My first view of a Star Wars game was not exactly from the Star Wars realm, but rather it was "Star Raiders" for the Atari 2600. I think at that point in time there was huge copyright issues, but Star Raiders had a look and feel like the vector based star-wars game in the arcades (relatively speaking). It had a numeric keypad controller. Sometimes I felt like I was in the gunner room in the Millenium Falcon, shooting tie fighters.
The Atari 2600 version of Star Raider (singular, not plural) was a crippled version of the classic Atari 400/800 game. That was truly one of the best computer games of its era. I still remember physically ducking as the enemy torpedos slammed into my screen.
True, there's nothing that says 10 must be a perfect score, but it kinda defeats the purpose of giving something a quantitative score if the scale has arbitrary endpoints.
No, it doesn't have arbitrary endpoints, it has a finite resolution. Look, suppose widgets come in all lengths ranging from zero to ten inches, but you're only allowed to report their lengths to the nearest integer. What do you do with a widget that's 9.7 inches long? Report it as 9 inches long because it's not the longest possible widget? No, the most accurate thing to do is round it to the nearest integer and report it as 10 inches.
What do you do if an update makes WoW even better?
But it's not *flawless* - and by rating something 10/10, you're basically saying that there is *no* room for improvement, and that *nothing* could be done better.
No, he's saying that on whatever scale he's using, the game is good enough to merit a "10". There's no rule saying that "10" has to mean "perfection".
I'm wondering exactly how much material from the books they're going to include.
The original Ringworld book doesn't really end with a tense climax. It's a satisfying ending for a book, but I think it would fall a bit flat in a movie/miniseries.
Ringworld Engineers ends with a good fight scene, but including that would mean they'd have to explain Pak Protectors and a lot of other things. I don't think that much material can be adequately handled in a four-hour miniseries.
Ringworld Throne just wasn't very good at all, so let's not go there.
And how faithful will they be to the books? Will they have the "invulnerable" General Products hull? Will they have the Slaver shotgun? Will they include the Puppeteer Fleet of Worlds?
This has so much potential to be great or awful.
TheFrood
Re:Cha ching, reloaded.
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 4, Informative
There are all kinds of problems that are much harder to do in one direction than in the other.
Example: Factor 56,029,043 into primes. You're welcome to use Matlab, octave, xcalc, or whatever.
Answer: 7 times 19 times 43 times 97 times 101.
How long did it take you to solve? A lot more time than it took me to come up with the problem, because all I had to do was pick five primes and multiply them together. Obviously, a computer could factor that number trivially, but the concept scales easily to much bigger primes.
Microsoft, which denies pressuring @stake to fire Geer, says the comparison between computers and living organisms works only so well.
What??????
Wasn't it Ballmer that was talking up that weird "ecosystem" thing awhile back? You know, where he said "Open source software has to be part of the ecosystem", and what he really meant was "Open source software should be the prey that we can snatch up and eat and turn into our own proprietary fecal matter."
And now they say that the biological analogy "only works so well".
Because anyone can create and market--or give away--a Linux distribution, there's also a reasonably high risk that someone will create a distribution specifically intended to subvert security. And how would anyone know?
Oh, I don't know... maybe by looking at the source code?
Turn it around now: Suppose a private company sold software with malicious code included to subvert security. How would anyone outside the company know?
while I'm sure most/. folk can make the distinction between bad guy/good guy/grey guy hackers I did find it disturbing that Woz is listed right after Vladimir Levin.
Yeah, if I were Woz I wouldn't want to be next to the guy who brought communism to Russia.
If you 'non-zealots' don't want to have the finger pointed in your direction , then I would strongly recommend treating this case with more objectivity instead of cracking anti-SCO comments.
Some of us do treat it objectively. We have neither the ability nor the desire to police those who don't. These facts should be self-evident.
Fact of the matter is, where is the proof? The correspondent himself says "There's no proof, of course, but it must be one of the theories at the top of any investigator's list.", referring to the thesis of his article, that "The MyDoom virus represents a new level of sophistication in attacks on company websites. It is also a new front in a war waged by those who want to preserve the open-source Linux operating system."
At present, the opening line of the article reads "... It also looks like a new front in a war..." Assuming you're quoting accurately, someone at the BBC must have decided to tone the statement down a bit. It's still irresponsible journalism, though.
Exactly. More specifically, they want their new features (i.e., the ones they're interested in) added to 2.4, and everybody else's new features put off to 2.6 to improve stability.
For example, the article mentions that SGI wants their XFS filesystem included in 2.4, so that it can be available quickly in a stable kernel. But they seem to be ignoring the fact that by adding XFS to 2.4, they're making the 2.4 kernel as a whole less stable.
Rubbermaid makes stackable tubs and various other things for organization. Once you have that in order, look to store VERTICALLY (ie - build shelves) not horizontally.
