Coprorations do not exist to do evil or good. They exist to make money for their shareholders.
Not untrue, but I hate this gross oversimplification. Both the corporation and the body of shareholders are people, and as such they may very well decide that they're not going to do any evil. In fact, they may all decide that they're going to make all that money by not being evil.
The fact that you want to make a buck or two doesn't automatically mean that you'll eat babies to do it. The people at Google may refuse to do evil, and the shareholders may refuse to try and make them. We'll just have to see.
I used to think this was true, too, but recently I've seen otherwise. I work with a group of about 10 people, doing software development. Two of us are gamers, and have sick high-end machines. The others basically only do this stuff at work, and go home and do other things.
However, FOUR of those other people are shown interest in playing DOOM3 or Half-Life2, and borrowed said games from the gamers. We found that their machines were woefully inadequate to play them, though.
Thus, in this admittedly small sample, I'm seeing a surprisingly large number of people who shouldn't have a sick high-end machines, but would ALSO like to play a modern game from time to time. I think graphics cards like these are the perfect choice for those people.
...instead of what it really is: a bad and old trick to save costs for real graphics memory.
But see, you've missed the point entirely. This card is billed as a "value" card; it's not for us, it's for people (read: OEMs) who want to put a $60 card into a machine. Using this "trick", with the bandwidth that PCI-E provides, gets the cards unprecedented performance at that price point.
PRICE is the priority, here, not performance. They're using this old trick with these new tools (PCI-E) to get good performance at the target price.
I'm not saying I don't think this is a great idea, because I think it's terrific. But to say that it is non-polluting probably isn't true.
But it is true: THIS system doesn't pullute. They can't be responsible for the fact that current technology's method of powering itself is, itself, polluting. In the next X years, when we're generating more and more power without polluting, this system will already have taken care of its side of the bargain by also not polluting.
In short, you can't blame this system for the pollution of something somewhere else along the line. How much better could they have done? Using electricity is the best solution available to them, in terms of pollution. Barring human-power or something.
You do realize that you can't honestly be in both camps, you know? You can't criticize the mindless drivel that Hollywood puts out and then say in the next breath that you're eagerly awaiting Doom.
You do realize that "Slashdot" is made up of more than just one guy, right? That we're several million people who visit the site each week? We can absolutely be in both camps, since any individual person can choose which way they feel about the issues.
Who actually thinks it will make a good movie? If you answer "me", then please explain it to me.
Sure, no problem. The issue lies in your definition of "good movie". Academy awards? Popular opinion? Of course according to those standards the DOOM movie is going to be just terrible. If you find yourself agreeing with either of those groups, in general, you're very likely to think it's horrible, as well.
I, however, go to see an action movie, and I only care about just that: the action. Sometimes, the worse the 'dialog', the BETTER the movie. Plot? I couldn't care less. They could start the movie with a guy with a gun at one end of a large open field filled with traps and monsters and bad guys, and the entire 'plot' is "You have to get to the other side!" with no explanation, and if there was some bad-ass action in between, that would be a great action movie.
Like, did you dislike Serious Sam because all they did was fill the screen with baddies throwing death at you? That game kicked ass, and had a 'plot' as stupid as any I've seen.
4. Use spaces for indenting, not tab characters. No file should contain any tab characters. These display differently in various terminals/editors, and mixing spaces and tabs makes code very messy. Most modern editors can be set to automatically insert spaces in place of tabs.
I've never understood this one. Granted, mixing spaces and tabs makes for messy code, but there are two solutions to that: Use only spaces, or use only tabs.
Why not tabs? They're easier to type when you're deeply nested, just hit Tab five times instead of 20 spaces. And for display, if I like an 8-char indent but you like a 3-char indent, we just set our editors differently and we're both happy. That's a feature, not a bug.
Please, somebody, give me a truly valid reason why spaces are better than tabs, empirically. Thanks.
...then they'll be able to tightly market to you later based on what you did at the park.
I'm completely serious when I say this... but so what? THAT'S what you're afraid of? Disney knowing that I have children, so they'll market small child things to me? Explain to me how that's a bad thing.
