Because the G5 silicon lacks the special "virtual little endian mode" that the Virtual PC code from Connectix relies upon for performance on the G3 and G4 chips.
PPC chips can't run in big and little endian mode at the same time. There's no way VirtualPC uses the little endian mode of the PPC processor under MacOS. There are byte-swapping load and store PPC instructions that are no more expensive than non-swapping loads and stores, so there is no real performance hit due to byte swapping when emulating.
Puzzle Pirates frankly has more hope because it plays on the favorite things of the casual gamer. Chatting and simple puzzle games. Popcap + AIM. Most "hardcore" gamers would prefer to be kneecapped than be caught playing something like that though, so I doubt the gaming press will see it for what it is.
Puzzle Pirates is doomed amongst hardcore gamers for a few reasons, including the java issue and the lack of 3D, but the biggest is that the female population exceeds 50%.
You're little find and replace is cute, but that's it.
You don't have to be anti-consumer to be pro-business, which was my entire point and the fata flaw of your rebuttal.
Now,
2001 and 2002 had the highest number personal bankruptcies in the last 20 years. While business bankruptcies were the third and fourth lowest for the same period. BTW, take a good look at the change in the ratio of personal to business filings over the last 20 years.
These years also saw record levels of personal debt, and an unprecidented availablity of personal credit. Of course this could simply be a coincidence.
Consumer spending represent 70% of all private sector consumption. Business spending is only 30%.
This statistic cleverly leaves out business payrolls. Nice try though.
It is even more evident that the corporate crowd has blantently pitched its tent on the Whitehouse lawn and has no plans of leaving as long as this administration holds control. For the common person, these are dark times ahead. Next year will be our biggest chance to head off certain financial disaster. Make sure you vote!
It's really easy to see any pro-business move as bad for ordinary citizens, but it's also really easy for the average, or even above-average citizen to fail to notice that many taxes are imposed on businesses to hide them from voters. After you do that for a while it becomes tremendously expensive to do business, and companies start moving their labor offshore, or just plain going out of business (sound familliar?).
There's noting wrong with being pro-business. Businesses pay your salary! Corporations are a key part of our economy. You have to pick one. Do you want economic recovery and reduced unemployment, or do you want an administration and congress that is not pro-business? You can't have it both ways. You can try, but you'll be headed for that financial disaster you're talking about. Keep that in mind when you vote.
What kind of crappy ISP would complain about keeping your connection pegged?
Besides, he's using rsync. He's only transmitting deltas. He could probably do it nightly over a 56k dialup if he has a moderate daily workload, and is careful to only back up nescicary files (i.e. source code with no objects, etc..).
This already takes into account domestic production which peaked back in 1970....This is what happens to finite resources. They get used up and you need to look elsewhere.
The peak being in the 1970s want for technical reasons, and is not due to a lack of oil in the ground. It's all about political will. Sure the oil will run out eventually, but not soon.
This issue had no business involving copyright law. This should have been settled with patents (i.e. If Lexmark doesn't have any covering it's cartridge design, it's SOL). This was a perfect example of the concept of "Intellectual Property" clouding the distinction between copyrights, patents and trademarks. The fact of the matter is that Lexmark's business model is perfectly valid, and well documented, but they didn't want the time limitations imposed by patent law and they thought they could get around it. They should fire the legal team that gave them the advice that led them down this path, and wise investors should have left long ago after seeing all this money wasted on developing "protection" technology that depended on an untested legal concept to work.
If I posted pictures of my companies semi-secret lab on the internet for all to see I would think I'd get fired too... This has nothing to do with microsoft in particular.
Under no circumstances is it valid to distort the truth in a non satirical fassion in order to make a point, no mater how valid your point. Distorting the truth to make your point when the point can be made with straght up valid information is even more dispicable.
I corrected that comment in my followup to myself.
A agree. It's horseshit as written, but it's not what I meant to say. I didn't proofread enough. Obviously you can't have a solution before the research begins.
However, research with no hope of productive outcome is a waste and nothing more.