Even better (IMO) are stackable sets of plastic drawers that you can get at any home-goods store, and even some hardware and grocery(!) stores. I bought a bunch of these last spring and eliminated 90% of the clutter in my life.
As an added bonus, they make moving very easy. Just tape the drawers shut with packing tape to keep them from spilling open, and you're all set.
And then they go on to detail three reasons why you would want to stick with the old version!
A company offering an honest assessment of their new product offerings? What's going on? Is it April already?
Well, RHEL is sold as a subscription service, at a set price per year. So, if a customer is happy with 2.1, there's no financial motivation for Red Hat to try to push them up to 3.0
It's a figure of speech. It's equivalent to saying "...the vast majority of computer users still thought Microsoft was the greatest thing going -- a majority that, just to be clear, did not include mobiGeek, who seems to take things too literally and get offended easily."
Two or three years ago, when Linux was still struggling for widespread adoption and everyone still thought Microsoft was the greatest thing going in computing, this would have been a big deal. The press used to treat anything Microsoft said as the gospel truth, and were hugely skeptical of Linux. A comment like this from Gates would have meant a lot.
But now Linux has made huge inroads into the server market and is already beginning to penetrate the desktop market. After their recent legal battles, Microsoft is no longer given a free ride by the press. At this point, a simple lie from Microsoft won't make much of an impression on anyone.
So, not to sound flip, but who cares what Bill said?
It also bugs me when people say "an historic" instead of simply "a historic," as in "that's quite a historic event." (Try saying it out loud both ways.)
The people who spell it "an historic" aren't pronouncing the "h". I say it and spell it the way you do, but AFAIK they're both valid pronounciations.
Slashdot Mirror
My first view of a Star Wars game was not exactly from the Star Wars realm, but rather it was "Star Raiders" for the Atari 2600. I think at that point in time there was huge copyright issues, but Star Raiders had a look and feel like the vector based star-wars game in the arcades (relatively speaking). It had a numeric keypad controller. Sometimes I felt like I was in the gunner room in the Millenium Falcon, shooting tie fighters.
The Atari 2600 version of Star Raider (singular, not plural) was a crippled version of the classic Atari 400/800 game. That was truly one of the best computer games of its era. I still remember physically ducking as the enemy torpedos slammed into my screen.
TheFrood
True, there's nothing that says 10 must be a perfect score, but it kinda defeats the purpose of giving something a quantitative score if the scale has arbitrary endpoints.
No, it doesn't have arbitrary endpoints, it has a finite resolution. Look, suppose widgets come in all lengths ranging from zero to ten inches, but you're only allowed to report their lengths to the nearest integer. What do you do with a widget that's 9.7 inches long? Report it as 9 inches long because it's not the longest possible widget? No, the most accurate thing to do is round it to the nearest integer and report it as 10 inches.
What do you do if an update makes WoW even better?
Say that it's slightly better and still a 10.
But it's not *flawless* - and by rating something 10/10, you're basically saying that there is *no* room for improvement, and that *nothing* could be done better.
No, he's saying that on whatever scale he's using, the game is good enough to merit a "10". There's no rule saying that "10" has to mean "perfection".
Arrrgh!
But thank you for the info, sir.
TheFrood
Can someone throw a bone to us non-console folks and tell us when the PC version is due out?
TheFrood
No, it's chock full of 404's. Here are the correct links:
open and vicious attack on fair use
bring civil cases themselves
bends its statistics
I'm wondering exactly how much material from the books they're going to include.
The original Ringworld book doesn't really end with a tense climax. It's a satisfying ending for a book, but I think it would fall a bit flat in a movie/miniseries.
Ringworld Engineers ends with a good fight scene, but including that would mean they'd have to explain Pak Protectors and a lot of other things. I don't think that much material can be adequately handled in a four-hour miniseries.
Ringworld Throne just wasn't very good at all, so let's not go there.
And how faithful will they be to the books? Will they have the "invulnerable" General Products hull? Will they have the Slaver shotgun? Will they include the Puppeteer Fleet of Worlds?
This has so much potential to be great or awful.
TheFrood
There are all kinds of problems that are much harder to do in one direction than in the other.
Example: Factor 56,029,043 into primes. You're welcome to use Matlab, octave, xcalc, or whatever.
Answer: 7 times 19 times 43 times 97 times 101.
How long did it take you to solve? A lot more time than it took me to come up with the problem, because all I had to do was pick five primes and multiply them together. Obviously, a computer could factor that number trivially, but the concept scales easily to much bigger primes.
TheFrood
There's no reason why this story needs to be three times bigger than every other story on the front page.
Desktop fabrication is going to be an interesting one to watch.
Imagine downloading and printing a new bowl for your food processor, or a new toy for your kid.
Imagine, too, the anguished hand-wringing of corporations over the illegal distribution of copyrighted object designs over the Internet.
At which point people will start producing open-source designs. Imagine riding a GPL'd bicycle.
TheFrood
Microsoft, which denies pressuring @stake to fire Geer, says the comparison between computers and living organisms works only so well.
