As far as your question goes, I'm certainly no expert on distributed processing. There are many very usefull sites on clusters and. If you're really interested, I'd start here:
http://www.beowulf.org/
IMO, the key in the console market is getting your games to "play nicely" with pc games. I would hazard a guess that it'll be almost as important that they play nice with windows/DX games.
To be honest, I think the X-box has this covered quite nicely.
"That crap shouldn't be patentable in the first place. Of course, in the US you can patent math. "
That's like saying that you shouldn't be able to patent a new pharmaceutical becuase you think it's silly to patent chemistry.
Allan
Well, I must admit that I disagree with the premise of your argument. The fact is that media reports from NASA are subject to a great deal of public scrutiny as well as peer review from the physics and astronomy community--this represents a rather significant incentive for NASA to be honest with their findings. Furthermore, the credability loss that NASA could suffer from purposly decieving the public the huge!
So, if NASA's not lying, but just wrong about some things, then how much benefit do you think that Canadians get from verifying NASA's results? $500M ? hmm, I'm not so sure.
We are not just talking about "the possibility of civilized life on Mars in some distant past", we're talking about ALL of the costs and benefits of Canadian Space program.
I'm a little curious why we Canadians think it necessary to fund any space exploration. Sure, its sexy stuff, but when our neighbour spends billions on a space program in which we can participate, why would we want to compete? It's the classic free rider problem. Although, I'm not sure I'd call it a problem, in this case. I think it makes sense for the Americans to handle most of the global investment in space exploration then other countries can benefit from that through trade with the States--after all, the Yanks have a comparative advantage in it (if not an absolute advantage)!
It's the same thing with any type of R&D--let the Americans do it, then let the new technology work it's way up North.]
Am I the only one who thinks that the ability to know exactly what is being installed on my system at any given time is a good thing?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for functionality, and ease of use when it comes to up-dating packages, but one of the reasons that I use linux is because I got sick of things like Explorer's auto-update garbage.
I have only been using linux for a few months, and I've learned a lot from rpm's "failed dependencies". Even though these install trials a pain when they're happening, I like them because they force me to crack open a man page or a howto and figure out what exactly is going wrong and how exactly I (newbie or otherwise) can solve the problem. Invariably, the problem is solved, not by some automagic process, but by my learning something new. I like that.
I think that it's time the linux community stop wasting time on frills and spend more time on what they do best: building a stable OS with good, solid and secure code.
OK, I've lurked long enough. Personally, I think that a lot of people are missing the point.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a monopoly. (Bill Gates isn't out to get you, any more than Steve Jobs is!).. As long as it is generating a product that people like and are willing to buy. If you don't like the product and aren't willing to buy it, well then vote with your pocket-book!
The problem with MS is that the product with which they hold a monopoly is an unstable peice of junk and it probably costs North America $ billions in lost productivity every year.
Lets be honest, if Windows XX was stable and secure, there would be no reason to try to convict them for anything!
So , the punchline: the DoJ should really focuss on methods of getting windows to produce a stable OS, not on trying to crush them by any means possible (no matter how interesting the ensueing stock market crash would be).
Here's a method that I read elsewhere -with some editorial changes by me- (I can't remember where, otherwise I'd provide credit so, sorry if it was your idea)
1. force MS to release a scaled-down open-source OS ( Although, this OS would not have to be usable....simply a platform).
2. allow other companies to compete in the "Windows OS" market buy allowing them to develop, sell, and distribute their own Windows distro. (Some may choose desktop os's, others choose a network, you get the idea)
3. finally, allow MS to produce their own Windows distro. ( Sure they may still have the monopoly, but at least they'd have to make a stable OS to do it.)
Slashdot Mirror
"In any case, do not trust any web pages this computer shows you. " -- good advice (with tags, or without!) .....Do not trust any web pages--so true.
A
I mean, even I back away from Netscape's browser..... "Slowly, slowly......... It's gonna blow!!! RUN RUN!!"
Allan
That was the point, yes.
As far as your question goes, I'm certainly no expert on distributed processing. There are many very usefull sites on clusters and. If you're really interested, I'd start here:
http://www.beowulf.org/
IMO, the key in the console market is getting your games to "play nicely" with pc games. I would hazard a guess that it'll be almost as important that they play nice with windows/DX games.
To be honest, I think the X-box has this covered quite nicely.
Allan
immagine a beowolf...
oh, never mind
Allan
"That crap shouldn't be patentable in the first place. Of course, in the US you can patent math. " That's like saying that you shouldn't be able to patent a new pharmaceutical becuase you think it's silly to patent chemistry. Allan
Well, I must admit that I disagree with the premise of your argument. The fact is that media reports from NASA are subject to a great deal of public scrutiny as well as peer review from the physics and astronomy community--this represents a rather significant incentive for NASA to be honest with their findings. Furthermore, the credability loss that NASA could suffer from purposly decieving the public the huge!
So, if NASA's not lying, but just wrong about some things, then how much benefit do you think that Canadians get from verifying NASA's results? $500M ? hmm, I'm not so sure.
We are not just talking about "the possibility of civilized life on Mars in some distant past", we're talking about ALL of the costs and benefits of Canadian Space program.
Allan
I'm a little curious why we Canadians think it necessary to fund any space exploration. Sure, its sexy stuff, but when our neighbour spends billions on a space program in which we can participate, why would we want to compete? It's the classic free rider problem. Although, I'm not sure I'd call it a problem, in this case. I think it makes sense for the Americans to handle most of the global investment in space exploration then other countries can benefit from that through trade with the States--after all, the Yanks have a comparative advantage in it (if not an absolute advantage)!
It's the same thing with any type of R&D--let the Americans do it, then let the new technology work it's way up North.]
Allan
Am I the only one who thinks that the ability to know exactly what is being installed on my system at any given time is a good thing? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for functionality, and ease of use when it comes to up-dating packages, but one of the reasons that I use linux is because I got sick of things like Explorer's auto-update garbage. I have only been using linux for a few months, and I've learned a lot from rpm's "failed dependencies". Even though these install trials a pain when they're happening, I like them because they force me to crack open a man page or a howto and figure out what exactly is going wrong and how exactly I (newbie or otherwise) can solve the problem. Invariably, the problem is solved, not by some automagic process, but by my learning something new. I like that. I think that it's time the linux community stop wasting time on frills and spend more time on what they do best: building a stable OS with good, solid and secure code.
OK, I've lurked long enough. Personally, I think that a lot of people are missing the point.
....simply a platform).
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a monopoly. (Bill Gates isn't out to get you, any more than Steve Jobs is!).. As long as it is generating a product that people like and are willing to buy. If you don't like the product and aren't willing to buy it, well then vote with your pocket-book!
The problem with MS is that the product with which they hold a monopoly is an unstable peice of junk and it probably costs North America $ billions in lost productivity every year.
Lets be honest, if Windows XX was stable and secure, there would be no reason to try to convict them for anything!
So , the punchline: the DoJ should really focuss on methods of getting windows to produce a stable OS, not on trying to crush them by any means possible (no matter how interesting the ensueing stock market crash would be).
Here's a method that I read elsewhere -with some editorial changes by me- (I can't remember where, otherwise I'd provide credit so, sorry if it was your idea)
1. force MS to release a scaled-down open-source OS ( Although, this OS would not have to be usable
2. allow other companies to compete in the "Windows OS" market buy allowing them to develop, sell, and distribute their own Windows distro. (Some may choose desktop os's, others choose a network, you get the idea)
3. finally, allow MS to produce their own Windows distro. ( Sure they may still have the monopoly, but at least they'd have to make a stable OS to do it.)