Take that away, and you've taken away the part of the figure that people can relate to.
That's why it's fraudulent. They needed to artificially inflate the number to make people relate to it. I can think of a million apt analogies, but let's suffice it to say that I could relate any meaning I wanted in any reasearch I wanted to do if I were allowed to multiply the resluting data by 10,000, or.00001.
To make maters worse, there are plenty of valid arguments against oil use. There is no reason to fabricate addtional arguments by twisting some meaningless numbers into a suggestive paper.
but studies like these demonstrate just how much of a resource drain it is.
No, studies like this plant a totally false impression of how much of a resource drain it is. We could extract the same energy from far fewer plants because we don't have to throw away 99.990% of the plant before we start.
It's a selective usage of statistics at best and an irrelevant spin on an irrelevant fact designed to decieve people to win supporters in the most likely case.
This article is fraudulent.
Lets start with the easy one. First, they write off as waste all the other products of the oil that don't become gasoline. So, remove another 50% from the tally...
Next, they add the weight of all the plant that didn't manage to become oil, even after all the water is disregarded. In fact, the multiply their figure by 10,750 (there's a few orders of magnitude in there if you werent counting).
Finally, and most importantly, it doesn't matter how many dead, prehistoric plants were required to make the oil we use. It's an irrelevant number, no matter how large or small. Any meaning derived out of this article was conjured by spin and implication.
Ditch the propaganda. If you don't have solutions, don't waste money on research.
That is the argument of a Luddite. We are creatures of self control. If we can't take what may be the first steps down a path that may have an unplesant end, no matter how beneficial the first steps, then we should never have left the stone age.
But once they read your tires, they can be pretty sure that you're going to be the one associated with them for quite some time. So they -can- associate that random number with the person who ordered a McGriddle 5 times in the last month. Now they can tailor your ads to your shopping experience (just like anonymous ad tracking cookies) and even use the data for polling which foods are popular with which customers.
Right.... But, who cares? Agrigate data and custom advertisements are hardly a privacy invasion. What about places with sales people who remember you? Are they invading your privacy?
Walking into a Wal-Mart you always pass between the security gates (and exactly what do you think those security gates scan for?). When you drive through McDonald's with your soon-to-have RFID tags (if some manufacturers get their way... see earlier articles on RFID on/.) you definitely can be scanned.
And they're read some random number that is impossible (yes, I said and meant impossible) to accurately associate with anybody. You can't track somebody with a number read from an item that could have been purchased with cash or given to or resold to somebody else.
Oh, well as long as they are only used to track peoplee from long distances... that's fine.
That's not what I was saying at all. I was saying that you're not going to get tracked from by these without your consent. You're not going to have one of these. These *aren't* what are being proposed as barcode replacements. THis story is talking about an entirely different technology and then implying that they're talking about RFID inventory tags.
Oh, well as long as they distorted the facts... that's fine.
Misleading story (both wired and slashdot)
on
Reading, Writing, RFID
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
These are not the same tags they are proposing for inventory control in retail outlets dispite what both the Wired article and the slashdot submitter imply. These are designed to be read from a longer distance and used specifically to track people. You can still call anti inventory control RFID privacy nuts 'paranoid'.
why should you inherit your ancestors...wealth (death taxes help)
If that's really what you think, then why should anybody get it? The government or community are not necicarily more worthy than somebodies decendants. Get yourself a job and stop benefiting from somebody elses work that was taken as tax revenue when he/she died.
Hypocrite.
Now, to answer your question and fill you in on what is probably tuning out to be a hollow and unfulfilling life for you: The reason that your decendants should be recieve the benefits of your labor is that most people don't work for the benifit of themselves alone, but for the enrichment of their lives and the lives of their loved ones. There is an easy out in the law for people this is untrue for: You can leave your material possesions to the state in your will.
A cure for this was found in the Diablo series of games - random items.
That just delays the inevitable. Eventually you end up not caring what item you may get because either what you have to do to get it is the same as what you did for the last 5000 items you got, or because the chance of getting an item better than the one you've got is close to 0.
