First off, I hope you really meant gdi32.dll and not gdi.exe, as the various system files ending in.exe like gdi.exe and krnl386.exe and so on are only around for compatibility reasons for WOW (Windows on Windows, or the Win16 subsystem). Look at the file information on gdi.exe, for example. The version is not 5.1.2600.1106 (XP sp1), but 3.10.0.103 (ack! Win3.1!). Second, GDI is more like X's programming interface rather than the X server. It gives you all of the drawing primitives, and little more. In XP and later Windows operating systems, one could consider Terminal Services to be like X, since it's been integrated to handle all logins (even those while sitting directly in front of the computer).
If MS was in finacial problems or had problems with the cashflow they would have had too save money by cutting developmental cost. But after all their problem is that they have too much money and don't know where too use them.
More than that, Microsoft still has a positive cash flow (ie, profit). Even with the 40bil or so cash on hand, if Microsoft stopped making profits, there would be big problems.
And why would they want that. It is the *combination* Win OS and MS Office that is their "killer app" as a company. Most companies need Word, Excel and Powerpoint, not Explorer/IE Explorer. That's why they buy Win2k. If they in the future can use MS Office an Red Hat XX Microsoft have a problem. Microsoft separating MS Office from MS WinOS would be like Gilette stopping selling blades.
You seem to be ignoring that "other" OS called Macintosh OS. I agree that on PC hardware, offering Office on anything but Windows is suicide for Microsoft. Office for Mac is less threatening because it means a much larger up-front investment, but there's still nothing stopping companies from going that route if they really must. Still, Office for Mac isn't free, so it's still cash in Microsoft's pocket (IMHO, not a bad thing).
Ahem. Bullshit. They have added it sperately. There is no network layer that is built into the windowing server.
I'm going to have to call bullshit on your bullshit. Investigate XP's "Fast User Switching" system. You'll find that Terminal Services/Remote Desktop has become a core part of the Windows UI -- every login session, from the console or remotely, is a terminal server session. When you "suspend" a session to go back to the login screen to login as someone else, you're simply detaching from that terminal server session and creating a new one for the new user. When you log out, you're closing the current terminal server session. In short, no matter what you do in XP (and.NET Server/Windows 2003), you're using terminal services (obviously with optimizations for the local case).
If anything, Windows' efforts are more advanced than X, since you can keep sessions around and log into them locally or remotely, while any apps you left running will continue to run, and pick up properly when you reconnect. Like screen, but for a GUI.
Cringley isn't an idiot. You may not agree with what he's saying, you may think that he doesn't understand what an OS is, you may even think that Microsoft would never follow that course, but he isn't an idiot.
He may not be an idiot (the jury is still out on that one, though my vote goes to "idiot"), but at best he's poorly informed.
He is talking about Microsoft doing _exactly_ the same thing that Apple has done with OSX (use someone else's OS), except with Linux instead of BSD. Five years ago, would anyone have thought that Apple would use someone else's OS to run their UI? Heresy!
You're correct, in that the end result would be the same. However, his basic premise as to why Microsoft would even consider doing this is flawed -- his premise being that Windows 2000 and XP are still DOS-based like their Win9x cousins, rather than NT-based. His assertion is that even today Windows is nothing more than a GUI on top of DOS, and that other versions of DOS would work just as well (let's see him try it...). His premise is completely incorrect, as well as unfounded, and thus his arguments are worthless.
NT was not written from scratch. NT was what Microsoft took from the OS/2 collaboration with IBM. IBM went on to future development of OS/2 and Microsoft took what they had rights to and developed NT (new technology).
Yes, NT took some technology from the OS/2 collaboration (NTFS is the advancement of OS/2's HPFS), but NT as an OS and kernel was not based on OS/2. If it were, there would have been no reason for an OS/2 compatibility layer (just like the win16 compat layer and POSIX compat layer). In fact, even Win32 could be seen as a compat layer on top of the NT kernel, with the kernel interface being largely undocumented (by Microsoft, anyway).
