Windows XP is better than Windows 7, no one is. What we are saying are two things: 1) many people are not like you and don't routinely change their working computers just for the latest fashion, they change when their computer dies; 2) Windows 7 is better than Windows XP, but not sufficiently so for the way most *ordinary* users use it. You are writing from your techie perspective and simply don't appear to understand what the rest of thinks about these forced upgrades to get trivial graphics features (which, as I point out, are implemented in Win XP under OpenGL
It is irresponsible and dangerous to run XP today and especially after next year. It is time to move on my friend.
I'm not talking about my computing preferences, and again you appear to fail to grasp the concepts I'm talking about (preferring instead to flaunt supposed superiority because it appears you imagine yourself as some kind of early adopter). I'm talking about how *ordinary users* are working (including the vast populations that live outside the US, like myself). Ya know, these regular folk have the systems people like you and I have to maintain. It is these people who are having their arms twisted to upgrade unnecessarily in order to run programs that don't actually need the new APIs.
On the flip side, even if you can't upgrade your driver on Windows, you can still run most new software on a 10 year old version of the OS.
I think you missed the point of the article and our comments. The point is that Microsoft are requiring operating system upgrades just for minor graphics updates. This means you *cannot* run new DirectX 11.1 or 10 software on older versions of Windows (that is, otherwise functional Win XP) - which is contra to your statement.
I'm afraid you don't understand the point of OpenGL extensions at all. It is OpenGL that is designed to be the standard API on all platforms. Extensions allow new features to be used that are not yet covered by the latest standard (now refreshed at pretty much an annual rate). That means you can get features sooner (with DirectX you have to wait until Microsoft are ready to release a new operating system, since that is now their modus operandi). The OpenGL use of extensions is a *feature* not a limitation. The OpenGL *standard* version now has more features than DirectX, and works the same across all platforms. Yet people still buy into the whole DirectX nonsense. If you are developing OpenGL (as I do) you are already set up for the future changes in computing (the shift to mobile and iPads) - it is only dinosaurs who can't see the writing on the wall and still promote DirectX.
OpenGL has had support for stereoscopic rendering *forever*. OpenGL works on Windows (XP to 8), Linux, Mac, Unix and almost all embedded devices (eg phone; athoguh that is the OpenGL ES variant). Requiring an O/S upgrade for a trivial feature increase in DirectX shows just how borked the designs of DX and Windows are.
Hmm. How come OpenGL works so well on all these platforms? Oh yeah, and OpenGL is generally faster than DirectX for rendering as well: especially if you are running on Linux, but even on Windows OpenGL is very very fast - despite being portable.
Right, but Ubuntu will only have drivers for certain GPUs. If yours isn't one of them, forget it.
This is no different to Windows. Windows driver support is especially poor if you have a GPU older than 3 years. The reality is that Windows has better support for new hardware than Linux, but the complete reverse is true for older hardware.
Wrong. There are still hundreds of millions of users with perfectly good computers that are running XP. They don't want to upgrade and migrate all their data and settings. They don't want to pay for new software that will let them do the things they do already. Hell, the feature touted in the thread summary (stereoscopic rendering) is already on Windows XP in OpenGL (and has been forever, including lots of effects that Microsoft forced you to get Vista for). Requiring an OS upgrade for simple features has nothing to do with technology (since OpenGL has no problem) - it is all about bilking you for more money.
Very interesting. Thanks for posting that useful information. I'll be looking at an Elitebook even more closely when its time to replace my 17" MacbookPro.
Awesome. It's completely cool if you think I'm wrong - at least you have an open mind to the possibility that there may be some new points of view to consider. I hope things work out well for you and your country.
Man I'm getting senile. Here's a link to the (academic, non-poltical) video I mentioned. I hope it provides some insight into what outsiders see as going on in your political system:
Global Awareness Lecture - Putinism and Russia's Political Dead End http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOcqdeW7xO8
Sorry, my proof-reading is so bad I need to apologize. I meant to say in the first paragraph, "he *not* has stopped beating his wife, but it is ok because he only beats her once per day". Hopefully that paragraph will now reflect the point I was trying to make.
"though these elections were not free and fair, they were the freest and fairest in 15 years"
is exactly akin to the classic, "he has stopped beating his wife, but it is ok because he only beats her once per day". Just because the vote is less rigged than before still doesn't make the elections "free and fair" (which were your contraditory words earlier in the paragraph). I applaud the progress, but don't think just because there is progress that the regime should be let off the hook. Without pressure it is too easy to stand still or go backwards. This is the vital social function that Pussy Riot and other wierdos serve. I may not agree with the way they make their statements but what the fringe says is often true (but of course, not always true). Once you get elections so free and fair that Stephen Cohen can actually use those words *then* the regime can be defended and I will be too - but no sooner.
2) And albeit it's a trivial defense, I really do not care that much about speech freedom and such. I care more about economical fairness.
This is very very important. There will never be economic fairness and opportunities unless free speech is installed and upheld. Free Speech means it is possible for 'whistleblowers' to point out where there is corruption and favouritism and nepotism. Without Free Speech you simply cannot expose the forces of corruption that will rob you of equal economic opportunity.