Every time somebody tries to spell out what's wrong with MMORPGs they always get lost in the technical minutia and miss the big picture.
Multiplayer RPGs aren't anything new, they've been played with dice and pencils for decades, and these problems have all been solved there. People aren't tired of killing orcs in D&D. Pest control isn't the problem.
Making an RPG fun is about rewards. On a basic level, the player has fun when they are rewarded for their effors. The trouble is that giving the same reward over and over quickly looses it's apeal. It's hard, however, to create reward variety in an MMORPG because intangible rewards require a lot of creative output. There can't be a controlled plot because there are just so many people that it's infeasable to create that much independant content. This has caused the entire genre to fall into the trap of using levels, experience, and items as the sole rewards. After a while, another level is just a number on the screen, and another item is just another item. Unless the actual game play is it's own reward players will get tired of the game. This means that unexpected things need to happen that cause the players to think critically and encourage them to play the role. It means that every adventure can't be another version of "go kill this thing"; and it doesn't matter if that thing is a rat, or some new creature you've never seen. You'd get tired of all of it if that's all you did.
Sure, there's a small protion of gamers out there that will be sitisfied with seeing the level number go up over and over, but most people will find that it gets old quick.
Now if only the solution was simple....
The only options I see aren't compatible with the "let's make buckets of money for something we used to only be able to charge $50 for" model that most of these games follow. Either the game has to build a community that can support it on social merit alone, which people will not be willing to pay large sums of money for, or large numbers of creative professionals will have to be employed on the server side (think like the precursor to interactive entertainment as described in "The Diamond Age"), which would also cut severly into obscene profits. Either way, it seems to me that the massivly profitable MMORPG will soon be a thing of the past.
Copyleft protected software is about enforcing the liberty of software users.
Don't kid yourself. There's an extra word at the end of that sentence. Copyleft is about enforcing the liberty of software. The GPL places many restrictions on the user in an effort to keep the software free.
Slashdot Mirror
The memory costs $5000 because it's better than other memory. Really.
Because the G5 silicon lacks the special "virtual little endian mode" that the Virtual PC code from Connectix relies upon for performance on the G3 and G4 chips.
PPC chips can't run in big and little endian mode at the same time. There's no way VirtualPC uses the little endian mode of the PPC processor under MacOS. There are byte-swapping load and store PPC instructions that are no more expensive than non-swapping loads and stores, so there is no real performance hit due to byte swapping when emulating.
Puzzle Pirates frankly has more hope because it plays on the favorite things of the casual gamer. Chatting and simple puzzle games. Popcap + AIM. Most "hardcore" gamers would prefer to be kneecapped than be caught playing something like that though, so I doubt the gaming press will see it for what it is.
Puzzle Pirates is doomed amongst hardcore gamers for a few reasons, including the java issue and the lack of 3D, but the biggest is that the female population exceeds 50%.
You're little find and replace is cute, but that's it.
You don't have to be anti-consumer to be pro-business, which was my entire point and the fata flaw of your rebuttal.
Now,
2001 and 2002 had the highest number personal bankruptcies in the last 20 years. While business bankruptcies were the third and fourth lowest for the same period. BTW, take a good look at the change in the ratio of personal to business filings over the last 20 years.
These years also saw record levels of personal debt, and an unprecidented availablity of personal credit. Of course this could simply be a coincidence.
Consumer spending represent 70% of all private sector consumption. Business spending is only 30%.
This statistic cleverly leaves out business payrolls. Nice try though.
It is even more evident that the corporate crowd has blantently pitched its tent on the Whitehouse lawn and has no plans of leaving as long as this administration holds control. For the common person, these are dark times ahead. Next year will be our biggest chance to head off certain financial disaster. Make sure you vote!
It's really easy to see any pro-business move as bad for ordinary citizens, but it's also really easy for the average, or even above-average citizen to fail to notice that many taxes are imposed on businesses to hide them from voters. After you do that for a while it becomes tremendously expensive to do business, and companies start moving their labor offshore, or just plain going out of business (sound familliar?).
