so, if it's only a game, it would be ok with you if we had games where you get to splatter Jews all over the screen, rape women, lynch blacks... it's just a game, right? It doesn't cause anything, why not make it more realistic? That stuff happened in our history, it'd make a good game, wouldn't it?
I'm posting here because it is near the moderated-top of this discussion. All the other posters I see are simply plumping for candidates Browne and "Green", crackpots who have no chance of winning because the average citizen thinks they are crackpots, or would if they got to hear them.
I'd like to talk about the point of this whole discussion (i.e., I'm on-topic, they are off-topic; moderate accordingly)
jamie, as usual, is hyperventilating as only an earnest and idealistic youngster can do. Bush did not blame Columbine on the internet. Think of it this way: Bush could have said that those boys had their hearts turned dark by hanging out on the street corner. If he had said that, would he have been blaming "street corners"? No. He would have been using "street corner" as a shorthand to describe a social phenomenon that is known to or is easy to imagine foments anti-social attitudes. Such forums exist on the internet also. You can argue whether he's right or wrong, but you'd do better to stick to what he meant and not some bogeyman you've invented.
I'm sure easy availability of guns contributes to the murder rate. But, it must be remembered that the US has always had easy availability of guns, and in the past has had much higher rates of gun ownership... but only recently has the gun murder rate soared. So, blaming guns must be false. I don't claim to have the answers, but I claim most of those who do are lying, and those who believe them are suckers.
But claming that there's no
correlation at all between virtual and actual violence, even in sarcasm, is just dodging the issue and irresponsible
in the extreme.
Good piece, thank you! You listen to NPR, and appreciate good logic. Did you catch that story a few days ago when the Milosevic government fell? An NPR story spun the story about how "good" the Serbian people are because they are to a man armed, and yet had a revolution with no bloodshed. See the logic? The US has too many murders, therefore too many guns. Serbia has little killing, therefore... good people.
you draw sweeping conclusions from a sample size of 1? No, you didn't grow up to be a murderer, but neither did you grow up to be a mathematician, scientist or engineer... I hope.
So, what I'm hearing is that there is no attempt or standard way to make the quality of each frame's graphics lower to lighten the load and sustain a high framerate? That would seem like a better solution for the player.
It enhances a lot of the capabilities you mention, but it's not a panacea. If you ran a batch of them on one machine, they'd be in contention over a number of system resources and would have to block and wait for one another in a way that kernels in the wild do not. I'll bet tests could be developed to detect such a honeypot. Large-scale distributed systems (which would consume some large-scale memory on the single host:) might not behave the same way. For example, the resource locking and blocking might inadvertently clean up race conditions and whatnot.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be a big help in getting closer to solutions of the problems that you suggest, just that it isn't perfect and will present its own set of problems.
I'm not a gamer, and therefore I don't pay much attention to this technology. I am somewhat interested in it, though. Can someone give a quick rundown of how it works? What I mean is, if one graphics piece of hardware is slower than another, I assume the game doesn't just run slower as that would screw up the play. So, either it tones down the operations it undertakes (fewer colors, lines, etc.) or it throws some operations overboard (I'm falling behind, just start with the next screen and the eye will barely see a flicker) or it does some thing I haven't imagined...
Is it easy to describe or is there a place that has a good explanation? Oh, and what are the most useful/critical accelerations?
I don't want to defend Taco's professionalism, and I agree with the above's perception of Sig11, but it does occur to me that Taco has a longer history with Siggy with perhaps more emails and stuff that we don't know about. I suggest it because there are surely people on Slashdot who are more publicly irritating, so he must be basing his opinion on something more.
Re:are copyrights necessary?
on
RIAA CEO Speaks
·
· Score: 1
That is
plagarism which to me is theft.
It's only theft to you because you define it that way. If I teach you recursion, do you think you should pay me a royalty or be accused of theft if you use it? If I teach you to add, should you be barred from teaching anyone else... if I tell you a joke, should you be disallowed from telling someone else the joke!? We could just as easily say, if you speak (or sing) then you do not own the outflow. Saying there is ownership is the artificial choice. Alternatively, if you don't want me copying it, don't send your soundwaves to impinge on my skin and devices.
