Who knows. But, I can tell you that after watching the Doom 3 trailer, I swore I would never play that game after 8pm with the lights out. If this technology was available to me at release time and the game supported, I'd likely be too frightened to install it.
Re:3d displays cannot work
on
3D LCD Display
·
· Score: 2
I just play one on slashdot...
Damn, I have got to remember that one. ROFL.
FWIW, You didn't sound like an Asshole to me, just a dotter.
Re:Does anybody have more info?
on
3D LCD Display
·
· Score: 2
I think this kind of answers the question I had in the back of my head, "How will this look for people who are effectively blind in one eye?"
The question is of interest to me, because my right eye is nearly useless. I tried Steroscopic glasses once, before I really knew how bad my vision in one eye was, and I was sorely disappointed. Hell, I'm a little disappointed with 3D imagery in the real world. You should see me try and pour a glass of water , its rather comical. If the angle is just right, I can't judge where the glass is.
Re:Journalism has never been a hard science.
on
Servers with a Smile
·
· Score: 2
Well, some would say the answer is Network PC's, which in reality are nothing more than a graphical return to the old mainframe days. The only problem with these implementations is that they are generally implemented VERY poorly.
For example:
Imagine a group within the company that uses email, IM, a ticketing system, a browser, very little office apps, and the rest internal n-tier applications.
Now imagine that the company decided to replace their PC's with SunRays, only they didn't use any Solaris versions of the applications they need, only windows apps. Instead of using Mozilla and its mail or some other native mail client, everyone used Outlook Express and IE (mostly because clueless developers couldn't make their internal web apps multi-browser). Instead of using StarOffice they use MS Office. Instead of running a Solaris version of Vantive, they use the windows version. Now imagine that they are running this all through Citrix. So in effect they are running a thin-OS from a remote server, running a thin-os from a remote server.
Now that sounds like someone read that article and completely missed the point. And sadly, I've seen this in two major enterprises.
My post agrees with you, that is what I can't understand.
The Sedition Act was passed in 1798 and was a blatant violation of the first amendment pushed through Congress by the Presidency of John Adams. Fortunately, the Sedition Act was struck down, rather quickly. The Patriot Act's whole concept of "Vehicle of Communication" is simply a slightly better veiled Section 2 of the Sedition Act, hence my statement...
We've come so far to go full circle.
You obviously skipped direct to the quote and didn't read...
Fortunately, the following didn't last too long.
Section 2 of the Sedition Act (July 14, 1798)
I'm not blowing off steam, just amazed that you jumped all over me for sharing your point of view.
All new agencies can stil run those videos, because they can get them off of Al Jazeera. They choose not to.
On the other hand by linking the terrorist web site you've allowed them to communicate their views to an entirely new audience (vehicle of communication).
Or you're exposing a terrorist group to the masses. Who decides what your intention is? If I decide to link to some KKK site with the header these guys are a bunch hate-mongering imbeciles, am I still providing them with a vehicle of communication. Of course I am, but its still speech.
Whether or not university decides to act on the federal government's behalf is, I suppose, their perogative. That is if they don't mind the consequences. Instead they should show a little backbone and do what is in the best interests of their students, which is to protect their RIGHTS.
It is clearly speech in the same manner that a news article is. If the New York Times put this link in one of their stories, nobody would dare touch them. The fact this is not a "News" site is irrelevant, as many Appellate Court decisions have upheld similar protections for newsletters, BBS's, and other forms of new media.
The criteria for "Speech" has been intentionally left vague for more than two hundred years, a link isn't even a stretch. Why this hasn't held true for DeCSS, I do not know, but then again the fight isn't over.
We've come so far to go full circle. Fortunately, the following didn't last too long.
Section 2 of the Sedition Act (July 14, 1798)
SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.
I have to agree with you here, and Oracle is my bread and butter as well. Oracle on NT is a complete nightmare, it just doesn't work.
As for which database to use, the problem isn't simply constrained to Oracle. I would say 50% of the Oracle installations I have worked with (600+), Oracle was gross overkill both economically and complexity. In many of these situations, SQL Server or Sybase would have done the trick and saved them quite a bit of money. Now, the funny thing is about 30% of the SQL Server/Sybase installations I've worked with (about 100) could have been easily handled with MySQL. It's like deer hunting with a bazooka.
The same is true for systems. I've seen Sun E450's when a Dell would do the trick. My personal favorite however has got to be a Win2k box to share files for a small software company with no budget.
Maybe its the herd-mentality of the PHB's, but I think a large part goes to the system analysts who make recommendations as if they are getting a commission.
BTW, I'm usually happy with the turkey after its cooked. I'm rarely happy with Oracle on NT, possibly because it never seems cooked.
