First of all computers don't help that much in weather prediction. Weather is an inherently chaotic phenomena - a sneeze by Jon Katz can lead to a hurricane in Japan.
Not being a mathematician, I think that chaotic phenomena are not inherently random, just that they become statistically more unpredictable the more prediction is applied, ie more precision or more time.
So computers, with massive amounts of satellite feeds, should be able to do ever more precise prediction with current info, rather than longer range forecasts that have increasing chances of inaccuracy as time passes.
The apparent success of short term weather forecasting comes from information gained from satelites. Just for a month keep track of the five day forcast and see how often it is right!
The issue being that with computers, one would be able to massively increase the probability of 5 day forecasts, and increase the detail of 1 day forecasts. One would be able to compute not only with satellite data, but with ground based tracking instruments, of humidity, sunlight, air pressure, wind speeds, particulates, etc.
I think we do know how to 'solve' the problem, the real issue is getting enough computation power to actually tackle the data. A later/other poster mentions that we have enough data to crunch for a month, what we get in a day. Which means the predictions are useless unless one can get accuracy for the next month. If, however, one can crunch in one day the data one gets for a day, that increases the knowledge of the next day, and the next day plus this day's knowledge increases the accuracy of the following days.
I agree that ethnic and regional warfare is tough to tackle, but weather is not.
Or any number of other possible combinations...Chaos means that, over time, no matter how precise our measurement of initial conditions can get, it's still not precise enough.
Not being a mathematician or meteorologist, I can't be 100% sure, but I'm pretty confident that your statement is inaccurate.
Despite, or maybe even because of it, chaos theory, a certain amount of accuracy can be found. It may not help us discover the weather a week from now, but there are instances where knowing the weather 15 minutes from now, and down to the meter, would be enormously useful.
For example, if data crunching were not a bottleneck, satellite weather data may be able to give us an additional 10 or 15 minutes of warning of approaching tornado, as opposed to 5 or 6 minutes, when the tornado is already clearly forming. Likewise, once it has formed, knowing it's path down to the meter can only help those who may be stuck in the tornado's path. I'm sure that absurd amounts of computing power would only help hone the precision of our current estimates.
Another instance in which this capability is useful might by hurricane travel prediction, and wind speed prediction. One would know whether to evacuate, how and where to prepare, and what to do if one knew that one had 98% probability of being in the path of n-mph winds, or if one had to deal with only m-mph winds.
Or knowing hours in advance that a storm capable of closing an airport, to give airborn flights time and resources enough to find alternative destinations, rather than finding out half an hour too late and an hour too far from the next nearest airport.
Sure we may not be able to predict weeks in advance; instead, even if it's only a hour in advance, deep computing may make weather prediction much more accurate and much more useful.
Corporations, like FMC, who sell chemicals and compounds, farming and processing machinary, food companies like Nabisco or Campbells, or sundry like Dixie Queen, I'm sure would solve world hunger in a flash, if it could boost their profits...
And I'm sure, sometime, someone will figure out how to make a bunch of money, right? It's a captive market, people starving, with little competition.
Of course, the tragedy is that perhaps people who need this the most can least afford it... But if starvation were an issue of food supply, rather than socio-political infrastructure, the capitalists and profiteers would have done something by now.
Seeing as how they have different play styles, I don't see how one can dominate another, excepting that there may be people who enjoy both playstyles... and then wouldn't they play both games?
Now Unreal Tournament, that might be the logical challenge to TF2, what with it's bot code, it's CTF and other coop modes.
Is anyone making a deathmatch game anymore? I thought id was the only one; AvP might be, I guess, but it seems better suited for coop and teamplay, as soon as the patches are out and the editors are released, and I'd think that UT may have good enough free for all to compete against Q3A...
Such a simple statement... =) Everyone I have talked to who has both played HL and Q3A agree that Q3A is just a little boring. TFC really rocks and TF2 is going to be better.
So, first off: Everyone I have talked to... Q3A is just a little boring.
So what? Is that one person? Two persons? Even if it were a hundred persons, what does it matter that 100 people or 1000 people think Q3A is boring compared to Half Life. Statistically, it could be explained by the fact that you and your friends like team play and coop more than free for all; it says nothing about the games or the market.
Likewise, Q3A is unfinished, a test, not even a demo. There is no polished sounds, polished maps, polished models and animation, etc, etc, etc. You're comparing a polished and shipping product to essentially a technology test.
TFC really rocks and TF2 is going to be better.
Sure. What does this have to do with Q3A? How does your endorsement mean anything to anyone else? If you said TPM sucks, and Episode II is going to be worse, why should I listen to you?