Finally I don't think its emulation which does the command-line. IIRC the command-line is also rewritten from scratch but is just an application that mimics an old MS-DOS shell. Try to run any old dos game in the shell, you'll get an error like "This program can only run in MS-DOS" or similiar. If it was infact an emulator then it should have no problem running those programs. As for legacy applications, that probably has more to do with keeping the dlls for older apis around than any sort of emulation. However Cringly definitly needed to do some fact checking with this article (I read it a few days ago on OSNews).
cmd.exe is the app you're referring to, and it's as much an "emulator" as bash is an "emulator" of the original Bourne shell. cmd.exe is NT's console shell, and extends the original DOS batch programming language. It's not COMMAND.COM, but is functionally equivalent for 95% of the uses out there. However, the window that cmd.exe opens is a special window in Win32. Other apps can open so-called "console" windows, and there is a whole set of APIs dedicated to programming with console windows. cmd.exe just provides the interactive and scriptable shell inside the window. And maybe I'm just special, but I seem to be able to run many old DOS games out there under cmd.exe. Sound doesn't usually work, but there are solutions for that, too.
My company (shameless plug = Premier Networks [premiernetworks.net]) is an integration and system engineering firm. We primarily work with either integrating with or replacing MS based systems (W2K, SQL, IIS, etc.) with OSS (Linux + SaMBa, Apache, MySQL, etc.).
Wait, you convince people to drop a good RDBMS (SQL Server) for a weak one (MySQL)? Either you're a really good salesman, or your customers are idiots (no offense intended, of course). Why not at least move them to something with similar capabilities, like PostgreSQL, or Oracle or DB2? For the latter, they're already paying licenses for SQL Server, so it shouldn't be a hard sell to get them to take that money and put it into a different database.
You do realize that Windows CE is a completely different OS than Windows 9x or Windows NT, right? They share a minimal set of Win32 APIs and a somewhat similar look (which has diverged starting around Windows CE 3.0, associated with PocketPC), and that's it. The core of the OS shares nothing with NT or 9x. Therefore, the reliability of other Windows products cannot reflect upon the reliability of Windows CE (your views on whether or not Microsoft can make reliable software are acceptable, just don't judge Windows CE because you think it's based on other Windows platforms).
That's because MSFT have replaced it with the more functional Windows Scripting Host. Haven't you been paying attention to all the WSH security issues?
Incorrect. CMD/Batch scripting is still alive and well, and much more powerful in its cmd.exe "cmd scripting" form than it ever was in the DOS "batch scripting" days. Batch/CMD is to sh as WSH is to perl (especially since you can use perl to write WSH code -- WSH is not a language, but a framework that can support many languages).
Funny, I thought GiMP ran natively on Linux. You know, it runs natively on Windows, too.
By "runs natively", one would assume the original poster meant "uses the native widgets for a given windowing environment". In that sense, the GIMP only "runs natively" in an environment where the "native" widget set is GTK, like GNOME. In Windows, the GTK widgets look like crap and many function differently (slightly or widely) from standard Win32 widgets. Same for GTK on the Mac, I would guess (I don't know about this, since I haven't used a Mac in years). Conversely, Photoshop on Windows looks like it was meant to be a Windows application, with the look and feel of a Windows app. Photoshop on Mac OS looks like it was meant to be a Mac application. The Windows version doesn't try to shoehorn in the Mac style of "one menu bar, many open windows, no container window", and the Mac version doesn't try to follow the MDI style of Windows.
I woudl prefer to be slashdotted than have anything mirroed, if any one is generally intrested in the site it will be back up soon enough
Chicken and the egg problem. How can you know if you're interested enough in a site to return to it if you can't get to the site in the first place? As for checking back in a couple of days after the Slashdot effect has worn off, you've got two problems -- 1) just when the admin thinks he's in the clear, finally, the Slashdot effect gets a second wind and his server's down again; and 2) do you really go back through Slashdot stories from 3-4 days ago, looking for interesting stories you didn't get a chance to read thanks to the Slashdot effect? I don't, and I'd bet most people don't. For example, this UPC thing is pretty cool, and I wouldn't mind looking at what the guy did and how he did it, but come Monday or Tuesday I'll have forgotten all about it.