To get economic opportunity you need the things I mentioned: independent judiciary; the Rule of Law (no government interefernce); free speech and a free press/media to disseminate the free speech. Once you have these then corruption is exposed, as is favouritism and neoptism. Once you have these supressed and mostly contain then the economic opportunities will come. You will be able to get a job and get promoted based on your merits, not on who you know or paid. Your family will be secure in their home because some corrupt politician can't come and 're-zone' your apartment to some greedy developer. I'm sure you can easily think of other injustices you would like to see eliminated.
Unfortunately you can't put the 'cart before the horse' because of human nature. You can't hope for equal economic opportunity by giving away the freedoms that are required to defend against those that take away the economic opportunity. This is why Russia is still considered somewhat 'backward'. The populace thinks that it will get growth and stability and growth by giving up their rights when in fact it is only by claiming and enforcing their rights that society can be stabilised (when every faction gets to have a say, even if they don't get their way), and economic growth will come (since no corrupt oligarch or politician can use the force of the state to illegally seize your property or demand bribes). Enforce the law equally and the opportunities will come (along with foreign investors with even more money for business growth). Support the repression the regime and Russia has no long term prospects. Even worse, Putin is getting old and is not allowing the country to grow credible candidates to replace him when the time comes. The opposition has already seen this and that is why the protest so much, even in really bad weather and at the risk of being beaten by the corrupt police/militia.
If you really want a healthy Russia (as most countries also do) then the political base needs to be widened, not narrowed. We believe what Putin has done and appears to be continuing may work in the short term but is not good for the health of the country. That's why we can't understand my people would support repression - it is simply not good for the long term of the country.
Here's a recent academic view on the subject (policy free, I promise, hopefully it shouldn't offend you - but I believe what it shows is that Putin is transforming political institutions in a way that is not good long-term for Russia; again, this is something your opposition i
Yes, it's called the dependencies issue that Java has. You don't get that with ASM as you've coded all of your own stuff. The Java devs failed to realize that.
Where did you get these "thirty" Java devs from that knew nothing about classpath dependency management or Maven or OSGI or any of the other solutions? straight out of summer coding camp? who the hell did the hiring because they should be shot if they can't tell a useless dev from one with even a modicum of experience. However, the HR ineptness of your employer/client is irrelevant to whether Java (or any other high level language) is useful or not. Again, your belief that being able to do absolutely everything from scratch on a large project beggars belief. You even cite Richard Garriott whose Tabular Rasa had severe development problems, was in development for a large chunk of a decade (requiring three-quarters to be re-written) and ended up as a commercial flop. To cite Garriot's development record as something to be emulated shows you're smoking way too much weed in sunny california. You know less about effective game development than you think you do. It's always ok to be wrong, but at least accept comments from a practitioner in the field, eh?
If you call releasing something ridden with security holes and poorly-optimized productive, then yes.
Considering you don't appear to know the substantive differences between Java applets, applications and JEE no wonder you come up with bizarre statements. Incidentally, the last three JEE projects done for customers have had independent security firms audit them and try *extensive* penetration testing. Result, zero vulnerabilities were found. You are spouting off about some sensationalist stuff you read in a magazine somewhere which actually bears no relation to what modern competent developers are to produce. Again, you are not listening to what a practitioner is saying (Myers-Briggs would say you have a J "judging" personality trait rather than seek empirical evidence from elsewhere).
bypass the need for quantum particles such as photons, and directly stimulate biological systems with direct energy impulses
Lol. It is clear you don't understand physics well at all. Your "direct energy impulses" are comprised of what exactly? photons perhaps? lame!
which happens to be linked to a remote robot
That might impress some people. I've done enough robotics that it is now a big yawn for me. I too have had to perform global remote management of (industrial electromechanical) devices I built software for. This is not much of a technological feat (compared to some things that have to be done).
That very laziness is why the software you develop will have bugs, get cracked, and pirated.
Actually no, no and no. Bugs are removed because I use the features associated with Java technology like JVisualVM (for performance and memory footprint profiling), and the test-driven development methodology (ya know, like NASA did for the Space Shuttle, and almost no ASM developer I seen does in the same systematic way). Get cracked - well no, as I said the last three security audits for recent projects have all passed with *zero* exploits. Pirate - well no, not unless the servers the bulk of processing is running on are exploited.
With regard to the flight sim I mentioned: well, the bugs will be minimal due to my testing (and yes, some bugs will get out and eventually fixed). It is wonderful to hear you think you write zero bugs because you use assembler, since from the start this showed me you are willing to rewrite reality to support your outdated points. Everyone writes bugs. What matters is what tools and techniques can be brought to bear to remove them as soon as possible. In your case it sounds like your strategy is something from the early days; Not-Invented-Here and Throw-Lots-Of-Effort at it. As for cracked, actually I intend
Please note, I'm not a US citizen. I see the flaws in the US system as clearly as you do. However, that doesn't mean when I compare the flawed US system with the flawed Putin regime to me it seems clear which system needs the most work done to correct it.
I have zero problem with strong Russian statehood - provided it is not a bully to its neighbours (yes, yes, that goes for all countries, including the US, China etc). However, a strong Russia is still consistent with the Rule of Law; independent judiciary; free speech and free media. In fact I see Russia strengthened if it had all these things. The current regime stands in the way, or subverts these things, which means that the equilibrium Russia has now is an "unstable equilibrium" rather than the "stable equilibrium" enjoyed by it's European partners.