Not to say I disagree, necessarily, just that your logic, isn't logic =)
TFC and TF2 have different play mechanisms than Q3A; in that respect, I can say I like coop better than free for all. It does not mean that coop games are 'better', just that *I* like them better. I happen to think that Q3A will be great, but that games based off of it's engine will be even better, because I prefer single play games most of all, like Half Life, Curse of Monkey Island, Jedi Knight.
I didn't mean to imply that our current morals and falliability should limit our future morals. However I do believe that 'intelligent' wetware based computers are far off, as compared to something with the capabilities of a dog or a rat; it is these computers and robots that I suspect will appear first, and these computers and robots that I do not fear or object to, just as you do not fear or object to dogs or horses.
I truly see no need for human class intelligence except on a theoretical and experimental level, because we can. It's probably easier and cheaper to raise and train a human than to build and program a similar computer/robot, excepting that these computers and robots may have higher tolerances than we do... and that's a recipe for disaster if they indeed decide to revolt.
Anyhow, super-intelligent computers is not my point. Feeling fearful and squeamish about wetware computers isn't necessary, I think.
There is a fine thread between human falliability and human capability. If we need an autonomous search and exploration robot on mars or under the sea, a little bit of falliability is fine if the intelligence is enough to correct itself, and if the intelligence makes it flexible enough to work independent of us, as is the case where lag times between instruction, feedback, and further instruction is prohibitive.
He's already worked at 3dfx, and doesn't quite mesh with them, as evidenced in age old plan files. Not unless something radical has occurred. But hey, they're still using the same technology in their V3 cards as when Brian worked there and helped to write Glide.
Software startup is a blind guess, though prolly not Ion Storm.
Linux newbie? I guess that isn't totally inaccurate. He's not interested in OS politics, or shafting The Man, or going revolutionary, I guess. If I read the man right, Carmack is interested in what works, what works well, and what he can do with it.
I mean, he was champion of OpenGL before it gained any acceptance, he loves the NeXTStep programming and user interface, and he believes in cross platform capability.
He doesn't care overmuch about the socio-political issues of using an open vs non-open OS, though it seems he knows of the advantages of open source. He's not an advocate, per se, but an excellent poster child.
"I use Linux because it works. And when it doesn't, I can fix it"
However, as long as a *real* better alternative exists, I don't imagine him taking the effort to deal with Linux overmuch. As he states, it is now almost an alternative to his much loved NeXTStep, and definitely to WinNT. I would be careful about his advocacy, however, as MacOSX may usurp Linux in his heart, seeing as how much of it is actually NeXTStep based.
Q3 will excel in the deathmatch arena, and depending on it's bots, may do well in CTF.
I think TF2 will carve it's own niche.
I wouldn't be surprised if Q3Arena doesn't do so hot, due to all the competition, but I don't imagine there will be a lack of licenses. It's a damn beautiful engine.
While not quite as intelligent as you expect biological computers to become, we do have biological 'robots' who serve us; dogs, horses, oxen, elephants, little kids making Nike shoes, and half blind engineers in cages coding M$ OSes.
It won't be anything new, or newly immoral, or unethical, if we design a biological computer than can work out problems for themselves: people already do it, and we actually frown on people taking initiative, why would it be any different for computers? Likewise, a computer that can come to correct answers based on partial information is a hallmark of living beings, because they have to act/react based on partial information. Waiting until they know everything just leaves them dead.
Sentient robots is a ways off, first we need biological computers, and we need sophisticated electrical/silicon robots, and we need a way to integrate the two.
You're fear of slaves is unfounded, unless you object morally to our current use of them.
Three other posts have already voiced pretty clearly my opinion. No one 'sold out'. WinAMP is a product, a service, and a neat gadget. It is fully within the ethical, moral, legal, and reasonable bounds for Justin and crew to sell WinAMP to AOL, or even to Sun, Microsoft, or Apple if they so chose. It is not in AOL's court to do something cool and productive with their handful of gadgets; maybe legitamize mp3s in a way the Rio cannot, but selling CDs, services, and other goods by offering free mp3 content from AOL music broadcast servers, or something equally innovative.
Or they do something stupid, and team Nullsoft gets a nice paycheck, and AOL loses a bunch of respect and money.
It's not that WinAmp was bad, but we have to switch now, and there are more feature-packed players out there.
You have to switch, or are considering switching? I'm still using Netscape, and AOL bought them out as well, I see no *need*, just the consideration if, for example, they start embedding add spaces into the winamp window or stream adds through shoutcast at random times or something.