It's just too messy, it takes up time for the editors
Are these the same editors that have time to post duplicate stories?
screws up pages with ads on them (yeah, boohoo, but if you were getting money for the page you'd care)
The sites that tend to be most quickly slashdotted are also the sites that are most likely not to be ad-supported. More, they're also the same sites that are most likely going to end up costing the owner an arm and a leg when their bandwidth allotment is completely smashed by a Slashdotting. In otherwords, they're not gaining any money by being linked to Slashdot, and are highly prone to actually losing money. Let's see what you'll do if you're faced with a $1000 bandwidth bill because your lego collection made it onto Slashdot.
and the rest
What "rest"? Legal issues? The editors obviously should contact site owners (at the very least to warn them that Slashdot is about to launch a massive DDoS on their website). I'd much rather wait a day or two to see an interesting site than not be able to see it at all. If someone doesn't want Slashdot to cache their site, then they should at least be given the opportunity to not have the site posted to Slashdot.
It would be good, though, if the editors were to put up at least the Google cache of this kind of site.
For this kind of site? Not likely. I looked at the Google cache. The site has a lot of pictures of the guy's setup, and google doesn't cache images. Thus, the Google cache is nearly useless.
Hmmm, so being "signed up" for track time in the future makes you qualified to bash forms of racing you have no experience with and say they are easy? I see a long and painful learning curve for you and hours of being skooled on the track by the real racers that will be running while you take your practice laps.
I didn't feel the need to recite my (short, as you've already pointed out) history of racing, but I've been to the track before. I simply wanted to make a note that I'm already planning at least one track day, and most likely more, for the upcoming season.
I just checked your website and see that you have a Porsche Boxster that you will be taking to the track. Don't be surprised to see many "lesser" cars passing you unless you are gonna run in the Boxster only races. If you are gonna take the high horse posture, you should have at least gotten the Boxster S. Buying a Porsche dosen't make one a racer, racing does that and judging from your attitude, real racers will enjoy spanking you on the track.
Been there, done that, didn't care. Yes, I was lapped by Civics (actually, "Civic" singular, driven by a guy who had quite a bit of racing experience -- your average rice racer driving a Civic wouldn't have been doing any better than I was) and Audis and such. No, I didn't care. Why? Because I was driving for fun, not competition. Were I planning on being competitive, a Boxster would've been the last car I'd have considered. If I get serious about this, I'll be buying a track car in the future (probably something along the lines of a 944s or turbo). So what if the "real racers" spank me on the track? I'm nowhere near their level yet.
In the article they are not simply talking about any old civic, the civic in question is a 10 second 1/4 mile car.
Woo woo. A Civic that can run a ~10 second quarter mile (btw, the time was a little over 10 seconds -- a "10 second car" should be 10 flat or slightly under, not slightly over). Still, it's just going straight. Big deal.
No matter how easy you think drag racing a civic is from behind your desk, if you havent been racing (on the track or street) its no peice of cake.
If you race on the street, you're a fucking moron, end of story. Racing on the track is different, but I still find drag racing pretty boring. Whoopee! My car can go straight fast!
PS: a desk jockey like you probably drives an automatic any ways so STFU.
Nope, my car is a 5-speed manual. It's no drag racer (nor would I want it to be), but I didn't buy it for that. As for being a "desk jockey", I disagree. I'm already signed up for afternoon lapping (I drive for fun, not competition) at my local track. The only problem is the season doesn't start until March, so I can't exactly get out there any sooner. And as for street racing, see my above comment.
Top fuel, special drag cars and Civics are completely different animals. The article was talking about the latter. I still contend that drag racing a Civic is pretty damned simple.
Usually the interface is proprietary across manufacturers, though I wouldn't be surprised if some manufacturers shared interfaces (say, Chevrolet and Toyota, or Chrysler and Mitsubishi, or Porsche, Audi, and Volkswagen, etc).
- is there a standard protocol used, or is each manufacturer coming up with his own? Standards would allow smaller garages to have a computer for use with multiple makes of car, but I bet the manufacturers don't want that.
Nope. See the answer to the first question, and also several older Slashdot stories on the same.
- is there software on the net that'll talk to the car computer? Got any URLs?
Probably, but you'd still need special hardware for the interface. I know of at least one WinCE-based dynometer software package (I believe there's also a Palm version), but I can't remember the name or website at the moment. Google should help.
In my last few cars, I found connectors in the cabin which I assumed were for the garage's computer. Haven't run across it yet in my current car, but it'd be kinda cool to hook my laptop/palm up to my car and see what it's upto.