Well, the patriotic opposition also want fair elections. It turns out that the real opposition also want that too. So why are there not fair elections? It is fairly clear the patriotic opposition are merely another means of control to keep the status quo (which means no fair elections). Just like the actual elections themselves where only weak or puppet candidates were allowed to stand against the opposition. In the same way the Kremlin organize the counter-protest movement, and then rely on nationalist sentiment to fill the numbers. Being proud of your country is one thing (in case you haven't worked it out, other people also have reasons to be proud of their countries too, yeah?) but nationalism is a very very dangerous thing. At the moment it is clear that the regime is using nationalism for manipulative purposes. This is not a good thing and why I object to it. For example, the whole nationalist line about "only United Russia and Putin can protect Russia" is complete crap: no one wants to invade Russia, no one wants to see chaos there, no one wants an unstable state. On the other hand, no one wants Russia to subvert its neighbours, nor repress the legitimate desires of it populace, intellectuals and artists and even the contrarian fringe that pops up everywhere.
So I can understand how someone wants a strong Russia and wholeheartedly agree this is a good thing. But not at the expense of your neighbours, not at the expense of suppressing free speech (what this Slashdot thread is about), not at the expense of ORMON beating up grannies (yes, we see this) or imprisoning a bunch of girls that criticise the increasing muddying of Church and State (which is regressing three hundred years for a European country) - even if those girls do it in a stupid way it is super important that critics are heard. That way the people get to make up their own mind about what is and is not important - they don't get spoon fed slanted information from their government. As a regular watcher of Russia Today I'm always amazed by its reporting compared with Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN, local news, Haaretz etc. All these alternate sources often take positions contrary to each other and contrary to their host governments. Have you never stopped to ask yourself why Russia Today never presents and editorial opinion contrary to the regime's position? perhaps because the puppetmaster's hand is up the journalists ass.
So my question to you is: do you want free speech, free elections, and independent judiciary, and the Rule of Law? If so, then you must oppose (even in thought) those to oppose these goals. To me it seems clear that what is standing in the way of these are not foreign enemies, or multi-nationals but in fact the regime itself as it tries to maintain its power - which has never been legitimized with a free and fair election. If United Russia won a free and fair election while the press and judiciary were also free then I (and the rest of the World) would STFU and say, "it's the will of the Russian people". But it is crystal clear that Tsar Putin and his corrupt court have not been elected fairly and the (free) will of the people has not been determined. This is why we da
Ah, the usual bullshit coming out of Russia from someone who is sucking up the verifiably false information coming from the Kremlin-controlled news organizations. You can keep your country, thank you very much, we don't want it. We would like it to be that the citizens of your country are properly represented and the corruption and increasingly feudal system eradicated.
All I wish for Russia is the following:
* independent judiciary (which Russia does not have have)
* the Rule of Law (which Russia does not have)
* free speech rights (which Russia does not have)
* a free press.
That's all that is required. Everything else will flow from those sooner or later (good governance, multi-party politics, a working economic system of your choice, personal and political freedoms, freedom from arbitrary arrest etc).
Let me say it again, we don't want your country. No one does, and no one has apart from the Fascists (who you'll notice we also fought, all the while supplying a broken Russian Army with arms and equipment to stave off collapse in 1941 & 1942). We have no interested in invading or controlling that regressive place and its subservient populace (apart from a few smart follks). Your worldview is severely distorted if you imagine this is so. That's why it is so laughable you accuse me of listening to propaganda when it is very, very clear you have swallowed the regime's line hook-line and sinker. Just like a good serf you are. Rather than standing up for rights for the people of Russia you'd rather swallow the falsehoods the regime shovels to you (making you no smarter than a clueless North Korean). All the while you probably pour scorn on the mass of St Petersbergers and Muscovites that were out on the streets trying to get the minimum freedoms that much of the rest of the World take for granted. What a muppet! Wake up. We don't want Russia and never have. What we would like is for Russia to join the ranks of civilized nations where its citizens are treated with respect by its government and that its government can be trusted in the international community rather than lying constantly and being stuck in a mindset from thirty years ago.
I'm writing a flight sim and you'd be amazed that the RAM and CPU requirements are quite modest (provided it is the remote server that does the heavy lifting in multiplayer). It's only the amount of texture/HDR memory you have for high resolutions that becomes the big factor in performance (that, and getting a hot lap:) ).
Besides being pretty chunky, do you have any notable issues with the EliteBooks?
FBI probably needs a judge's assent somewhere, yeah? That means a judge can always go "No" to the FBI, so the FBI do have to have a reason for site takedown that will pass the reasonableness test of a judge (assuming the latter is doing their job). That is why the Big Media takedown notices for copyright infringement that bypass this process are so insidious (and why Google is fairly heroic at resisting most of the requests, eg that stupid Mohammed video; despite many other providers caving in without resistance).
In Russia there is no such oversight and law enforcement are known to be eminently corrupt and apply selective enforcement of the law (if you are Putin's pal you can break any law and you will not be investigated; if you oppose Putin something will be found on you even if you are squeaky clean, something will be invented if need be).
So if you are trying to make the Russia look less bad by comparing it to the US, just don't they are incomparable. Similarly if you are trying to make the US look bad by comparing to Russia's censorship, then that also is not a valid comparison. The US can look bad on its own (de)merits - but it is still a far far cry from the regression happening right now in Russia.