I've used winamp and have been satisfied with it, so there was never a reason to change...
Depending on what AOL has in store for winamp, I may have to. =(
Sound quality? Reliability? Performance?
Winamp sounds fine, I don't know what 'better' is supposed to sound like. It doesn't crash, it doesn't hose my system, it doesn't mess up the songs. And on average it takes like 8% of my CPU cycles, which is fine by me.
I actually don't know where they come from, these Linux coders...
Here's the question then, where do they come from now? Where are they going to go, that they will disappear?
Has the landscape changed such that Open Source coders have stopped being born?
Do they come off of work, disgruntled and unhappy with their job programming for something really stupid, and in their recreational time code something wonderful like Linux? Or are they more self serving, and do it so they can get some functionality to their non M$ OS? Or something else? Something in between?
Unless someone starts a school who's emphasis is CS and Open Source...
You are right that at the moment, the core of Linux and OSS are it's contributors and developers, but very soon secondary effects due to growing user base will kick in as well:hardware and software support from commercial entities looking to make a profit from the user base. 3dfx and Nvidia releasing source and specs for their 3dcards to be used under linux, Apple releasing server code, and hopefully some client stuff too, for their Quicktime software, SGI releasing source for their JFS, while also supporting Linux on their sparkly new shiny Visual PCs. Yes, for Linux to remain it's own 'product', it cannot rely on the agenda of companies who invest in it, but I don't think that was the intent of the original post either.
The original poster was complaining about Linux losing it's geekiness and becoming too mainstream for his/her taste.
You raise good points, though. If Linux is not maintained by people, what will happen to it? I'm pretty sure that as long as it's open source and as long as M$ or Apple does not offer a much superior OS and starts to open source their own software, there will always be disgruntled users who want things to 'work'.
I don't really think Linux is about elitist you vs me geeky vs mainstream users. It's about people who want to tinker and play with their OS, who want to do things, but are constrained by the conventional OSes, or people who need things, and can easily add them because Linux is open source. As long as Linux remains strong in these areas, I don't see it fading anytime soon.
One real competitor, actually, may be MacOSX, with it's BSD core; especially if it gets synched with one of the open source BSDs, then there is an alternative OS for people to tinker and play with, especially if Apple makes public or open the APIs to interface with the PPC hardware and UI...
Can anyone explain how some of this moderation is working?
I'm sorry if I'm taking advantage of a highly ranked post to get seen =) Hi moderators!
Anyway, some of my posts on this thread are like 2s and 3s, but attached as responses to -1s; the really odd thing is that the -1s dissapear, but the 3s doesn't, something having to do with highlight in overflow mode or something?
I mean, the 3 is high enough not to get compressed into the title, and is displayed in its entirety... but it's weird that the original post got moderated down to nothing. Is this just a side effect of highlighting good posts conflicting with moderating a comment down below threshold levels?
I wonder how the Slashdot code decides to order the comments in that case... the 3 point post obviously doesn't float up towards the rest of the 3s in the thread, constrained as it is by a parent with a -1 ranking...
If it works and gets the job done, then I would imagine it would be preferred over another tool.
To each tool, their most appropriate use, and for Carmack, as fast as he is with the keyboard, he feels most productive and powerful with his mouse I guess, though I'm not sure where you get this idea or notion.
Some things, for example, require a mouse or alternate pointing device: Artistic endeavors, 3 dimensional navigation, graphics arts, architectural or cad design, etc.
Keyboards are good for text, and for some people, even navigating the UI; but not for everyone.
The original poster's elitism is as follows: Linux was special, different, geeky, and that is why he used it.
But I got into Linux because it was a geek's world.
Now it is becoming mainstream and accepted, and in doing so, it loses it's appeal. He wants it to be geeky, and I implied, technical, arcane, difficult, and hard to use, thus always remaining a tool of geeks.
So is this the future of Linux? Or will it remaine something that only smartguys like us use:P ?
Unless he's joking, he wants to separate Linux for use only by 'smartguys' and not by 'idiots'. That is elitism. A racist discriminates based on skin color, while an elitist discriminates based on some measure of status, ability, or talent.
So it's elitism to come from another OS, and try to change it to make it what you've came from.
This is not at all what the original poster is complaining about, except for his little bit about Linux being adopted by NT people; he doesn't want it to become easier to use, to become useable by 'idiots'. It's elitism to not want others to use your OS because their not smart enough, or something like that.
So if I changed over to the Mac and then complained that it didn't do the command line like my previous OS, and the Mac users complained about it, would they be elitist?