There's noting wrong with being pro-business. Businesses pay your salary! Corporations are a key part of our economy. You have to pick one. Do you want economic recovery and reduced unemployment, or do you want an administration and congress that is not pro-business? You can't have it both ways. You can try, but you'll be headed for that financial disaster you're talking about. Keep that in mind when you vote.
What kind of crappy ISP would complain about keeping your connection pegged?
Besides, he's using rsync. He's only transmitting deltas. He could probably do it nightly over a 56k dialup if he has a moderate daily workload, and is careful to only back up nescicary files (i.e. source code with no objects, etc..).
This already takes into account domestic production which peaked back in 1970....This is what happens to finite resources. They get used up and you need to look elsewhere.
The peak being in the 1970s want for technical reasons, and is not due to a lack of oil in the ground. It's all about political will. Sure the oil will run out eventually, but not soon.
This issue had no business involving copyright law. This should have been settled with patents (i.e. If Lexmark doesn't have any covering it's cartridge design, it's SOL). This was a perfect example of the concept of "Intellectual Property" clouding the distinction between copyrights, patents and trademarks. The fact of the matter is that Lexmark's business model is perfectly valid, and well documented, but they didn't want the time limitations imposed by patent law and they thought they could get around it. They should fire the legal team that gave them the advice that led them down this path, and wise investors should have left long ago after seeing all this money wasted on developing "protection" technology that depended on an untested legal concept to work.
This guy hit it on the head.
If I posted pictures of my companies semi-secret lab on the internet for all to see I would think I'd get fired too... This has nothing to do with microsoft in particular.
Under no circumstances is it valid to distort the truth in a non satirical fassion in order to make a point, no mater how valid your point. Distorting the truth to make your point when the point can be made with straght up valid information is even more dispicable.
Sorry. Didn't see it. I have sigs turned off...
I corrected that comment in my followup to myself.
A agree. It's horseshit as written, but it's not what I meant to say. I didn't proofread enough. Obviously you can't have a solution before the research begins.
However, research with no hope of productive outcome is a waste and nothing more.
Take that away, and you've taken away the part of the figure that people can relate to.
.00001.
That's why it's fraudulent. They needed to artificially inflate the number to make people relate to it. I can think of a million apt analogies, but let's suffice it to say that I could relate any meaning I wanted in any reasearch I wanted to do if I were allowed to multiply the resluting data by 10,000, or
To make maters worse, there are plenty of valid arguments against oil use. There is no reason to fabricate addtional arguments by twisting some meaningless numbers into a suggestive paper.
but studies like these demonstrate just how much of a resource drain it is.
No, studies like this plant a totally false impression of how much of a resource drain it is. We could extract the same energy from far fewer plants because we don't have to throw away 99.990% of the plant before we start.
Sorry, I meant to say if you're not looking for solutions, don't waste money on research...
It's a selective usage of statistics at best and an irrelevant spin on an irrelevant fact designed to decieve people to win supporters in the most likely case.
This article is fraudulent.
Lets start with the easy one. First, they write off as waste all the other products of the oil that don't become gasoline. So, remove another 50% from the tally...
Next, they add the weight of all the plant that didn't manage to become oil, even after all the water is disregarded. In fact, the multiply their figure by 10,750 (there's a few orders of magnitude in there if you werent counting).
Finally, and most importantly, it doesn't matter how many dead, prehistoric plants were required to make the oil we use. It's an irrelevant number, no matter how large or small. Any meaning derived out of this article was conjured by spin and implication.
Ditch the propaganda. If you don't have solutions, don't waste money on research.
I'd enjoy for you to point out where I insulted you for insult's sake.
That is the argument of a Luddite. We are creatures of self control. If we can't take what may be the first steps down a path that may have an unplesant end, no matter how beneficial the first steps, then we should never have left the stone age.
But once they read your tires, they can be pretty sure that you're going to be the one associated with them for quite some time. So they -can- associate that random number with the person who ordered a McGriddle 5 times in the last month. Now they can tailor your ads to your shopping experience (just like anonymous ad tracking cookies) and even use the data for polling which foods are popular with which customers.