Well a commentator once put it something like this (in Putin's feudal system or personal patronage):
"There is not just corruption in the system, corruption *is* the system!"
Don't hand over our Internet to these turkeys, meaning, don't surrender the Net to the ITU/UN.
Russia (and others) are pushing for ITU/UN regulation of the Internet (rather than the US). It is so Russia's internet policy can be applied to the whole of the Internet (rather than having pesky off-shore sites tell the uncomfortable truth).
... and yet we still have educated Slashdotters thinking it would be good if the Internet was handed over without a fight so that UN member nations could extend their censorship laws worldwide (whether for reglious, political or ideological reasons).
Don't give the ideal of Free Speech without a fight - which means don't allow the surrendering of the Free Internet to the corrupt and biased UN without making some noise! More importantly, don't be so anti-Western that you'll apologize for the anti-democratic, fascist and theocratic regimes that want to make this happen.
Freedom is not their first priority for sure. However, no one wants to be a serf and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Look at the hundreds of thousands of people who were out in subzero temperatures until Putin's regime changed protest laws to raise absolutely repressive fines.
The Russian elite do not want freedom, and they control the media so that is what you hear. It is very clear the Russian people (particularly urbanites) do want personal and political freedom. We should support them and not repeat the repressive messages of the media-manipulating elites.
You do realise that the progress towards free press has been dismantled by the Kremlin in recent years. The journalists are routinely brutally killed or disappeared, and their cases not investigated. So the Kremlin puts out whatever news it likes, even bizarre stuff, and there is no-one to challenge it. Reasonable people are presented with sets of facts designed to funnel their conclusion (yes this happens in the Free World, but there are alternative news sources counter-balancing the worst of it).
So it is probably fair to say that "polls" in contemporary Russia need to viewed with a great deal of skepticism. Far more important are what the dissenting views have to say (although they are systematically being stifled by the regime).
Thirty Java programmers failed to do in one year what I did in two months for the horticulture industry.
Interesting. Do you have the specifics of what they attempted to do? Were they offshored resources or from one of the big outfits (eg. IBM, who has plenty of mediocre guys)? You see, one person working in what is widely considered to be a low-productivity language beating thirty (average?) guys in a high productivity language stretches credulity somewhat. There must have been other factors in play.
So, an outsider, and not directly and intimately involved with any of the industries you work in. Gotcha
Actually I do have several specialties that I did software in for many years: astrophysics and hardware control for scientific instruments (ellipsometers and supporting equipment). I have since moved on to gain a wider view of the industry. This is an advantage compared with those stuck in a niche and unaware of what goes on outside their little patch.
Have you seen how buggy and poorly-optimized Minecraft and Arma are?
Ok, your lack of experience is showing here. Bugs are either due to feature defects or insufficient automated test coverage. The programming language makes some difference but ASM is worse for bugs than a higher level language. The only way you get the bug count down with ASM is by spending an inordinate amount of time checking everything is correct (I know, I've done it). This destroys the profitability of the project for the customer - which is why ASM is not used except in tiny niches. It is not because other developers don't know ASM, don't know its benefits, or don't know how to use it effectively. It is because the economics of using ASM in a project make very little sense for most development. We are keeping an extra factor in mind that you have not touched on at all.
With regard to optimization you again show a total lack of knowledge. The limitation in a multi-core game like ARMA 2 is not the speed of a single thread. It is not the speed of all the threads in the program. It it not usually even CPU-bound (at least not on my rig). It is GPU, VRAM and memory-bus bandwidth bound. Writing these programs in ASM would not fix the actual bottleneck. To assert so is pretty clueless.
no 3-d rendering
Really? you are surprised a program runs quickly when it has to do much less? and that is the evidence to support your case? laughable.
ASM forces you to code properly. Java lets you be a lazy and wasteful dev.
Again, your complete lack of experience (not technical, but large project/team dynamics/project management) makes you see an advantage as a weakness. Java lets you be a lazy and wasteful dev and still be productive. You can still be a craftsman with Java, but making programs is not restricted to a priesthood. This is a huge advantage. Unfortunately your antiquated myopism can't let you see it.
ASM teaches you how hardware will work and its intricacies
Software development is not about teaching (there are institutions for that). It is about getting a great product out there, as rapidly as possible, making it robust and reliable and meeting the execution time and ease-of-use requirements of the customer. It is fairly clear you wish to be an elitist. Well, I could be the same and wail about how you almost certainly don't understand the physics behind the circuitry (eg. can you do the quantum mechanical calculations?) - since that would be similar to what you are complaining about, except your complaint is at a much higher level of abstraction. But I don't make this complaint for two reasons. One, I'd be an anti-social dick if I did. Two, knowledge at that level is simply not needed anymore to be productive. Sometimes there are reasons to dip down to lower layers, but mostly it is not required at all. So, I reject your argument here as meritless and merely a
Slashdot Mirror
Vista wasn't bug free for many people. Bluescreens abounded due to a late change in the graphics driver model that forced NVidia and ATI to scramble to get new drivers out the door in a hurry (IIRC).
Backporting significantly increases the cost of development and it is not fair to early adopters who want to see HTML 5 and CSS 3 actions and run applets but can't due to a 11 year old OS and browser.