So let them think they own Linux. Their chest will puff up, they'll swagger a little more and if one of them steps out of line, they'll get crucified by the industry press, their competitors and customers.
Nobody in their right mind will be able to sell a proprietized Linux because its "Optimized for their hardware". Anyone with half a brain will immediately throw the word UNIX back in their face and the calamity caused by the fragmentation of UNIX.
hmmm, that sounds a lot like a never. OK, they shouldn't be able to pull it off, but its amazing what some people can sell.
Most large corporations get their support from newsgroups and knowledge bases, they just don't know it. I have never met a Windows or Unix administrator that doesn't do a google search as one of their very first steps, and quite often they hit on something.
Anyone who has ever done any real system/database/app support knows that the web and message boards are your best source of information. Even the best tech support organizations suck at the first tier. The best I've ever seen was Oracle, and it depends on the phase of the moon as to whether or not you get anybody who has even the slightest clue. Sun's support is the worst, until you get to the third tier. Microsoft is better, but not much. With them you have at least a passable chance of getting someone competent at tier 2.
Besides the parent post did not say that forums and message boards are the only way to go, he simply said they are often faster, and they are. He said you can purchase support for Linux and you can.
Re:Journalism has never been a hard science.
on
Servers with a Smile
·
· Score: 4, Informative
This has always been the biggest limiting factor, but the sands are shifting faster than I think you know.
Thanks to Codeweavers you can have Office, Notes, Quicken, IE, and many other windows apps running flawlessly in Linux. Thanks to Transgaming you can play many windows only games in Linux, such as Warcraft III, The Sims and many many more. Now, unfortunately, Loki is gone, but I'm glad I got my Quake III, Railroad Tycoon, and SimCity 3000 before they went under.
Last but not least, UT2003 will have a Linux version at the same release as the windows version. Return to Castle Wolfenstein runs in Linux and so will Neverwinter Nights, if Bioware ever gets it out the door anytime soon. If it wasn't for Battlefield 1942, I'd never boot into windows.
Plus there are many great apps on Linux already like Bluefish, GIMP, Grip, XMMS, Evolution, Ximian Connector, and Red Carpet to name a few. I think this is no longer a real issue, but that's just me.
Linux clustering is a walk in the park for a Linux admin, about as easy as setting up a Windows cluster is for a windows admin. If a company is hiring the right people for the job, it doesn't matter which way they go, the costs of setting up the cluster are moot. Now, if a company wants a windows admin to set up a linux cluster or vice versa, then you've got a problem.
He's obviously losing his mind. I'm too lazy to do the search, but there are plenty of articles out there about how Dreamworks, WEGA, and other special effects companies have switched to Linux cluster farms because of price. Their arguments have been that to implement the same cluster with MS or proprietary UNIX products would cost them three times as much money.
"Check this out! It's an active-active SQL2K cluster! It actually works!", said the highly ecstatic SQL Server admin. "That's nice.", said the unimpressed Oracle DBA without looking up from his latest copy of -insert favorite magazine here-.
Sorry, RMS, I'm not convinced. I'm too lazy to say that. I'll refer to it as Linux.
I'm a New Englander, which means I talk really fast and strip out all the sylables I can. I'd shorten it to just nix, but it really isn't appropriate for Linux, so it gets Linux. I appreciate the work the FSF people put in, but forget it, four sylables when two gets the job done.
Living in Cambridge, you'd think RMS would understand.
Example
"Hey Nic, wanna get a sub anna coke?" Translation
"Hey Nicole, do you want to go get a grinder and a soft drink?"
Have you seen what they've done? They just changed the default look of the desktop, which in my opinion still looks very much like KDE! Nothing has really changed, its still KDE and its still GNOME, the only difference is that Red Hat made their KDE default desktop look the same as their Gnome desktop, which in my opinion looks more like KDE than anything else.
However, I do not agree that Linux needs a Single Unified Desktop. On the contrary, the competition now is good. It allows more room to experiment, it allows for different developers to have different priorities.
I'm not certain if by this you mean Red Hat's move is creating a "Single Unified Desktop" in that it is changing the backend side of KDE and GNOME to be similar, so I'll respond as if that is what you mean.
Instead of creating a "Single Unified Desktop" I would say that Red Hat is giving the appearance of a unified desktop. It's largely a semantic nitpick, but it would seem that a few people on/. today seem to think that Red Hat is rewriting KDE to behave like GNOME or vice versa.
Um, actually that would exactly be the open source process. If you don't like it you change it to something you do and redistribute the code. That is exactly what its all about.
Your options are unaffected. Neither one of them is going away. The desktop environments remain different. The article basically explains that all of the modifications are largely cosmetic and now the only difference between desktops will be things like speed and stability NOT themes, menus, and config options.