Yes, that's the connector for the garage's/dealer's computer, which runs a diagnostic package to read what your computer has stored (ie, if your "check engine" light came on, and possibly why), and do minor uploads (your dealer and/or car mechanic is not going to reprogram an ECU for you).
Heck, maybe I could even disable that annoying <ping>, everytime the temperature drops below 4oC.:)
Talk to your dealer. There are a number of things most dealers will do if you ask them nicely. None of them are performance-related, however. (Why is that? Well, reprogramming your ECU for performance reasons can push your engine well past proper tolerances, screw up emissions, and just generally fuck over your car -- that means if you touch the ECU for performance reasons, you can kiss your warranty goodbye.) Failing that, disconnect the bell that makes the ding, either at the fusebox (if you can), or at the source.
However it ruins what should be a battle of man and machine and enables the big spenders to kill the little guys everytime. Computing is great for some things, but it too often reduces the skill required in sports like Motor Racing, making it a battle of programmers rather than drivers.
Ah, but the article was about drag racing. Where's the skill in that? Okay, sure, you have to be able to get a good launch, and shift properly. Otherwise, "Keep the throttle wide open, and don't touch that steering wheel." Of course, I agree with you 100% with respect to wheel to wheel road racing ("road" as in "race track with lots of nifty turns", not "main street").
Of course, the real fun is driving on road tracks yourself. Nothing quite like learning the limits of your driving ability (for most people out there, the capabilities of their car will far exceed the capabilities of the driver, so they'll be limited by their skill before they're limited by their car). Leave the computer stuff for things like RARS (Robot Auto Racing Simulator), and enjoy the skill it takes to drive a car fast in the real world. Call your local track, see when they start doing DE (driver education) days. I'm already signed up for lapping at my local track, are you?
As everyone knows, when a king dies, his son instantaneously becomes king, no matter how far away he is. This proves that the royalty particle (the royalon, monarchon or kingon) does travel faster than light. It's not regicide; it's physics.
But then what of the coronation? Being the ceremony of installing a new monarch, it would imply that a prince is not a king until he has been crowned.
BTW, the same goes for other transfers of authority -- a president is not a president until he's inaugurated, a sergeant assuming the role of lieutenant on the battlefield is not a lieutenant until he's official promoted (either by going through OCS or by receiving a battlefield commission), and so on. Thus I disprove the existence of the royalty particle, and assure myself a place in the annals of scientific history. Good day.
As an artist your calling card is the animation/artwork you do. I have no idea how I'd distinguish myself as a programmer.
In exactly the same way. Just as you spend time drawing and modelling and doing other art in your free time to build your portfolio, so too would a programmer. The Catch-22 in the game industry is that to be a game developer, you have to have already developed a game. Moddable games lessen that somewhat (build a successful mod for a game, and it becomes a high point in your portfolio), but you still should be spending time writing games and engines. Not only does that build your portfolio, but it also gives you a feel for the work involved. Kinda like being an artist, eh?
The faceplates on most components are very easily removed. Add to that a can of spray paint in a matching color for your case, and there's no longer a problem. Be sure to mask off the holes for status lights, though.
You know, when you talk out your ass like that...no one listens (and your breath wreeks worse than ever). MS has not announced those costs, so in reality, you have no idea. You're simply waving the MS flag. Get back to us when MS beats up on your parent's credit card...over and over. Only a fool would agree to charges without knowing what they will be.
You're right, that's unsubstantiated. Thus the phrase "most likely". As in, it's just a guess, and probably a fair one at that. As for my "parent's credit card", why would they do that? I didn't use my parent's credit card for XBox Live. Why should I? I'm not sixteen and I don't live with my parents. Talk about making yourself look like an ass...
How much did that broadband adapter cost for your PS2 again? And why did you have to buy a separate game to get a headset? And why doesn't that headset work in every online game? Face it, for the first year at least, XBox Live is a better deal than PS2 online -- for $50, you can either get the XBox Live starter kit with a headset and two demo games (Moto GP is awesome), or you can get a PS2 broadband adapter. And then spend another $50 on SOCOM, and not even be able to use the headset with other games. Make a case when Microsoft unveils its plans for future XBox Live fees, maybe, but for now XBox Live is a better deal, with better gameplay and features.