Again you still don't get it. There is nothing preventing HTML5 working in WinXP (since Firefox and Chrome can do it). There is nothing prevent steroscopic 3D working in Windows XP (since OpenGL does it). You are trying to make technical argument that doesn't hold water. I'm a developer and know all about backporting - but use technologies that work on Windows XP as well as everywhere else - it is just that you have your blinkers on regarding technology, at least from my point of view - and even the uninformed can see through the bullshit arguments Microsoft is making, once you point it out (hence the umbrage taken by myself and other informed posters). I'm not against Microsoft, just the way they sometimes do business.
You simply don't get it. I'm not saying that Windows XP is better than Windows 7, no one is. What we are saying are two things: 1) many people are not like you and don't routinely change their working computers just for the latest fashion, they change when their computer dies; 2) Windows 7 is better than Windows XP, but not sufficiently so for the way most *ordinary* users use it. You are writing from your techie perspective and simply don't appear to understand what the rest of thinks about these forced upgrades to get trivial graphics features (which, as I point out, are implemented in Win XP under OpenGL
It is irresponsible and dangerous to run XP today and especially after next year. It is time to move on my friend.
I'm not talking about my computing preferences, and again you appear to fail to grasp the concepts I'm talking about (preferring instead to flaunt supposed superiority because it appears you imagine yourself as some kind of early adopter). I'm talking about how *ordinary users* are working (including the vast populations that live outside the US, like myself). Ya know, these regular folk have the systems people like you and I have to maintain. It is these people who are having their arms twisted to upgrade unnecessarily in order to run programs that don't actually need the new APIs.
On the flip side, even if you can't upgrade your driver on Windows, you can still run most new software on a 10 year old version of the OS.
I think you missed the point of the article and our comments. The point is that Microsoft are requiring operating system upgrades just for minor graphics updates. This means you *cannot* run new DirectX 11.1 or 10 software on older versions of Windows (that is, otherwise functional Win XP) - which is contra to your statement.
I'm afraid you don't understand the point of OpenGL extensions at all. It is OpenGL that is designed to be the standard API on all platforms. Extensions allow new features to be used that are not yet covered by the latest standard (now refreshed at pretty much an annual rate). That means you can get features sooner (with DirectX you have to wait until Microsoft are ready to release a new operating system, since that is now their modus operandi). The OpenGL use of extensions is a *feature* not a limitation. The OpenGL *standard* version now has more features than DirectX, and works the same across all platforms. Yet people still buy into the whole DirectX nonsense. If you are developing OpenGL (as I do) you are already set up for the future changes in computing (the shift to mobile and iPads) - it is only dinosaurs who can't see the writing on the wall and still promote DirectX.
OpenGL has had support for stereoscopic rendering *forever*. OpenGL works on Windows (XP to 8), Linux, Mac, Unix and almost all embedded devices (eg phone; athoguh that is the OpenGL ES variant). Requiring an O/S upgrade for a trivial feature increase in DirectX shows just how borked the designs of DX and Windows are.
Hmm. How come OpenGL works so well on all these platforms? Oh yeah, and OpenGL is generally faster than DirectX for rendering as well: especially if you are running on Linux, but even on Windows OpenGL is very very fast - despite being portable.
Right, but Ubuntu will only have drivers for certain GPUs. If yours isn't one of them, forget it.
This is no different to Windows. Windows driver support is especially poor if you have a GPU older than 3 years. The reality is that Windows has better support for new hardware than Linux, but the complete reverse is true for older hardware.
Wrong. There are still hundreds of millions of users with perfectly good computers that are running XP. They don't want to upgrade and migrate all their data and settings. They don't want to pay for new software that will let them do the things they do already. Hell, the feature touted in the thread summary (stereoscopic rendering) is already on Windows XP in OpenGL (and has been forever, including lots of effects that Microsoft forced you to get Vista for). Requiring an OS upgrade for simple features has nothing to do with technology (since OpenGL has no problem) - it is all about bilking you for more money.
Very interesting. Thanks for posting that useful information. I'll be looking at an Elitebook even more closely when its time to replace my 17" MacbookPro.
Awesome. It's completely cool if you think I'm wrong - at least you have an open mind to the possibility that there may be some new points of view to consider. I hope things work out well for you and your country.
Man I'm getting senile. Here's a link to the (academic, non-poltical) video I mentioned. I hope it provides some insight into what outsiders see as going on in your political system:
Global Awareness Lecture - Putinism and Russia's Political Dead End
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOcqdeW7xO8
Here's the great Christopher Hitchens with a slightly different view:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS_tjw5psUE
Sorry, my proof-reading is so bad I need to apologize. I meant to say in the first paragraph, "he *not* has stopped beating his wife, but it is ok because he only beats her once per day". Hopefully that paragraph will now reflect the point I was trying to make.
"though these elections were not free and fair, they were the freest and fairest in 15 years"
is exactly akin to the classic, "he has stopped beating his wife, but it is ok because he only beats her once per day". Just because the vote is less rigged than before still doesn't make the elections "free and fair" (which were your contraditory words earlier in the paragraph). I applaud the progress, but don't think just because there is progress that the regime should be let off the hook. Without pressure it is too easy to stand still or go backwards. This is the vital social function that Pussy Riot and other wierdos serve. I may not agree with the way they make their statements but what the fringe says is often true (but of course, not always true). Once you get elections so free and fair that Stephen Cohen can actually use those words *then* the regime can be defended and I will be too - but no sooner.