Honestly, I read a lot of comments on/., and I really do think that you people think that as soon as ANY COMPANY has ANY DATA on you AT ALL, then the world ends in some "privacy" armageddon. Oh no! They can MARKET TO YOU more effectively! Run for the hills!
I despise commercials, on TV and radio. I don't listen to the radio because of them, and I watch nothing on TV that's not through my TiVo. But that's because I'm not in the market for cars or alcohol or hip sodas. What if all commercials on my TV were for electronic gadgets, though? Or Sci-Fi movies? I'D ACTUALLY WATCH THEM.
So, seriously. Can you come up with anything more doom-and-gloom than "they can market to me more effectively" or "they'll know ANYTHING about me" that makes them tying your activities in the park to you, personally, a terrible thing? Anybody?
"Never happen"? "I can't ever imagine what flying would be like..."? I don't mean to offend, but you really need to either exercise your imagination more, or use the proper words. Do you really mean NEVER? What about in 100years when you can fit a perfectly safe fusion reactor in the trunk and thus never have to worry about power? What about in 300years when anti-grav is perfected and cars will just float?
Don't you imagine that there were people just like you back when cars came out, who said that they moved way too fast, what about carriages or pedestrians, who would buy one if it could break down all the time?
I have no trouble imagining a world NEAR-TERM where automation and diagnostics will work automatically when you try to turn the car/plane on, and ground you if things are unsafe. Or an "auto-pilot" that takes over in the case of machine failure and gets you to the ground safely.
"Never" should be considered a dirty word. We can do ANYTHING if we just set our minds to it long enough.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I speak for all cubicle-dwellers when I say:
Do you have a door? We'd kill for just a door. And some walls! Glorious, glorious walls...
<huddles in a corner, shivering>
Doug
Useless answer. Let me re-ask the question:
What happens when you have a party and have 17 people playing on five Xboxes?
(sigh) What happens when I go to PAX next year and there are a hundred Xboxes with 350 people playing them, in the same room?
Doug
Holy shit.
A grammar nazi for an entirely made up set of grammar, meant to cover a situation that can't exist, presented in fictional comedy novels.
That's AWESOME!!
Doug
Not untrue, but I hate this gross oversimplification. Both the corporation and the body of shareholders are people, and as such they may very well decide that they're not going to do any evil. In fact, they may all decide that they're going to make all that money by not being evil.
The fact that you want to make a buck or two doesn't automatically mean that you'll eat babies to do it. The people at Google may refuse to do evil, and the shareholders may refuse to try and make them. We'll just have to see.
Doug
You're implying that the women in Los Angeles are skillful at managing their emotional health?
...
Have you even been to Los Angeles?
Doug
Actually, none should be considered the "Outlook killer" until Oulook ACTUALLY DIES.
Doug
I used to think this was true, too, but recently I've seen otherwise. I work with a group of about 10 people, doing software development. Two of us are gamers, and have sick high-end machines. The others basically only do this stuff at work, and go home and do other things.
However, FOUR of those other people are shown interest in playing DOOM3 or Half-Life2, and borrowed said games from the gamers. We found that their machines were woefully inadequate to play them, though.
Thus, in this admittedly small sample, I'm seeing a surprisingly large number of people who shouldn't have a sick high-end machines, but would ALSO like to play a modern game from time to time. I think graphics cards like these are the perfect choice for those people.
Doug
But see, you've missed the point entirely. This card is billed as a "value" card; it's not for us, it's for people (read: OEMs) who want to put a $60 card into a machine. Using this "trick", with the bandwidth that PCI-E provides, gets the cards unprecedented performance at that price point.
PRICE is the priority, here, not performance. They're using this old trick with these new tools (PCI-E) to get good performance at the target price.
Doug
Quick fix: learn to type.
(I kid.)
Doug
But it is true: THIS system doesn't pullute. They can't be responsible for the fact that current technology's method of powering itself is, itself, polluting. In the next X years, when we're generating more and more power without polluting, this system will already have taken care of its side of the bargain by also not polluting.