Anyway, most likely Microsoft will charge maybe $50/year for XBox Live in the future, which is a very good deal. There's no guarantee that you won't have to pay extra for games, but it's less likely than the PS2 scenario. Since Sony does not provide any services for PS2 developers, a game company either needs to run their own (costs money, which will be passed on to you), or partner with a larger company like EA (which means fewer "independent" game developers will be able to exploit online play). Microsoft has a good thing going with XBox Live.
Have you even played it? That's like saying: "Star Trek II? It's just Star Trek I with a villain and explosions."
Yes, I've played it. I own it. The story is somewhat different, and there are some neat mini levels (with the acapella original SMB theme, sweet!), but overall there's very little to distinguish Super Mario Sunshine from Super Mario 64 -- it's the same damn thing, with flashier graphics, one or two new moves, and a water gun. As to your analogy, you're right -- Star Trek II is just Star TrekI with a villain and explosions. New story, same old stuff. To take your analogy farther, the Star Trek series of movies began to peter out after so many movies. Same for Mario.
Not that this is a bad thing in any way, just that previous Mario games have set the bar very high. From the original mario brothers, through Mario 64, each one was new and different. Super Mario Sunshine, while still a good game in its own right, just doesn't follow the trend. Then again, given what Nintendo has been doing, rehashing older Mario games on the GBA, it's really not a big surprise that they couldn't come up with something revolutionary for the GCN Mario.
While Halo changed platforms, most of the code remained the same. I believe it was more the low level stuff that needed modified or optimized for the XBox that was different. But that isnt't *that* big a deal. (Or shouldn't be, depending on what MS' tools are like)
I really think you're simplifying things. If there weren't much that was changed, then the PC port would have been out already (it's over a year since Halo launched on the XBox, with the PC version expected this coming summer, or a year and a half after the XBox launch).
Oh, and Halo2 is only coming out "soon" if you consider "in a year" to be soon. It's scheduled for Christmas 2003.
I'm sorry, but no. The game is fun, and the control scheme is serviceable, but it's also quite bad, and could've been much better. I own the game, and have played a number of hours in it, and I still dislike the controls. I know about the lock on trigger, and the freelook trigger, and I think they're a solution to a problem that never should've existed.
And I know what type of game Metroids are, I don't expect the game to be a Halo killer or a fast-paced Quake. But that's still no excuse for a poor control scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you visited the link in your sig lately? Not only does Slashdot not pass W3C validation, it now blocks the W3C validator. I get:
Way to go, Slashdot!
First off, I hope you really meant gdi32.dll and not gdi.exe, as the various system files ending in .exe like gdi.exe and krnl386.exe and so on are only around for compatibility reasons for WOW (Windows on Windows, or the Win16 subsystem). Look at the file information on gdi.exe, for example. The version is not 5.1.2600.1106 (XP sp1), but 3.10.0.103 (ack! Win3.1!). Second, GDI is more like X's programming interface rather than the X server. It gives you all of the drawing primitives, and little more. In XP and later Windows operating systems, one could consider Terminal Services to be like X, since it's been integrated to handle all logins (even those while sitting directly in front of the computer).
More than that, Microsoft still has a positive cash flow (ie, profit). Even with the 40bil or so cash on hand, if Microsoft stopped making profits, there would be big problems.
You seem to be ignoring that "other" OS called Macintosh OS. I agree that on PC hardware, offering Office on anything but Windows is suicide for Microsoft. Office for Mac is less threatening because it means a much larger up-front investment, but there's still nothing stopping companies from going that route if they really must. Still, Office for Mac isn't free, so it's still cash in Microsoft's pocket (IMHO, not a bad thing).
I'm going to have to call bullshit on your bullshit. Investigate XP's "Fast User Switching" system. You'll find that Terminal Services/Remote Desktop has become a core part of the Windows UI -- every login session, from the console or remotely, is a terminal server session. When you "suspend" a session to go back to the login screen to login as someone else, you're simply detaching from that terminal server session and creating a new one for the new user. When you log out, you're closing the current terminal server session. In short, no matter what you do in XP (and .NET Server/Windows 2003), you're using terminal services (obviously with optimizations for the local case).