2) And albeit it's a trivial defense, I really do not care that much about speech freedom and such. I care more about economical fairness.
This is very very important. There will never be economic fairness and opportunities unless free speech is installed and upheld. Free Speech means it is possible for 'whistleblowers' to point out where there is corruption and favouritism and nepotism. Without Free Speech you simply cannot expose the forces of corruption that will rob you of equal economic opportunity.
To get economic opportunity you need the things I mentioned: independent judiciary; the Rule of Law (no government interefernce); free speech and a free press/media to disseminate the free speech. Once you have these then corruption is exposed, as is favouritism and neoptism. Once you have these supressed and mostly contain then the economic opportunities will come. You will be able to get a job and get promoted based on your merits, not on who you know or paid. Your family will be secure in their home because some corrupt politician can't come and 're-zone' your apartment to some greedy developer. I'm sure you can easily think of other injustices you would like to see eliminated.
Unfortunately you can't put the 'cart before the horse' because of human nature. You can't hope for equal economic opportunity by giving away the freedoms that are required to defend against those that take away the economic opportunity. This is why Russia is still considered somewhat 'backward'. The populace thinks that it will get growth and stability and growth by giving up their rights when in fact it is only by claiming and enforcing their rights that society can be stabilised (when every faction gets to have a say, even if they don't get their way), and economic growth will come (since no corrupt oligarch or politician can use the force of the state to illegally seize your property or demand bribes). Enforce the law equally and the opportunities will come (along with foreign investors with even more money for business growth). Support the repression the regime and Russia has no long term prospects. Even worse, Putin is getting old and is not allowing the country to grow credible candidates to replace him when the time comes. The opposition has already seen this and that is why the protest so much, even in really bad weather and at the risk of being beaten by the corrupt police/militia.
If you really want a healthy Russia (as most countries also do) then the political base needs to be widened, not narrowed. We believe what Putin has done and appears to be continuing may work in the short term but is not good for the health of the country. That's why we can't understand my people would support repression - it is simply not good for the long term of the country.
Here's a recent academic view on the subject (policy free, I promise, hopefully it shouldn't offend you - but I believe what it shows is that Putin is transforming political institutions in a way that is not good long-term for Russia; again, this is something your opposition i
Yes, it's called the dependencies issue that Java has. You don't get that with ASM as you've coded all of your own stuff. The Java devs failed to realize that.
Where did you get these "thirty" Java devs from that knew nothing about classpath dependency management or Maven or OSGI or any of the other solutions? straight out of summer coding camp? who the hell did the hiring because they should be shot if they can't tell a useless dev from one with even a modicum of experience. However, the HR ineptness of your employer/client is irrelevant to whether Java (or any other high level language) is useful or not. Again, your belief that being able to do absolutely everything from scratch on a large project beggars belief. You even cite Richard Garriott whose Tabular Rasa had severe development problems, was in development for a large chunk of a decade (requiring three-quarters to be re-written) and ended up as a commercial flop. To cite Garriot's development record as something to be emulated shows you're smoking way too much weed in sunny california. You know less about effective game development than you think you do. It's always ok to be wrong, but at least accept comments from a practitioner in the field, eh?
If you call releasing something ridden with security holes and poorly-optimized productive, then yes.
Considering you don't appear to know the substantive differences between Java applets, applications and JEE no wonder you come up with bizarre statements. Incidentally, the last three JEE projects done for customers have had independent security firms audit them and try *extensive* penetration testing. Result, zero vulnerabilities were found. You are spouting off about some sensationalist stuff you read in a magazine somewhere which actually bears no relation to what modern competent developers are to produce. Again, you are not listening to what a practitioner is saying (Myers-Briggs would say you have a J "judging" personality trait rather than seek empirical evidence from elsewhere).
bypass the need for quantum particles such as photons, and directly stimulate biological systems with direct energy impulses
Lol. It is clear you don't understand physics well at all. Your "direct energy impulses" are comprised of what exactly? photons perhaps? lame!
which happens to be linked to a remote robot
That might impress some people. I've done enough robotics that it is now a big yawn for me. I too have had to perform global remote management of (industrial electromechanical) devices I built software for. This is not much of a technological feat (compared to some things that have to be done).
That very laziness is why the software you develop will have bugs, get cracked, and pirated.
Actually no, no and no. Bugs are removed because I use the features associated with Java technology like JVisualVM (for performance and memory footprint profiling), and the test-driven development methodology (ya know, like NASA did for the Space Shuttle, and almost no ASM developer I seen does in the same systematic way). Get cracked - well no, as I said the last three security audits for recent projects have all passed with *zero* exploits. Pirate - well no, not unless the servers the bulk of processing is running on are exploited.
With regard to the flight sim I mentioned: well, the bugs will be minimal due to my testing (and yes, some bugs will get out and eventually fixed). It is wonderful to hear you think you write zero bugs because you use assembler, since from the start this showed me you are willing to rewrite reality to support your outdated points. Everyone writes bugs. What matters is what tools and techniques can be brought to bear to remove them as soon as possible. In your case it sounds like your strategy is something from the early days; Not-Invented-Here and Throw-Lots-Of-Effort at it. As for cracked, actually I intend
Privet :)
Please note, I'm not a US citizen. I see the flaws in the US system as clearly as you do. However, that doesn't mean when I compare the flawed US system with the flawed Putin regime to me it seems clear which system needs the most work done to correct it.