Re:are copyrights necessary?
on
RIAA CEO Speaks
·
· Score: 1
But even here, there are at least seven clubs playing live music
just a hundred years ago there was a piano in every house that could afford one, and lesser instruments in the others. Church music, square dancing, picture shows, raree shows, you name it, live music was very much a part of people's lives, and copyright played a very minor role. The rise of copyright has corresponded with a decline in the number of people who actually create music, and a decline in the amount of live music (generally considered superior) that we hear.
Instead we have a small number of huge stars, a larger small number of moderate income performers, and a vast army (smaller, though, than before) living hand to mouth. Oh yes, an some very wealth corporations that had no adjunct before. Oh yes, and top 40 radio playing the same homogenized stuff everywhere at the same time. I'm just saying that I don't see progress here. Copyright is an artificial construct, very much at odds with natural copycat behavior, and I question why we are doing it.
I used to buy the "copyright is theft" argument. Surely, I've made a lot of money from selling proprietary software. But lately, I have trouble buying the argument.
If I steal your food for lunch, surely, I'm stealing. But if I could make "free" copies of your lunch to the extent that we could end world hunger... would that be "stealing"? Would it be unethical? Back in the old days, if I saw you hunting buffalo with a better method, I could copy it... is there something wrong with that?
Back in the old days, if you wanted to listen to music, you tossed a few coppers at a minstrel. If the minstrel sang a song and left, you could sing the song after he was gone. But today with copyrights, there are very few musicians around, and the recording industry, concentrated in a few companies, controls all, not the artists. Say what you will about how "necessary" copyrights are... blah blah blah, I've heard the arguments before. I don't see the system "working" at all, and that's the case you need to make.
Maybe a better compromise would be 5 years for a copyright. What have you done for us lately.
I'm just musing here, but there must be some technology for disabled people that allows them to click on some device to indicate "I want to buy one of those" to a clerk. Make sense?
why is this post about "strange
proprietary, closed-source drivers for the RAID array" that have "stopped shipping... with megaraid" moderated up to the tippy top?
I'm a developer.
My boss tells me what to code, and how to code it. I do it. I get my paycheck. I go
home. I have a life.
I'm a consultant. My boss tells me what to code, and how to code it. If it's IIS, I tell him to shove it, and get another gig. I get my paychecks, big ones. I go home. I have the life I like.
It depends on the frequency. If it is below 20Hz you won't hear it.
It's a little more complicated than that. It depends also on the amplitude (and I don't mean in the obvious way), and resonant frequencies of the objects placed on the table. If the amplitude is high enough to cause the object on the table to "bounce", you are going to get a low frequency square wave, i.e. one with many higher frequency harmonics. And, the low frequency wave will add energy to any resonant object you place on it and you will get some transient sympathetic oscillations, though I must say I can't remember the details of this.
Re:is it even faster "native"? - correction
on
Inside Transmeta
·
· Score: 1
sorry, I was not clear about what I meant to say, though I think you took what I said extra-wrong.
What I meant was, the little suite of apps that comes with the Palm are very nice to use for what they do. I've purchased several and each time I've chosen them over the equivalent WinCE systems available. However, they don't give you many apps, the apps each don't do all that much, unforgivably they aren't integrated with one another at all, and most unforgivably, they have not changed more than a click here or there since the Palm Pro years ago, the first version I used.
WinCE, as sucky as it is, works okay on larger form-factor systems that have a full keyboard, though it cannot be compared to the Palm in that sense. Given that I prefer the Palm, and have chosen to purchase it, I just meant that it would be cool if it used a Transmeta chip and could run WinCE also.
and, to finish the explanation, I mentioned it in the context of writing "native" code for the Transmeta because the bundled Palm apps do so little that it doesn't seem that challenging to rewrite them.
what the heck does "this is America" mean? people always say that before they make some argument that I find very unconvincing. Or they say, "I thought this was America" which is the prelude to a really unconvincing argument:)
In this case the poster goes to a lot of trouble to point out a bunch of things that people are free to do, but he conveniently leaves out
slashdot and slashdotters are free to complain about whatever they want to, also
which of course takes us full circle back to where we started before that post which would indicate that it was a NOP.
I thank you for the clarification. looks like I was using "prior art" to refer to something close to the thing being patented, rather than to the pieces of the patent. However, you are endorsing my definition of obviousness.