If anything, Windows' efforts are more advanced than X, since you can keep sessions around and log into them locally or remotely, while any apps you left running will continue to run, and pick up properly when you reconnect. Like screen, but for a GUI.
He may not be an idiot (the jury is still out on that one, though my vote goes to "idiot"), but at best he's poorly informed.
You're correct, in that the end result would be the same. However, his basic premise as to why Microsoft would even consider doing this is flawed -- his premise being that Windows 2000 and XP are still DOS-based like their Win9x cousins, rather than NT-based. His assertion is that even today Windows is nothing more than a GUI on top of DOS, and that other versions of DOS would work just as well (let's see him try it ...). His premise is completely incorrect, as well as unfounded, and thus his arguments are worthless.
Yes, NT took some technology from the OS/2 collaboration (NTFS is the advancement of OS/2's HPFS), but NT as an OS and kernel was not based on OS/2. If it were, there would have been no reason for an OS/2 compatibility layer (just like the win16 compat layer and POSIX compat layer). In fact, even Win32 could be seen as a compat layer on top of the NT kernel, with the kernel interface being largely undocumented (by Microsoft, anyway).
cmd.exe is the app you're referring to, and it's as much an "emulator" as bash is an "emulator" of the original Bourne shell. cmd.exe is NT's console shell, and extends the original DOS batch programming language. It's not COMMAND.COM, but is functionally equivalent for 95% of the uses out there. However, the window that cmd.exe opens is a special window in Win32. Other apps can open so-called "console" windows, and there is a whole set of APIs dedicated to programming with console windows. cmd.exe just provides the interactive and scriptable shell inside the window. And maybe I'm just special, but I seem to be able to run many old DOS games out there under cmd.exe. Sound doesn't usually work, but there are solutions for that, too.
Wait, you convince people to drop a good RDBMS (SQL Server) for a weak one (MySQL)? Either you're a really good salesman, or your customers are idiots (no offense intended, of course). Why not at least move them to something with similar capabilities, like PostgreSQL, or Oracle or DB2? For the latter, they're already paying licenses for SQL Server, so it shouldn't be a hard sell to get them to take that money and put it into a different database.
You do realize that Windows CE is a completely different OS than Windows 9x or Windows NT, right? They share a minimal set of Win32 APIs and a somewhat similar look (which has diverged starting around Windows CE 3.0, associated with PocketPC), and that's it. The core of the OS shares nothing with NT or 9x. Therefore, the reliability of other Windows products cannot reflect upon the reliability of Windows CE (your views on whether or not Microsoft can make reliable software are acceptable, just don't judge Windows CE because you think it's based on other Windows platforms).
Incorrect. CMD/Batch scripting is still alive and well, and much more powerful in its cmd.exe "cmd scripting" form than it ever was in the DOS "batch scripting" days. Batch/CMD is to sh as WSH is to perl (especially since you can use perl to write WSH code -- WSH is not a language, but a framework that can support many languages).
By "runs natively", one would assume the original poster meant "uses the native widgets for a given windowing environment". In that sense, the GIMP only "runs natively" in an environment where the "native" widget set is GTK, like GNOME. In Windows, the GTK widgets look like crap and many function differently (slightly or widely) from standard Win32 widgets. Same for GTK on the Mac, I would guess (I don't know about this, since I haven't used a Mac in years). Conversely, Photoshop on Windows looks like it was meant to be a Windows application, with the look and feel of a Windows app. Photoshop on Mac OS looks like it was meant to be a Mac application. The Windows version doesn't try to shoehorn in the Mac style of "one menu bar, many open windows, no container window", and the Mac version doesn't try to follow the MDI style of Windows.
Chicken and the egg problem. How can you know if you're interested enough in a site to return to it if you can't get to the site in the first place? As for checking back in a couple of days after the Slashdot effect has worn off, you've got two problems -- 1) just when the admin thinks he's in the clear, finally, the Slashdot effect gets a second wind and his server's down again; and 2) do you really go back through Slashdot stories from 3-4 days ago, looking for interesting stories you didn't get a chance to read thanks to the Slashdot effect? I don't, and I'd bet most people don't. For example, this UPC thing is pretty cool, and I wouldn't mind looking at what the guy did and how he did it, but come Monday or Tuesday I'll have forgotten all about it.