Slashdot Mirror
Who knows. But, I can tell you that after watching the Doom 3 trailer, I swore I would never play that game after 8pm with the lights out. If this technology was available to me at release time and the game supported, I'd likely be too frightened to install it.
I just play one on slashdot...
Damn, I have got to remember that one. ROFL.
FWIW, You didn't sound like an Asshole to me, just a dotter.
I think this kind of answers the question I had in the back of my head, "How will this look for people who are effectively blind in one eye?"
The question is of interest to me, because my right eye is nearly useless. I tried Steroscopic glasses once, before I really knew how bad my vision in one eye was, and I was sorely disappointed. Hell, I'm a little disappointed with 3D imagery in the real world. You should see me try and pour a glass of water , its rather comical. If the angle is just right, I can't judge where the glass is.
Well, some would say the answer is Network PC's, which in reality are nothing more than a graphical return to the old mainframe days. The only problem with these implementations is that they are generally implemented VERY poorly.
For example:
Imagine a group within the company that uses email, IM, a ticketing system, a browser, very little office apps, and the rest internal n-tier applications.
Now imagine that the company decided to replace their PC's with SunRays, only they didn't use any Solaris versions of the applications they need, only windows apps. Instead of using Mozilla and its mail or some other native mail client, everyone used Outlook Express and IE (mostly because clueless developers couldn't make their internal web apps multi-browser). Instead of using StarOffice they use MS Office. Instead of running a Solaris version of Vantive, they use the windows version. Now imagine that they are running this all through Citrix. So in effect they are running a thin-OS from a remote server, running a thin-os from a remote server.
Now that sounds like someone read that article and completely missed the point. And sadly, I've seen this in two major enterprises.
My post agrees with you, that is what I can't understand.
The Sedition Act was passed in 1798 and was a blatant violation of the first amendment pushed through Congress by the Presidency of John Adams. Fortunately, the Sedition Act was struck down, rather quickly. The Patriot Act's whole concept of "Vehicle of Communication" is simply a slightly better veiled Section 2 of the Sedition Act, hence my statement...
We've come so far to go full circle.
You obviously skipped direct to the quote and didn't read...
Fortunately, the following didn't last too long.
Section 2 of the Sedition Act (July 14, 1798)
I'm not blowing off steam, just amazed that you jumped all over me for sharing your point of view.
A couple hundred, thankfully.
All new agencies can stil run those videos, because they can get them off of Al Jazeera. They choose not to.
On the other hand by linking the terrorist web site you've allowed them to communicate their views to an entirely new audience (vehicle of communication).
Or you're exposing a terrorist group to the masses. Who decides what your intention is? If I decide to link to some KKK site with the header these guys are a bunch hate-mongering imbeciles, am I still providing them with a vehicle of communication. Of course I am, but its still speech.
Whether or not university decides to act on the federal government's behalf is, I suppose, their perogative. That is if they don't mind the consequences. Instead they should show a little backbone and do what is in the best interests of their students, which is to protect their RIGHTS.
Did you read my post at all?
It is clearly speech in the same manner that a news article is. If the New York Times put this link in one of their stories, nobody would dare touch them. The fact this is not a "News" site is irrelevant, as many Appellate Court decisions have upheld similar protections for newsletters, BBS's, and other forms of new media.
The criteria for "Speech" has been intentionally left vague for more than two hundred years, a link isn't even a stretch. Why this hasn't held true for DeCSS, I do not know, but then again the fight isn't over.
We've come so far to go full circle. Fortunately, the following didn't last too long.
Section 2 of the Sedition Act (July 14, 1798)
SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.
This administration scares me.
I have to agree with you here, and Oracle is my bread and butter as well. Oracle on NT is a complete nightmare, it just doesn't work.
As for which database to use, the problem isn't simply constrained to Oracle. I would say 50% of the Oracle installations I have worked with (600+), Oracle was gross overkill both economically and complexity. In many of these situations, SQL Server or Sybase would have done the trick and saved them quite a bit of money. Now, the funny thing is about 30% of the SQL Server/Sybase installations I've worked with (about 100) could have been easily handled with MySQL. It's like deer hunting with a bazooka.
The same is true for systems. I've seen Sun E450's when a Dell would do the trick. My personal favorite however has got to be a Win2k box to share files for a small software company with no budget.
Maybe its the herd-mentality of the PHB's, but I think a large part goes to the system analysts who make recommendations as if they are getting a commission.
BTW, I'm usually happy with the turkey after its cooked. I'm rarely happy with Oracle on NT, possibly because it never seems cooked.
So let them think they own Linux. Their chest will puff up, they'll swagger a little more and if one of them steps out of line, they'll get crucified by the industry press, their competitors and customers.