Right.... But, who cares? Agrigate data and custom advertisements are hardly a privacy invasion. What about places with sales people who remember you? Are they invading your privacy?
Walking into a Wal-Mart you always pass between the security gates (and exactly what do you think those security gates scan for?). When you drive through McDonald's with your soon-to-have RFID tags (if some manufacturers get their way ... see earlier articles on RFID on /.) you definitely can be scanned.
And they're read some random number that is impossible (yes, I said and meant impossible) to accurately associate with anybody. You can't track somebody with a number read from an item that could have been purchased with cash or given to or resold to somebody else.
Oh, well as long as they are only used to track peoplee from long distances... that's fine.
That's not what I was saying at all. I was saying that you're not going to get tracked from by these without your consent. You're not going to have one of these. These *aren't* what are being proposed as barcode replacements. THis story is talking about an entirely different technology and then implying that they're talking about RFID inventory tags.
Oh, well as long as they distorted the facts... that's fine.
These are not the same tags they are proposing for inventory control in retail outlets dispite what both the Wired article and the slashdot submitter imply. These are designed to be read from a longer distance and used specifically to track people. You can still call anti inventory control RFID privacy nuts 'paranoid'.
why should you inherit your ancestors...wealth (death taxes help)
If that's really what you think, then why should anybody get it? The government or community are not necicarily more worthy than somebodies decendants. Get yourself a job and stop benefiting from somebody elses work that was taken as tax revenue when he/she died.
Hypocrite.
Now, to answer your question and fill you in on what is probably tuning out to be a hollow and unfulfilling life for you: The reason that your decendants should be recieve the benefits of your labor is that most people don't work for the benifit of themselves alone, but for the enrichment of their lives and the lives of their loved ones. There is an easy out in the law for people this is untrue for: You can leave your material possesions to the state in your will.
A cure for this was found in the Diablo series of games - random items.
That just delays the inevitable. Eventually you end up not caring what item you may get because either what you have to do to get it is the same as what you did for the last 5000 items you got, or because the chance of getting an item better than the one you've got is close to 0.
Every time somebody tries to spell out what's wrong with MMORPGs they always get lost in the technical minutia and miss the big picture.
Multiplayer RPGs aren't anything new, they've been played with dice and pencils for decades, and these problems have all been solved there. People aren't tired of killing orcs in D&D. Pest control isn't the problem.
Making an RPG fun is about rewards. On a basic level, the player has fun when they are rewarded for their effors. The trouble is that giving the same reward over and over quickly looses it's apeal. It's hard, however, to create reward variety in an MMORPG because intangible rewards require a lot of creative output. There can't be a controlled plot because there are just so many people that it's infeasable to create that much independant content. This has caused the entire genre to fall into the trap of using levels, experience, and items as the sole rewards. After a while, another level is just a number on the screen, and another item is just another item. Unless the actual game play is it's own reward players will get tired of the game. This means that unexpected things need to happen that cause the players to think critically and encourage them to play the role. It means that every adventure can't be another version of "go kill this thing"; and it doesn't matter if that thing is a rat, or some new creature you've never seen. You'd get tired of all of it if that's all you did.
Sure, there's a small protion of gamers out there that will be sitisfied with seeing the level number go up over and over, but most people will find that it gets old quick.
Now if only the solution was simple....
The only options I see aren't compatible with the "let's make buckets of money for something we used to only be able to charge $50 for" model that most of these games follow. Either the game has to build a community that can support it on social merit alone, which people will not be willing to pay large sums of money for, or large numbers of creative professionals will have to be employed on the server side (think like the precursor to interactive entertainment as described in "The Diamond Age"), which would also cut severly into obscene profits. Either way, it seems to me that the massivly profitable MMORPG will soon be a thing of the past.
Copyleft protected software is about enforcing the liberty of software users.
Don't kid yourself. There's an extra word at the end of that sentence. Copyleft is about enforcing the liberty of software. The GPL places many restrictions on the user in an effort to keep the software free.