In short, you can't blame this system for the pollution of something somewhere else along the line. How much better could they have done? Using electricity is the best solution available to them, in terms of pollution. Barring human-power or something.
This system is pollution-free.
Doug
Geforce 6800 GT
Athlon64 3500+
1GB RAM
Live in your world... get pwn3d in mine.
Doug
true VR
Best. Typo. Ever.
Doug
You do realize that "Slashdot" is made up of more than just one guy, right? That we're several million people who visit the site each week? We can absolutely be in both camps, since any individual person can choose which way they feel about the issues.
Sure, no problem. The issue lies in your definition of "good movie". Academy awards? Popular opinion? Of course according to those standards the DOOM movie is going to be just terrible. If you find yourself agreeing with either of those groups, in general, you're very likely to think it's horrible, as well.
I, however, go to see an action movie, and I only care about just that: the action. Sometimes, the worse the 'dialog', the BETTER the movie. Plot? I couldn't care less. They could start the movie with a guy with a gun at one end of a large open field filled with traps and monsters and bad guys, and the entire 'plot' is "You have to get to the other side!" with no explanation, and if there was some bad-ass action in between, that would be a great action movie.
Like, did you dislike Serious Sam because all they did was fill the screen with baddies throwing death at you? That game kicked ass, and had a 'plot' as stupid as any I've seen.
Doug
I've never understood this one. Granted, mixing spaces and tabs makes for messy code, but there are two solutions to that: Use only spaces, or use only tabs.
Why not tabs? They're easier to type when you're deeply nested, just hit Tab five times instead of 20 spaces. And for display, if I like an 8-char indent but you like a 3-char indent, we just set our editors differently and we're both happy. That's a feature, not a bug.
Please, somebody, give me a truly valid reason why spaces are better than tabs, empirically. Thanks.
Doug
That already exists.
Doug
Apollo 13 begs to differ with you.
Doug
Never mind that, what the hell is wrong with that guy's TEETH?!?
Doug
It seems that Google's not the only one using this technology.
Doug
Wow, you types really amaze me.
I'm completely serious when I say this... but so what? THAT'S what you're afraid of? Disney knowing that I have children, so they'll market small child things to me? Explain to me how that's a bad thing.
Honestly, I read a lot of comments on /., and I really do think that you people think that as soon as ANY COMPANY has ANY DATA on you AT ALL, then the world ends in some "privacy" armageddon. Oh no! They can MARKET TO YOU more effectively! Run for the hills!
I despise commercials, on TV and radio. I don't listen to the radio because of them, and I watch nothing on TV that's not through my TiVo. But that's because I'm not in the market for cars or alcohol or hip sodas. What if all commercials on my TV were for electronic gadgets, though? Or Sci-Fi movies? I'D ACTUALLY WATCH THEM.
So, seriously. Can you come up with anything more doom-and-gloom than "they can market to me more effectively" or "they'll know ANYTHING about me" that makes them tying your activities in the park to you, personally, a terrible thing? Anybody?
Doug
That was a comma in his number... 112 would get us there in 1000 years. :)
Doug
Heh. "realistic"
Doug
I prefer: You can lead a geek to a nightclub, but you can't make him get a life.
Doug
I'm actually being serious: couldn't you save that $4 and just not answer the phone if there's no number/name on the caller id?
Doug
"Never happen"? "I can't ever imagine what flying would be like..."? I don't mean to offend, but you really need to either exercise your imagination more, or use the proper words. Do you really mean NEVER? What about in 100years when you can fit a perfectly safe fusion reactor in the trunk and thus never have to worry about power? What about in 300years when anti-grav is perfected and cars will just float?
Don't you imagine that there were people just like you back when cars came out, who said that they moved way too fast, what about carriages or pedestrians, who would buy one if it could break down all the time?
I have no trouble imagining a world NEAR-TERM where automation and diagnostics will work automatically when you try to turn the car/plane on, and ground you if things are unsafe. Or an "auto-pilot" that takes over in the case of machine failure and gets you to the ground safely.
"Never" should be considered a dirty word. We can do ANYTHING if we just set our minds to it long enough.
Doug