I assume your statement, clearly read, is as follows: You switch over to MacOS, and don't like the command line, compared to Linux or another OS. You complaing about the command line, and then the Mac users complained about you.
That's not elitism: Elitism would be the case if Mac users complained about the addition of a command line to their OS, on the basis that such an addition would pollute their user interface and attract *nix geeks and nerds to *their* OS. For one thing, elitism in any situation is wrong, belief that something should only be allowed and used by *our* group and not by *your* group, on whatever basis *our* and *your* is divided. For the Linux poster, it's about intelligence and geekiness; for the hypothetical Mac people, it would be about the holiness of their UI and the mindset of using MacOS *without* a command line.
Linux shouldn't pretend to be anything but itself for to be otherwise would be denying its own identity.
The question is, what identity are you talking about. Are you denying Linux the chance and potential of growth? Nothing stays the same, and people are currently working to improve it. Sure, you may not agree that adding a UI, a desktop environment, a simple installer, etc, are improvements, but with OS you're free to do your own work to improve it.
What is it's identity?
I would say it's open and free. It's about power *with* flexibility, and it's about being able to do what you want to do. If something doesn't perform or work, open up the source, tinker and code so that it does work.
Adding useability and UI and such is just the next step of Linux's evolution in being both powerful and flexible. Some users *don't* care about learning about the OS. Is that a crime? Why should they care about the OS, when all they want to do is use it? It is powerful and it is flexible, so it will attract a lot of people. Are you also of the belief that only those who learn the OS should use it?
It would be a waste if only people who could learn the OS should use Linux, because it is so powerful, flexible, reliable, and stable. It would do the world a great disservice if people couldn't use it as a viable alternative to M$ or Solaris or IRIX because of it's great strengths, and if it were hampered by a constituency who thought it should not be polluted so others would be allowed to use it.
It's page structure is similar: Table divides the page into 'panes', left hand side control/menu, right side sectioned into comment blocks.
Renders fine. Slashdot renders fine, and it has something akin, left side is comment blocks and right side is control/menu...
I suspect(browsed through the page source, but it was too cluttered to see anything at a glimpse) it's either an obscure HTML compatibility issue that you violate(or they violate), or you're using a tag incorrectly... What does an HTML verifier say about your site?
Elitism is not something one should cherish; us vs them, we're better, nyaa-nyaa!
Linux will/can fork, so if you *really* insist on something arcane or bleeding edge, go for it!
Catering to the casual users also means catering to John Carmack, because he doesn't want to deal with minor useability issues, and learning things the hard way. He wants to program his games, and not learn how to use his OS any more than he needs to; are you willing to exclude Carmach from your elite group because he prefers more 'user friendliness' just so he can get his job done?
There are a good bunch of people who need their OS to just work, and has nothing to do with being an idiot; if they can get their stuff done in Linux because Linux 'just works', then power to Linux and to those users.
If Linux were to remain within the cadre of elite power users, then it wouldn't be very *useful* would it?
Lets see, if 3dfx had released Open Source drivers with their original VooDoo series chipset, and an intrepid engineer at spent a whole year deciphering and tinkering, even a year later, things could be learned and used against 3dfx; look how long they've used the same basic components(V, VRush, V2, VBanshee, V3), if they had released info someone could have used it against them, if only to write really excellent Glide wrappers.
Of course this also brings into the argument open and proprietary standards and APIs, patents, IP, etc.
Or if Matrox had released source with the G200, initially, DualBus stuff may have been copied or leaked into other hardware, to compete directly against the G400.
Hardware cycles are really not that far off from a two and a half years; we get incremental increases in between(riva -> riva ZX, then TNT, TNT2, G200, G400, V->V2, VB->V3, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
First of all computers don't help that much in weather prediction. Weather is an inherently chaotic phenomena - a sneeze by Jon Katz can lead to a hurricane in Japan.
Not being a mathematician, I think that chaotic phenomena are not inherently random, just that they become statistically more unpredictable the more prediction is applied, ie more precision or more time.
So computers, with massive amounts of satellite feeds, should be able to do ever more precise prediction with current info, rather than longer range forecasts that have increasing chances of inaccuracy as time passes.
The apparent success of short term weather forecasting comes from information gained from satelites. Just for a month keep track of the five day forcast and see how often it is right!
The issue being that with computers, one would be able to massively increase the probability of 5 day forecasts, and increase the detail of 1 day forecasts. One would be able to compute not only with satellite data, but with ground based tracking instruments, of humidity, sunlight, air pressure, wind speeds, particulates, etc.