Are these the same editors that have time to post duplicate stories?
The sites that tend to be most quickly slashdotted are also the sites that are most likely not to be ad-supported. More, they're also the same sites that are most likely going to end up costing the owner an arm and a leg when their bandwidth allotment is completely smashed by a Slashdotting. In otherwords, they're not gaining any money by being linked to Slashdot, and are highly prone to actually losing money. Let's see what you'll do if you're faced with a $1000 bandwidth bill because your lego collection made it onto Slashdot.
What "rest"? Legal issues? The editors obviously should contact site owners (at the very least to warn them that Slashdot is about to launch a massive DDoS on their website). I'd much rather wait a day or two to see an interesting site than not be able to see it at all. If someone doesn't want Slashdot to cache their site, then they should at least be given the opportunity to not have the site posted to Slashdot.
For this kind of site? Not likely. I looked at the Google cache. The site has a lot of pictures of the guy's setup, and google doesn't cache images. Thus, the Google cache is nearly useless.
I didn't feel the need to recite my (short, as you've already pointed out) history of racing, but I've been to the track before. I simply wanted to make a note that I'm already planning at least one track day, and most likely more, for the upcoming season.
Been there, done that, didn't care. Yes, I was lapped by Civics (actually, "Civic" singular, driven by a guy who had quite a bit of racing experience -- your average rice racer driving a Civic wouldn't have been doing any better than I was) and Audis and such. No, I didn't care. Why? Because I was driving for fun, not competition. Were I planning on being competitive, a Boxster would've been the last car I'd have considered. If I get serious about this, I'll be buying a track car in the future (probably something along the lines of a 944s or turbo). So what if the "real racers" spank me on the track? I'm nowhere near their level yet.
Woo woo. A Civic that can run a ~10 second quarter mile (btw, the time was a little over 10 seconds -- a "10 second car" should be 10 flat or slightly under, not slightly over). Still, it's just going straight. Big deal.
If you race on the street, you're a fucking moron, end of story. Racing on the track is different, but I still find drag racing pretty boring. Whoopee! My car can go straight fast!
Nope, my car is a 5-speed manual. It's no drag racer (nor would I want it to be), but I didn't buy it for that. As for being a "desk jockey", I disagree. I'm already signed up for afternoon lapping (I drive for fun, not competition) at my local track. The only problem is the season doesn't start until March, so I can't exactly get out there any sooner. And as for street racing, see my above comment.
Top fuel, special drag cars and Civics are completely different animals. The article was talking about the latter. I still contend that drag racing a Civic is pretty damned simple.
Usually the interface is proprietary across manufacturers, though I wouldn't be surprised if some manufacturers shared interfaces (say, Chevrolet and Toyota, or Chrysler and Mitsubishi, or Porsche, Audi, and Volkswagen, etc).
Nope. See the answer to the first question, and also several older Slashdot stories on the same.
Probably, but you'd still need special hardware for the interface. I know of at least one WinCE-based dynometer software package (I believe there's also a Palm version), but I can't remember the name or website at the moment. Google should help.
Yes, that's the connector for the garage's/dealer's computer, which runs a diagnostic package to read what your computer has stored (ie, if your "check engine" light came on, and possibly why), and do minor uploads (your dealer and/or car mechanic is not going to reprogram an ECU for you).
Talk to your dealer. There are a number of things most dealers will do if you ask them nicely. None of them are performance-related, however. (Why is that? Well, reprogramming your ECU for performance reasons can push your engine well past proper tolerances, screw up emissions, and just generally fuck over your car -- that means if you touch the ECU for performance reasons, you can kiss your warranty goodbye.) Failing that, disconnect the bell that makes the ding, either at the fusebox (if you can), or at the source.
Ah, but the article was about drag racing. Where's the skill in that? Okay, sure, you have to be able to get a good launch, and shift properly. Otherwise, "Keep the throttle wide open, and don't touch that steering wheel." Of course, I agree with you 100% with respect to wheel to wheel road racing ("road" as in "race track with lots of nifty turns", not "main street").