Nobody in their right mind will be able to sell a proprietized Linux because its "Optimized for their hardware". Anyone with half a brain will immediately throw the word UNIX back in their face and the calamity caused by the fragmentation of UNIX.
hmmm, that sounds a lot like a never. OK, they shouldn't be able to pull it off, but its amazing what some people can sell.
labor costs are down 10% to 20%
It could just as easily mean that overtime is down. Many places pay their Tier 1 administrators hourly.
I actually came across an interesting essay checking out Adrian Lamo's site. I think you might find it an interesting read.
Most large corporations get their support from newsgroups and knowledge bases, they just don't know it. I have never met a Windows or Unix administrator that doesn't do a google search as one of their very first steps, and quite often they hit on something.
Anyone who has ever done any real system/database/app support knows that the web and message boards are your best source of information. Even the best tech support organizations suck at the first tier. The best I've ever seen was Oracle, and it depends on the phase of the moon as to whether or not you get anybody who has even the slightest clue. Sun's support is the worst, until you get to the third tier. Microsoft is better, but not much. With them you have at least a passable chance of getting someone competent at tier 2.
Besides the parent post did not say that forums and message boards are the only way to go, he simply said they are often faster, and they are. He said you can purchase support for Linux and you can.
This has always been the biggest limiting factor, but the sands are shifting faster than I think you know.
Thanks to Codeweavers you can have Office, Notes, Quicken, IE, and many other windows apps running flawlessly in Linux. Thanks to Transgaming you can play many windows only games in Linux, such as Warcraft III, The Sims and many many more. Now, unfortunately, Loki is gone, but I'm glad I got my Quake III, Railroad Tycoon, and SimCity 3000 before they went under.
Last but not least, UT2003 will have a Linux version at the same release as the windows version. Return to Castle Wolfenstein runs in Linux and so will Neverwinter Nights, if Bioware ever gets it out the door anytime soon. If it wasn't for Battlefield 1942, I'd never boot into windows.
Plus there are many great apps on Linux already like Bluefish, GIMP, Grip, XMMS, Evolution, Ximian Connector, and Red Carpet to name a few. I think this is no longer a real issue, but that's just me.
Funniest thing I've read all day, but then again I'm biased.
Linux clustering is a walk in the park for a Linux admin, about as easy as setting up a Windows cluster is for a windows admin. If a company is hiring the right people for the job, it doesn't matter which way they go, the costs of setting up the cluster are moot. Now, if a company wants a windows admin to set up a linux cluster or vice versa, then you've got a problem.
He's obviously losing his mind. I'm too lazy to do the search, but there are plenty of articles out there about how Dreamworks, WEGA, and other special effects companies have switched to Linux cluster farms because of price. Their arguments have been that to implement the same cluster with MS or proprietary UNIX products would cost them three times as much money.
"Check this out! It's an active-active SQL2K cluster! It actually works!", said the highly ecstatic SQL Server admin. "That's nice.", said the unimpressed Oracle DBA without looking up from his latest copy of -insert favorite magazine here-.
It isn't!? OMG! Slashdot editors are human! What will I ever do?
My life is a lie.
Sorry, RMS, I'm not convinced. I'm too lazy to say that. I'll refer to it as Linux.
I'm a New Englander, which means I talk really fast and strip out all the sylables I can. I'd shorten it to just nix, but it really isn't appropriate for Linux, so it gets Linux. I appreciate the work the FSF people put in, but forget it, four sylables when two gets the job done.
Living in Cambridge, you'd think RMS would understand.
Example
"Hey Nic, wanna get a sub anna coke?"
Translation
"Hey Nicole, do you want to go get a grinder and a soft drink?"
Have you seen what they've done? They just changed the default look of the desktop, which in my opinion still looks very much like KDE! Nothing has really changed, its still KDE and its still GNOME, the only difference is that Red Hat made their KDE default desktop look the same as their Gnome desktop, which in my opinion looks more like KDE than anything else.
However, I do not agree that Linux needs a Single Unified Desktop. On the contrary, the competition now is good. It allows more room to experiment, it allows for different developers to have different priorities.
/. today seem to think that Red Hat is rewriting KDE to behave like GNOME or vice versa.
I'm not certain if by this you mean Red Hat's move is creating a "Single Unified Desktop" in that it is changing the backend side of KDE and GNOME to be similar, so I'll respond as if that is what you mean. Instead of creating a "Single Unified Desktop" I would say that Red Hat is giving the appearance of a unified desktop. It's largely a semantic nitpick, but it would seem that a few people on
Um, actually that would exactly be the open source process. If you don't like it you change it to something you do and redistribute the code. That is exactly what its all about.
Your options are unaffected. Neither one of them is going away. The desktop environments remain different. The article basically explains that all of the modifications are largely cosmetic and now the only difference between desktops will be things like speed and stability NOT themes, menus, and config options.