I think we do know how to 'solve' the problem, the real issue is getting enough computation power to actually tackle the data. A later/other poster mentions that we have enough data to crunch for a month, what we get in a day. Which means the predictions are useless unless one can get accuracy for the next month. If, however, one can crunch in one day the data one gets for a day, that increases the knowledge of the next day, and the next day plus this day's knowledge increases the accuracy of the following days.
I agree that ethnic and regional warfare is tough to tackle, but weather is not.
Well, not *as* tough.
-AS
Or any number of other possible combinations...Chaos means that, over time, no matter how precise our measurement of initial conditions can get, it's still not precise enough.
Not being a mathematician or meteorologist, I can't be 100% sure, but I'm pretty confident that your statement is inaccurate.
Despite, or maybe even because of it, chaos theory, a certain amount of accuracy can be found. It may not help us discover the weather a week from now, but there are instances where knowing the weather 15 minutes from now, and down to the meter, would be enormously useful.
For example, if data crunching were not a bottleneck, satellite weather data may be able to give us an additional 10 or 15 minutes of warning of approaching tornado, as opposed to 5 or 6 minutes, when the tornado is already clearly forming. Likewise, once it has formed, knowing it's path down to the meter can only help those who may be stuck in the tornado's path. I'm sure that absurd amounts of computing power would only help hone the precision of our current estimates.
Another instance in which this capability is useful might by hurricane travel prediction, and wind speed prediction. One would know whether to evacuate, how and where to prepare, and what to do if one knew that one had 98% probability of being in the path of n-mph winds, or if one had to deal with only m-mph winds.
Or knowing hours in advance that a storm capable of closing an airport, to give airborn flights time and resources enough to find alternative destinations, rather than finding out half an hour too late and an hour too far from the next nearest airport.
Sure we may not be able to predict weeks in advance; instead, even if it's only a hour in advance, deep computing may make weather prediction much more accurate and much more useful.
-AS
Yes.
Corporations, like FMC, who sell chemicals and compounds, farming and processing machinary, food companies like Nabisco or Campbells, or sundry like Dixie Queen, I'm sure would solve world hunger in a flash, if it could boost their profits...
And I'm sure, sometime, someone will figure out how to make a bunch of money, right? It's a captive market, people starving, with little competition.
Of course, the tragedy is that perhaps people who need this the most can least afford it... But if starvation were an issue of food supply, rather than socio-political infrastructure, the capitalists and profiteers would have done something by now.
-AS
The older RIVA and RIVA ZX cards were limited to 16bpp in order to get 3d acceleration(same as the Voodoo).
Now there may be driver issues that limit TNT and TNT2, but I do know that Windows drivers for TNT and TNT2 support 32bpp acceleration...
I guess you have to wait for a response from a Linux TNT user...
-AS
Seeing as how they have different play styles, I don't see how one can dominate another, excepting that there may be people who enjoy both playstyles... and then wouldn't they play both games?
Now Unreal Tournament, that might be the logical challenge to TF2, what with it's bot code, it's CTF and other coop modes.
Is anyone making a deathmatch game anymore? I thought id was the only one; AvP might be, I guess, but it seems better suited for coop and teamplay, as soon as the patches are out and the editors are released, and I'd think that UT may have good enough free for all to compete against Q3A...
-AS
Such a simple statement... =)
Everyone I have talked to who has both played HL and Q3A agree that Q3A is just a little boring. TFC really rocks and TF2 is going to be better.
So, first off:
Everyone I have talked to... Q3A is just a little boring.
So what? Is that one person? Two persons? Even if it were a hundred persons, what does it matter that 100 people or 1000 people think Q3A is boring compared to Half Life. Statistically, it could be explained by the fact that you and your friends like team play and coop more than free for all; it says nothing about the games or the market.
Likewise, Q3A is unfinished, a test, not even a demo. There is no polished sounds, polished maps, polished models and animation, etc, etc, etc. You're comparing a polished and shipping product to essentially a technology test.
TFC really rocks and TF2 is going to be better.
Sure. What does this have to do with Q3A? How does your endorsement mean anything to anyone else? If you said TPM sucks, and Episode II is going to be worse, why should I listen to you?
Not to say I disagree, necessarily, just that your logic, isn't logic =)
TFC and TF2 have different play mechanisms than Q3A; in that respect, I can say I like coop better than free for all. It does not mean that coop games are 'better', just that *I* like them better. I happen to think that Q3A will be great, but that games based off of it's engine will be even better, because I prefer single play games most of all, like Half Life, Curse of Monkey Island, Jedi Knight.