But, let me point out that your clarification makes Dickenson, the patent office, and Amazon's one-click patent even emptier: if the patent is "one-click ordering", are you really having trouble seeing the prior art, your definition? Do you know what a mouse is? They click. That's what they do. Do you know what a browser cookie is? Did you realize that the standard for cookies allows for them to be saved between sessions, or not? Why would the standard allow for it if they didn't expect it to be used that way? Plenty of websites allow clicking. Plenty of websites allow ordering. Plenty of websites recognize who you are when you come back. There is nothing new here, including the business practice: "you know who I am, put it on my tab" probably goes back to the early days of the world's oldest profession.
So, by clarifying my language, you have still utterly failed to "rebut" my position; rather, you have sharpened it. What scientists are good at doing is integrating new information with what they already know. We admit when we're wrong because it is necessary to find the truth. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not ashamed about not knowing the exact definitions lawyers have made up for common words. But I do know that patents shouldn't be allowed on obvious things and that the Amazon patent is one that was. Too bad lawyers and government bureaucrats don't have the same egoless approach to the the truth. We won't hate you if you'd just admit that you were wrong about the Amazon one-click patent. Actually, we will only if you don't.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think so, but I'm curious what you think.
he was speaking casually, but the word he wanted was "causally".
jamie, as usual, is hyperventilating as only an earnest and idealistic youngster can do. Bush did not blame Columbine on the internet. Think of it this way: Bush could have said that those boys had their hearts turned dark by hanging out on the street corner. If he had said that, would he have been blaming "street corners"? No. He would have been using "street corner" as a shorthand to describe a social phenomenon that is known to or is easy to imagine foments anti-social attitudes. Such forums exist on the internet also. You can argue whether he's right or wrong, but you'd do better to stick to what he meant and not some bogeyman you've invented.
I'm sure easy availability of guns contributes to the murder rate. But, it must be remembered that the US has always had easy availability of guns, and in the past has had much higher rates of gun ownership... but only recently has the gun murder rate soared. So, blaming guns must be false. I don't claim to have the answers, but I claim most of those who do are lying, and those who believe them are suckers.
Good piece, thank you! You listen to NPR, and appreciate good logic. Did you catch that story a few days ago when the Milosevic government fell? An NPR story spun the story about how "good" the Serbian people are because they are to a man armed, and yet had a revolution with no bloodshed. See the logic? The US has too many murders, therefore too many guns. Serbia has little killing, therefore... good people.
you draw sweeping conclusions from a sample size of 1? No, you didn't grow up to be a murderer, but neither did you grow up to be a mathematician, scientist or engineer... I hope.
you can become more educated about IQ, however, especially if you read this open letter published in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago.
So, what I'm hearing is that there is no attempt or standard way to make the quality of each frame's graphics lower to lighten the load and sustain a high framerate? That would seem like a better solution for the player.
It enhances a lot of the capabilities you mention, but it's not a panacea. If you ran a batch of them on one machine, they'd be in contention over a number of system resources and would have to block and wait for one another in a way that kernels in the wild do not. I'll bet tests could be developed to detect such a honeypot. Large-scale distributed systems (which would consume some large-scale memory on the single host :) might not behave the same way. For example, the resource locking and blocking might inadvertently clean up race conditions and whatnot.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be a big help in getting closer to solutions of the problems that you suggest, just that it isn't perfect and will present its own set of problems.
Is it easy to describe or is there a place that has a good explanation? Oh, and what are the most useful/critical accelerations?
I don't want to defend Taco's professionalism, and I agree with the above's perception of Sig11, but it does occur to me that Taco has a longer history with Siggy with perhaps more emails and stuff that we don't know about. I suggest it because there are surely people on Slashdot who are more publicly irritating, so he must be basing his opinion on something more.
It's only theft to you because you define it that way. If I teach you recursion, do you think you should pay me a royalty or be accused of theft if you use it? If I teach you to add, should you be barred from teaching anyone else... if I tell you a joke, should you be disallowed from telling someone else the joke!? We could just as easily say, if you speak (or sing) then you do not own the outflow. Saying there is ownership is the artificial choice. Alternatively, if you don't want me copying it, don't send your soundwaves to impinge on my skin and devices.
just a hundred years ago there was a piano in every house that could afford one, and lesser instruments in the others. Church music, square dancing, picture shows, raree shows, you name it, live music was very much a part of people's lives, and copyright played a very minor role. The rise of copyright has corresponded with a decline in the number of people who actually create music, and a decline in the amount of live music (generally considered superior) that we hear.