Of course, the real fun is driving on road tracks yourself. Nothing quite like learning the limits of your driving ability (for most people out there, the capabilities of their car will far exceed the capabilities of the driver, so they'll be limited by their skill before they're limited by their car). Leave the computer stuff for things like RARS (Robot Auto Racing Simulator), and enjoy the skill it takes to drive a car fast in the real world. Call your local track, see when they start doing DE (driver education) days. I'm already signed up for lapping at my local track, are you?
But then what of the coronation? Being the ceremony of installing a new monarch, it would imply that a prince is not a king until he has been crowned.
BTW, the same goes for other transfers of authority -- a president is not a president until he's inaugurated, a sergeant assuming the role of lieutenant on the battlefield is not a lieutenant until he's official promoted (either by going through OCS or by receiving a battlefield commission), and so on. Thus I disprove the existence of the royalty particle, and assure myself a place in the annals of scientific history. Good day.
In exactly the same way. Just as you spend time drawing and modelling and doing other art in your free time to build your portfolio, so too would a programmer. The Catch-22 in the game industry is that to be a game developer, you have to have already developed a game. Moddable games lessen that somewhat (build a successful mod for a game, and it becomes a high point in your portfolio), but you still should be spending time writing games and engines. Not only does that build your portfolio, but it also gives you a feel for the work involved. Kinda like being an artist, eh?
The faceplates on most components are very easily removed. Add to that a can of spray paint in a matching color for your case, and there's no longer a problem. Be sure to mask off the holes for status lights, though.
You're right, that's unsubstantiated. Thus the phrase "most likely". As in, it's just a guess, and probably a fair one at that. As for my "parent's credit card", why would they do that? I didn't use my parent's credit card for XBox Live. Why should I? I'm not sixteen and I don't live with my parents. Talk about making yourself look like an ass ...
How much did that broadband adapter cost for your PS2 again? And why did you have to buy a separate game to get a headset? And why doesn't that headset work in every online game? Face it, for the first year at least, XBox Live is a better deal than PS2 online -- for $50, you can either get the XBox Live starter kit with a headset and two demo games (Moto GP is awesome), or you can get a PS2 broadband adapter. And then spend another $50 on SOCOM, and not even be able to use the headset with other games. Make a case when Microsoft unveils its plans for future XBox Live fees, maybe, but for now XBox Live is a better deal, with better gameplay and features.
Anyway, most likely Microsoft will charge maybe $50/year for XBox Live in the future, which is a very good deal. There's no guarantee that you won't have to pay extra for games, but it's less likely than the PS2 scenario. Since Sony does not provide any services for PS2 developers, a game company either needs to run their own (costs money, which will be passed on to you), or partner with a larger company like EA (which means fewer "independent" game developers will be able to exploit online play). Microsoft has a good thing going with XBox Live.
Yes, I've played it. I own it. The story is somewhat different, and there are some neat mini levels (with the acapella original SMB theme, sweet!), but overall there's very little to distinguish Super Mario Sunshine from Super Mario 64 -- it's the same damn thing, with flashier graphics, one or two new moves, and a water gun. As to your analogy, you're right -- Star Trek II is just Star TrekI with a villain and explosions. New story, same old stuff. To take your analogy farther, the Star Trek series of movies began to peter out after so many movies. Same for Mario.
Not that this is a bad thing in any way, just that previous Mario games have set the bar very high. From the original mario brothers, through Mario 64, each one was new and different. Super Mario Sunshine, while still a good game in its own right, just doesn't follow the trend. Then again, given what Nintendo has been doing, rehashing older Mario games on the GBA, it's really not a big surprise that they couldn't come up with something revolutionary for the GCN Mario.
I really think you're simplifying things. If there weren't much that was changed, then the PC port would have been out already (it's over a year since Halo launched on the XBox, with the PC version expected this coming summer, or a year and a half after the XBox launch).
Oh, and Halo2 is only coming out "soon" if you consider "in a year" to be soon. It's scheduled for Christmas 2003.
I'm sorry, but no. The game is fun, and the control scheme is serviceable, but it's also quite bad, and could've been much better. I own the game, and have played a number of hours in it, and I still dislike the controls. I know about the lock on trigger, and the freelook trigger, and I think they're a solution to a problem that never should've existed.
And I know what type of game Metroids are, I don't expect the game to be a Halo killer or a fast-paced Quake. But that's still no excuse for a poor control scheme.