-AS
I didn't mean to imply that our current morals and falliability should limit our future morals. However I do believe that 'intelligent' wetware based computers are far off, as compared to something with the capabilities of a dog or a rat; it is these computers and robots that I suspect will appear first, and these computers and robots that I do not fear or object to, just as you do not fear or object to dogs or horses.
I truly see no need for human class intelligence except on a theoretical and experimental level, because we can. It's probably easier and cheaper to raise and train a human than to build and program a similar computer/robot, excepting that these computers and robots may have higher tolerances than we do... and that's a recipe for disaster if they indeed decide to revolt.
Anyhow, super-intelligent computers is not my point. Feeling fearful and squeamish about wetware computers isn't necessary, I think.
There is a fine thread between human falliability and human capability. If we need an autonomous search and exploration robot on mars or under the sea, a little bit of falliability is fine if the intelligence is enough to correct itself, and if the intelligence makes it flexible enough to work independent of us, as is the case where lag times between instruction, feedback, and further instruction is prohibitive.
-AS
He's already worked at 3dfx, and doesn't quite mesh with them, as evidenced in age old plan files. Not unless something radical has occurred. But hey, they're still using the same technology in their V3 cards as when Brian worked there and helped to write Glide.
Software startup is a blind guess, though prolly not Ion Storm.
-AS
Linux newbie? I guess that isn't totally inaccurate. He's not interested in OS politics, or shafting The Man, or going revolutionary, I guess. If I read the man right, Carmack is interested in what works, what works well, and what he can do with it.
I mean, he was champion of OpenGL before it gained any acceptance, he loves the NeXTStep programming and user interface, and he believes in cross platform capability.
He doesn't care overmuch about the socio-political issues of using an open vs non-open OS, though it seems he knows of the advantages of open source. He's not an advocate, per se, but an excellent poster child.
"I use Linux because it works. And when it doesn't, I can fix it"
However, as long as a *real* better alternative exists, I don't imagine him taking the effort to deal with Linux overmuch. As he states, it is now almost an alternative to his much loved NeXTStep, and definitely to WinNT. I would be careful about his advocacy, however, as MacOSX may usurp Linux in his heart, seeing as how much of it is actually NeXTStep based.
-AS
Sorry, but TF2 is not deathmatch.
Q3 will excel in the deathmatch arena, and depending on it's bots, may do well in CTF.
I think TF2 will carve it's own niche.
I wouldn't be surprised if Q3Arena doesn't do so hot, due to all the competition, but I don't imagine there will be a lack of licenses. It's a damn beautiful engine.
-AS
While not quite as intelligent as you expect biological computers to become, we do have biological 'robots' who serve us; dogs, horses, oxen, elephants, little kids making Nike shoes, and half blind engineers in cages coding M$ OSes.
It won't be anything new, or newly immoral, or unethical, if we design a biological computer than can work out problems for themselves: people already do it, and we actually frown on people taking initiative, why would it be any different for computers? Likewise, a computer that can come to correct answers based on partial information is a hallmark of living beings, because they have to act/react based on partial information. Waiting until they know everything just leaves them dead.
Sentient robots is a ways off, first we need biological computers, and we need sophisticated electrical/silicon robots, and we need a way to integrate the two.
You're fear of slaves is unfounded, unless you object morally to our current use of them.
-AS
It seems ignorant and misguided.
Three other posts have already voiced pretty clearly my opinion. No one 'sold out'. WinAMP is a product, a service, and a neat gadget. It is fully within the ethical, moral, legal, and reasonable bounds for Justin and crew to sell WinAMP to AOL, or even to Sun, Microsoft, or Apple if they so chose. It is not in AOL's court to do something cool and productive with their handful of gadgets; maybe legitamize mp3s in a way the Rio cannot, but selling CDs, services, and other goods by offering free mp3 content from AOL music broadcast servers, or something equally innovative.
Or they do something stupid, and team Nullsoft gets a nice paycheck, and AOL loses a bunch of respect and money.
Good for team Nullsoft! Way to go!
-AS
It's not that WinAmp was bad, but we have to switch now, and there are more feature-packed players out there.
You have to switch, or are considering switching? I'm still using Netscape, and AOL bought them out as well, I see no *need*, just the consideration if, for example, they start embedding add spaces into the winamp window or stream adds through shoutcast at random times or something.
-AS
I'm curious what makes a better Mp3 player?
I've used winamp and have been satisfied with it, so there was never a reason to change...
Depending on what AOL has in store for winamp, I may have to. =(
Sound quality?
Reliability?
Performance?