I have zero problem with strong Russian statehood - provided it is not a bully to its neighbours (yes, yes, that goes for all countries, including the US, China etc). However, a strong Russia is still consistent with the Rule of Law; independent judiciary; free speech and free media. In fact I see Russia strengthened if it had all these things. The current regime stands in the way, or subverts these things, which means that the equilibrium Russia has now is an "unstable equilibrium" rather than the "stable equilibrium" enjoyed by it's European partners.
Well, the patriotic opposition also want fair elections. It turns out that the real opposition also want that too. So why are there not fair elections? It is fairly clear the patriotic opposition are merely another means of control to keep the status quo (which means no fair elections). Just like the actual elections themselves where only weak or puppet candidates were allowed to stand against the opposition. In the same way the Kremlin organize the counter-protest movement, and then rely on nationalist sentiment to fill the numbers. Being proud of your country is one thing (in case you haven't worked it out, other people also have reasons to be proud of their countries too, yeah?) but nationalism is a very very dangerous thing. At the moment it is clear that the regime is using nationalism for manipulative purposes. This is not a good thing and why I object to it. For example, the whole nationalist line about "only United Russia and Putin can protect Russia" is complete crap: no one wants to invade Russia, no one wants to see chaos there, no one wants an unstable state. On the other hand, no one wants Russia to subvert its neighbours, nor repress the legitimate desires of it populace, intellectuals and artists and even the contrarian fringe that pops up everywhere.
So I can understand how someone wants a strong Russia and wholeheartedly agree this is a good thing. But not at the expense of your neighbours, not at the expense of suppressing free speech (what this Slashdot thread is about), not at the expense of ORMON beating up grannies (yes, we see this) or imprisoning a bunch of girls that criticise the increasing muddying of Church and State (which is regressing three hundred years for a European country) - even if those girls do it in a stupid way it is super important that critics are heard. That way the people get to make up their own mind about what is and is not important - they don't get spoon fed slanted information from their government. As a regular watcher of Russia Today I'm always amazed by its reporting compared with Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN, local news, Haaretz etc. All these alternate sources often take positions contrary to each other and contrary to their host governments. Have you never stopped to ask yourself why Russia Today never presents and editorial opinion contrary to the regime's position? perhaps because the puppetmaster's hand is up the journalists ass.
So my question to you is: do you want free speech, free elections, and independent judiciary, and the Rule of Law? If so, then you must oppose (even in thought) those to oppose these goals. To me it seems clear that what is standing in the way of these are not foreign enemies, or multi-nationals but in fact the regime itself as it tries to maintain its power - which has never been legitimized with a free and fair election. If United Russia won a free and fair election while the press and judiciary were also free then I (and the rest of the World) would STFU and say, "it's the will of the Russian people". But it is crystal clear that Tsar Putin and his corrupt court have not been elected fairly and the (free) will of the people has not been determined. This is why we da
Ah, the usual bullshit coming out of Russia from someone who is sucking up the verifiably false information coming from the Kremlin-controlled news organizations. You can keep your country, thank you very much, we don't want it. We would like it to be that the citizens of your country are properly represented and the corruption and increasingly feudal system eradicated.
All I wish for Russia is the following:
* independent judiciary (which Russia does not have have)
* the Rule of Law (which Russia does not have)
* free speech rights (which Russia does not have)
* a free press.
That's all that is required. Everything else will flow from those sooner or later (good governance, multi-party politics, a working economic system of your choice, personal and political freedoms, freedom from arbitrary arrest etc).
Let me say it again, we don't want your country. No one does, and no one has apart from the Fascists (who you'll notice we also fought, all the while supplying a broken Russian Army with arms and equipment to stave off collapse in 1941 & 1942). We have no interested in invading or controlling that regressive place and its subservient populace (apart from a few smart follks). Your worldview is severely distorted if you imagine this is so. That's why it is so laughable you accuse me of listening to propaganda when it is very, very clear you have swallowed the regime's line hook-line and sinker. Just like a good serf you are. Rather than standing up for rights for the people of Russia you'd rather swallow the falsehoods the regime shovels to you (making you no smarter than a clueless North Korean). All the while you probably pour scorn on the mass of St Petersbergers and Muscovites that were out on the streets trying to get the minimum freedoms that much of the rest of the World take for granted. What a muppet! Wake up. We don't want Russia and never have. What we would like is for Russia to join the ranks of civilized nations where its citizens are treated with respect by its government and that its government can be trusted in the international community rather than lying constantly and being stuck in a mindset from thirty years ago.
I'm writing a flight sim and you'd be amazed that the RAM and CPU requirements are quite modest (provided it is the remote server that does the heavy lifting in multiplayer). It's only the amount of texture/HDR memory you have for high resolutions that becomes the big factor in performance (that, and getting a hot lap :) ).
Besides being pretty chunky, do you have any notable issues with the EliteBooks?
ps. "reallydodgy.org" - great name.
FBI probably needs a judge's assent somewhere, yeah? That means a judge can always go "No" to the FBI, so the FBI do have to have a reason for site takedown that will pass the reasonableness test of a judge (assuming the latter is doing their job). That is why the Big Media takedown notices for copyright infringement that bypass this process are so insidious (and why Google is fairly heroic at resisting most of the requests, eg that stupid Mohammed video; despite many other providers caving in without resistance).