What??????
Wasn't it Ballmer that was talking up that weird "ecosystem" thing awhile back? You know, where he said "Open source software has to be part of the ecosystem", and what he really meant was "Open source software should be the prey that we can snatch up and eat and turn into our own proprietary fecal matter."
And now they say that the biological analogy "only works so well".
TheFrood
From the article:
Because anyone can create and market--or give away--a Linux distribution, there's also a reasonably high risk that someone will create a distribution specifically intended to subvert security. And how would anyone know?
Oh, I don't know... maybe by looking at the source code?
Turn it around now: Suppose a private company sold software with malicious code included to subvert security. How would anyone outside the company know?
TheFrood
while I'm sure most /. folk can make the distinction between bad guy/good guy/grey guy hackers I did find it disturbing that Woz is listed right after Vladimir Levin.
Yeah, if I were Woz I wouldn't want to be next to the guy who brought communism to Russia.
Oh, wait...
TheFrood
If you 'non-zealots' don't want to have the finger pointed in your direction , then I would strongly recommend treating this case with more objectivity instead of cracking anti-SCO comments.
Some of us do treat it objectively. We have neither the ability nor the desire to police those who don't. These facts should be self-evident.
But by all means, enjoy your high horse.
TheFrood
Fact of the matter is, where is the proof? The correspondent himself says "There's no proof, of course, but it must be one of the theories at the top of any investigator's list.", referring to the thesis of his article, that "The MyDoom virus represents a new level of sophistication in attacks on company websites. It is also a new front in a war waged by those who want to preserve the open-source Linux operating system."
At present, the opening line of the article reads "... It also looks like a new front in a war..." Assuming you're quoting accurately, someone at the BBC must have decided to tone the statement down a bit. It's still irresponsible journalism, though.
TheFrood
Sadly this will get modded to Troll.
I can't count the number of times I've wished for a "(-1, Martyr)" moderation option.
TheFrood
[ring, ring]
Google Receptionist: Hello?
SCO Flunky: You guys need to purchase 10,000 Linux Licenses from us at $699 each.
Google Receptionist: No. [hangs up]
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win."
-- M. Gandhi
It looks like we're in stage 3 already. Any takers on when stage 4 can be confirmed?
I guarantee you're getting a flame for this. There are some people who get really pissed off whenever anyone mentions this.
TheFrood
Of course people want new features AND stability.
Exactly. More specifically, they want their new features (i.e., the ones they're interested in) added to 2.4, and everybody else's new features put off to 2.6 to improve stability.
For example, the article mentions that SGI wants their XFS filesystem included in 2.4, so that it can be available quickly in a stable kernel. But they seem to be ignoring the fact that by adding XFS to 2.4, they're making the 2.4 kernel as a whole less stable.
TheFrood
Rubbermaid makes stackable tubs and various other things for organization. Once you have that in order, look to store VERTICALLY (ie - build shelves) not horizontally.
Even better (IMO) are stackable sets of plastic drawers that you can get at any home-goods store, and even some hardware and grocery(!) stores. I bought a bunch of these last spring and eliminated 90% of the clutter in my life.
As an added bonus, they make moving very easy. Just tape the drawers shut with packing tape to keep them from spilling open, and you're all set.
TheFrood
And then they go on to detail three reasons why you would want to stick with the old version!
A company offering an honest assessment of their new product offerings? What's going on? Is it April already?
Well, RHEL is sold as a subscription service, at a set price per year. So, if a customer is happy with 2.1, there's no financial motivation for Red Hat to try to push them up to 3.0
TheFrood
Speak for yourself.
It's a figure of speech. It's equivalent to saying "...the vast majority of computer users still thought Microsoft was the greatest thing going -- a majority that, just to be clear, did not include mobiGeek, who seems to take things too literally and get offended easily."
Hope that clears things up.
TheFrood
Granted, he's wrong. But does it really matter?
Two or three years ago, when Linux was still struggling for widespread adoption and everyone still thought Microsoft was the greatest thing going in computing, this would have been a big deal. The press used to treat anything Microsoft said as the gospel truth, and were hugely skeptical of Linux. A comment like this from Gates would have meant a lot.
But now Linux has made huge inroads into the server market and is already beginning to penetrate the desktop market. After their recent legal battles, Microsoft is no longer given a free ride by the press. At this point, a simple lie from Microsoft won't make much of an impression on anyone.
So, not to sound flip, but who cares what Bill said?
TheFrood
is that the relative difficulty a newbie has doing things in Linux makes it more secure.
So you're saying that Linux should make it easier for users to run scripts and executeables they receive in the mail?
TheFrood
It also bugs me when people say "an historic" instead of simply "a historic," as in "that's quite a historic event." (Try saying it out loud both ways.)
The people who spell it "an historic" aren't pronouncing the "h". I say it and spell it the way you do, but AFAIK they're both valid pronounciations.
TheFrood