Winamp sounds fine, I don't know what 'better' is supposed to sound like. It doesn't crash, it doesn't hose my system, it doesn't mess up the songs. And on average it takes like 8% of my CPU cycles, which is fine by me.
-AS
I actually don't know where they come from, these Linux coders...
Here's the question then, where do they come from now? Where are they going to go, that they will disappear?
Has the landscape changed such that Open Source coders have stopped being born?
Do they come off of work, disgruntled and unhappy with their job programming for something really stupid, and in their recreational time code something wonderful like Linux? Or are they more self serving, and do it so they can get some functionality to their non M$ OS? Or something else? Something in between?
Unless someone starts a school who's emphasis is CS and Open Source...
-AS
How refreshing. Intelligent comments =)
You are right that at the moment, the core of Linux and OSS are it's contributors and developers, but very soon secondary effects due to growing user base will kick in as well:hardware and software support from commercial entities looking to make a profit from the user base. 3dfx and Nvidia releasing source and specs for their 3dcards to be used under linux, Apple releasing server code, and hopefully some client stuff too, for their Quicktime software, SGI releasing source for their JFS, while also supporting Linux on their sparkly new shiny Visual PCs. Yes, for Linux to remain it's own 'product', it cannot rely on the agenda of companies who invest in it, but I don't think that was the intent of the original post either.
The original poster was complaining about Linux losing it's geekiness and becoming too mainstream for his/her taste.
You raise good points, though. If Linux is not maintained by people, what will happen to it? I'm pretty sure that as long as it's open source and as long as M$ or Apple does not offer a much superior OS and starts to open source their own software, there will always be disgruntled users who want things to 'work'.
I don't really think Linux is about elitist you vs me geeky vs mainstream users. It's about people who want to tinker and play with their OS, who want to do things, but are constrained by the conventional OSes, or people who need things, and can easily add them because Linux is open source. As long as Linux remains strong in these areas, I don't see it fading anytime soon.
One real competitor, actually, may be MacOSX, with it's BSD core; especially if it gets synched with one of the open source BSDs, then there is an alternative OS for people to tinker and play with, especially if Apple makes public or open the APIs to interface with the PPC hardware and UI...
-AS
Not a complaint, but a question...
Can anyone explain how some of this moderation is working?
I'm sorry if I'm taking advantage of a highly ranked post to get seen =) Hi moderators!
Anyway, some of my posts on this thread are like 2s and 3s, but attached as responses to -1s; the really odd thing is that the -1s dissapear, but the 3s doesn't, something having to do with highlight in overflow mode or something?
I mean, the 3 is high enough not to get compressed into the title, and is displayed in its entirety... but it's weird that the original post got moderated down to nothing. Is this just a side effect of highlighting good posts conflicting with moderating a comment down below threshold levels?
I wonder how the Slashdot code decides to order the comments in that case... the 3 point post obviously doesn't float up towards the rest of the 3s in the thread, constrained as it is by a parent with a -1 ranking...
Wanna see? Try this link:
My post
It doesn't 'quite' work; remove the extra space in the link between '3&mode' and '=thread&pid'
3&mode =thread&pid=549#568
-AS
A mouse, like a keyboard, is a tool.
If it works and gets the job done, then I would imagine it would be preferred over another tool.
To each tool, their most appropriate use, and for Carmack, as fast as he is with the keyboard, he feels most productive and powerful with his mouse I guess, though I'm not sure where you get this idea or notion.
Some things, for example, require a mouse or alternate pointing device: Artistic endeavors, 3 dimensional navigation, graphics arts, architectural or cad design, etc.
Keyboards are good for text, and for some people, even navigating the UI; but not for everyone.
-AS
I'm sure you're not seeing my point =)
:P ?
The original poster's elitism is as follows: Linux was special, different, geeky, and that is why he used it.
But I got into Linux because it was a geek's world.
Now it is becoming mainstream and accepted, and in doing so, it loses it's appeal. He wants it to be geeky, and I implied, technical, arcane, difficult, and hard to use, thus always remaining a tool of geeks.
So is this the future of Linux? Or will it remaine something that only smartguys like us use
Unless he's joking, he wants to separate Linux for use only by 'smartguys' and not by 'idiots'. That is elitism. A racist discriminates based on skin color, while an elitist discriminates based on some measure of status, ability, or talent.
So it's elitism to come from another OS, and try to change it to make it what you've came from.
This is not at all what the original poster is complaining about, except for his little bit about Linux being adopted by NT people; he doesn't want it to become easier to use, to become useable by 'idiots'. It's elitism to not want others to use your OS because their not smart enough, or something like that.