Instead we have a small number of huge stars, a larger small number of moderate income performers, and a vast army (smaller, though, than before) living hand to mouth. Oh yes, an some very wealth corporations that had no adjunct before. Oh yes, and top 40 radio playing the same homogenized stuff everywhere at the same time. I'm just saying that I don't see progress here. Copyright is an artificial construct, very much at odds with natural copycat behavior, and I question why we are doing it.
If I steal your food for lunch, surely, I'm stealing. But if I could make "free" copies of your lunch to the extent that we could end world hunger... would that be "stealing"? Would it be unethical? Back in the old days, if I saw you hunting buffalo with a better method, I could copy it... is there something wrong with that?
Back in the old days, if you wanted to listen to music, you tossed a few coppers at a minstrel. If the minstrel sang a song and left, you could sing the song after he was gone. But today with copyrights, there are very few musicians around, and the recording industry, concentrated in a few companies, controls all, not the artists. Say what you will about how "necessary" copyrights are... blah blah blah, I've heard the arguments before. I don't see the system "working" at all, and that's the case you need to make.
Maybe a better compromise would be 5 years for a copyright. What have you done for us lately.
I'm just musing here, but there must be some technology for disabled people that allows them to click on some device to indicate "I want to buy one of those" to a clerk. Make sense?
why is this post about "strange proprietary, closed-source drivers for the RAID array" that have "stopped shipping ... with megaraid" moderated up to the tippy top?
I'm a consultant. My boss tells me what to code, and how to code it. If it's IIS, I tell him to shove it, and get another gig. I get my paychecks, big ones. I go home. I have the life I like.
It's a little more complicated than that. It depends also on the amplitude (and I don't mean in the obvious way), and resonant frequencies of the objects placed on the table. If the amplitude is high enough to cause the object on the table to "bounce", you are going to get a low frequency square wave, i.e. one with many higher frequency harmonics. And, the low frequency wave will add energy to any resonant object you place on it and you will get some transient sympathetic oscillations, though I must say I can't remember the details of this.
survey says: you are not making sense.
talk about posting before reading: he posted a correction before you posted your comment. Ugh... powerflamer...
BSOD? you should see how fast it renders :)
What I meant was, the little suite of apps that comes with the Palm are very nice to use for what they do. I've purchased several and each time I've chosen them over the equivalent WinCE systems available. However, they don't give you many apps, the apps each don't do all that much, unforgivably they aren't integrated with one another at all, and most unforgivably, they have not changed more than a click here or there since the Palm Pro years ago, the first version I used.
WinCE, as sucky as it is, works okay on larger form-factor systems that have a full keyboard, though it cannot be compared to the Palm in that sense. Given that I prefer the Palm, and have chosen to purchase it, I just meant that it would be cool if it used a Transmeta chip and could run WinCE also.
and, to finish the explanation, I mentioned it in the context of writing "native" code for the Transmeta because the bundled Palm apps do so little that it doesn't seem that challenging to rewrite them.
BTW, "hehehehe..." might best be reserved for the Beavis and Butthead laugh.
In this case the poster goes to a lot of trouble to point out a bunch of things that people are free to do, but he conveniently leaves out
- slashdot and slashdotters are free to complain about whatever they want to, also
which of course takes us full circle back to where we started before that post which would indicate that it was a NOP.But, let me point out that your clarification makes Dickenson, the patent office, and Amazon's one-click patent even emptier: if the patent is "one-click ordering", are you really having trouble seeing the prior art, your definition? Do you know what a mouse is? They click. That's what they do. Do you know what a browser cookie is? Did you realize that the standard for cookies allows for them to be saved between sessions, or not? Why would the standard allow for it if they didn't expect it to be used that way? Plenty of websites allow clicking. Plenty of websites allow ordering. Plenty of websites recognize who you are when you come back. There is nothing new here, including the business practice: "you know who I am, put it on my tab" probably goes back to the early days of the world's oldest profession.
So, by clarifying my language, you have still utterly failed to "rebut" my position; rather, you have sharpened it. What scientists are good at doing is integrating new information with what they already know. We admit when we're wrong because it is necessary to find the truth. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not ashamed about not knowing the exact definitions lawyers have made up for common words. But I do know that patents shouldn't be allowed on obvious things and that the Amazon patent is one that was. Too bad lawyers and government bureaucrats don't have the same egoless approach to the the truth. We won't hate you if you'd just admit that you were wrong about the Amazon one-click patent. Actually, we will only if you don't.