In Russia there is no such oversight and law enforcement are known to be eminently corrupt and apply selective enforcement of the law (if you are Putin's pal you can break any law and you will not be investigated; if you oppose Putin something will be found on you even if you are squeaky clean, something will be invented if need be).
So if you are trying to make the Russia look less bad by comparing it to the US, just don't they are incomparable. Similarly if you are trying to make the US look bad by comparing to Russia's censorship, then that also is not a valid comparison. The US can look bad on its own (de)merits - but it is still a far far cry from the regression happening right now in Russia.
Well a commentator once put it something like this (in Putin's feudal system or personal patronage):
"There is not just corruption in the system, corruption *is* the system!"
Don't hand over our Internet to these turkeys, meaning, don't surrender the Net to the ITU/UN.
"Tinfoil Curtain" - sublime!
Russia (and others) are pushing for ITU/UN regulation of the Internet (rather than the US). It is so Russia's internet policy can be applied to the whole of the Internet (rather than having pesky off-shore sites tell the uncomfortable truth).
Don't give the ideal of Free Speech without a fight - which means don't allow the surrendering of the Free Internet to the corrupt and biased UN without making some noise! More importantly, don't be so anti-Western that you'll apologize for the anti-democratic, fascist and theocratic regimes that want to make this happen.
Don't appease, oppose!
Freedom is not their first priority for sure. However, no one wants to be a serf and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Look at the hundreds of thousands of people who were out in subzero temperatures until Putin's regime changed protest laws to raise absolutely repressive fines.
The Russian elite do not want freedom, and they control the media so that is what you hear. It is very clear the Russian people (particularly urbanites) do want personal and political freedom. We should support them and not repeat the repressive messages of the media-manipulating elites.
You do realise that the progress towards free press has been dismantled by the Kremlin in recent years. The journalists are routinely brutally killed or disappeared, and their cases not investigated. So the Kremlin puts out whatever news it likes, even bizarre stuff, and there is no-one to challenge it. Reasonable people are presented with sets of facts designed to funnel their conclusion (yes this happens in the Free World, but there are alternative news sources counter-balancing the worst of it).
So it is probably fair to say that "polls" in contemporary Russia need to viewed with a great deal of skepticism. Far more important are what the dissenting views have to say (although they are systematically being stifled by the regime).
Thirty Java programmers failed to do in one year what I did in two months for the horticulture industry.
Interesting. Do you have the specifics of what they attempted to do? Were they offshored resources or from one of the big outfits (eg. IBM, who has plenty of mediocre guys)? You see, one person working in what is widely considered to be a low-productivity language beating thirty (average?) guys in a high productivity language stretches credulity somewhat. There must have been other factors in play.
So, an outsider, and not directly and intimately involved with any of the industries you work in. Gotcha
Actually I do have several specialties that I did software in for many years: astrophysics and hardware control for scientific instruments (ellipsometers and supporting equipment). I have since moved on to gain a wider view of the industry. This is an advantage compared with those stuck in a niche and unaware of what goes on outside their little patch.
Have you seen how buggy and poorly-optimized Minecraft and Arma are?
Ok, your lack of experience is showing here. Bugs are either due to feature defects or insufficient automated test coverage. The programming language makes some difference but ASM is worse for bugs than a higher level language. The only way you get the bug count down with ASM is by spending an inordinate amount of time checking everything is correct (I know, I've done it). This destroys the profitability of the project for the customer - which is why ASM is not used except in tiny niches. It is not because other developers don't know ASM, don't know its benefits, or don't know how to use it effectively. It is because the economics of using ASM in a project make very little sense for most development. We are keeping an extra factor in mind that you have not touched on at all.
With regard to optimization you again show a total lack of knowledge. The limitation in a multi-core game like ARMA 2 is not the speed of a single thread. It is not the speed of all the threads in the program. It it not usually even CPU-bound (at least not on my rig). It is GPU, VRAM and memory-bus bandwidth bound. Writing these programs in ASM would not fix the actual bottleneck. To assert so is pretty clueless.
no 3-d rendering
Really? you are surprised a program runs quickly when it has to do much less? and that is the evidence to support your case? laughable.
ASM forces you to code properly. Java lets you be a lazy and wasteful dev.
Again, your complete lack of experience (not technical, but large project/team dynamics/project management) makes you see an advantage as a weakness. Java lets you be a lazy and wasteful dev and still be productive. You can still be a craftsman with Java, but making programs is not restricted to a priesthood. This is a huge advantage. Unfortunately your antiquated myopism can't let you see it.
ASM teaches you how hardware will work and its intricacies
Software development is not about teaching (there are institutions for that). It is about getting a great product out there, as rapidly as possible, making it robust and reliable and meeting the execution time and ease-of-use requirements of the customer. It is fairly clear you wish to be an elitist. Well, I could be the same and wail about how you almost certainly don't understand the physics behind the circuitry (eg. can you do the quantum mechanical calculations?) - since that would be similar to what you are complaining about, except your complaint is at a much higher level of abstraction. But I don't make this complaint for two reasons. One, I'd be an anti-social dick if I did. Two, knowledge at that level is simply not needed anymore to be productive. Sometimes there are reasons to dip down to lower layers, but mostly it is not required at all. So, I reject your argument here as meritless and merely a