So if I changed over to the Mac and then complained that it didn't do the command line like my previous OS, and the Mac users complained about it, would they be elitist?
I assume your statement, clearly read, is as follows: You switch over to MacOS, and don't like the command line, compared to Linux or another OS. You complaing about the command line, and then the Mac users complained about you.
That's not elitism: Elitism would be the case if Mac users complained about the addition of a command line to their OS, on the basis that such an addition would pollute their user interface and attract *nix geeks and nerds to *their* OS. For one thing, elitism in any situation is wrong, belief that something should only be allowed and used by *our* group and not by *your* group, on whatever basis *our* and *your* is divided. For the Linux poster, it's about intelligence and geekiness; for the hypothetical Mac people, it would be about the holiness of their UI and the mindset of using MacOS *without* a command line.
Linux shouldn't pretend to be anything but itself for to be otherwise would be denying its own identity.
The question is, what identity are you talking about. Are you denying Linux the chance and potential of growth? Nothing stays the same, and people are currently working to improve it. Sure, you may not agree that adding a UI, a desktop environment, a simple installer, etc, are improvements, but with OS you're free to do your own work to improve it.
What is it's identity?
I would say it's open and free. It's about power *with* flexibility, and it's about being able to do what you want to do. If something doesn't perform or work, open up the source, tinker and code so that it does work.
Adding useability and UI and such is just the next step of Linux's evolution in being both powerful and flexible. Some users *don't* care about learning about the OS. Is that a crime? Why should they care about the OS, when all they want to do is use it? It is powerful and it is flexible, so it will attract a lot of people. Are you also of the belief that only those who learn the OS should use it?
It would be a waste if only people who could learn the OS should use Linux, because it is so powerful, flexible, reliable, and stable. It would do the world a great disservice if people couldn't use it as a viable alternative to M$ or Solaris or IRIX because of it's great strengths, and if it were hampered by a constituency who thought it should not be polluted so others would be allowed to use it.
-AS
Dread the day he switches to emacs over CodeWarrior...
On a G4, rather than an x86...
Running LinuxPPC over MacOSx...
Still, I think his preferences are to use things that just work, and work well...
He leads by example, rather than just preaching.
-AS
It's page structure is similar:
Table divides the page into 'panes', left hand side control/menu, right side sectioned into comment blocks.
Renders fine.
Slashdot renders fine, and it has something akin, left side is comment blocks and right side is control/menu...
I suspect(browsed through the page source, but it was too cluttered to see anything at a glimpse) it's either an obscure HTML compatibility issue that you violate(or they violate), or you're using a tag incorrectly... What does an HTML verifier say about your site?
-AS
I'm hoping this thread gets sent down...
Elitism is not something one should cherish; us vs them, we're better, nyaa-nyaa!
Linux will/can fork, so if you *really* insist on something arcane or bleeding edge, go for it!
Catering to the casual users also means catering to John Carmack, because he doesn't want to deal with minor useability issues, and learning things the hard way. He wants to program his games, and not learn how to use his OS any more than he needs to; are you willing to exclude Carmach from your elite group because he prefers more 'user friendliness' just so he can get his job done?
There are a good bunch of people who need their OS to just work, and has nothing to do with being an idiot; if they can get their stuff done in Linux because Linux 'just works', then power to Linux and to those users.
If Linux were to remain within the cadre of elite power users, then it wouldn't be very *useful* would it?
-AS
I've somehow gotten M6 to explode, grabbing all idle CPU cycles.
I've also gotten it to crash whenever I touch the preferences dialogue.
Have you seen anything else?
Your sig:
Wasurenaide - where did you go and what did you do as well(?)
-AS
If you're the same AC that responded to my post You're missing the point, you aren't very helpful...
I fail to see what it is you want me/us/others to see in your posts... Reading it slowly... just... takes... longer... to... read...
There =) Read it again, slowly.
-AS
Lets see, if 3dfx had released Open Source drivers with their original VooDoo series chipset, and an intrepid engineer at spent a whole year deciphering and tinkering, even a year later, things could be learned and used against 3dfx; look how long they've used the same basic components(V, VRush, V2, VBanshee, V3), if they had released info someone could have used it against them, if only to write really excellent Glide wrappers.
Of course this also brings into the argument open and proprietary standards and APIs, patents, IP, etc.
Or if Matrox had released source with the G200, initially, DualBus stuff may have been copied or leaked into other hardware, to compete directly against the G400.
Hardware cycles are really not that far off from a two and a half years; we get incremental increases in between(riva -> riva ZX, then TNT, TNT2, G200, G400, V->V2, VB->V3, etc).
-AS