I know nothing about anything, obviously, but I can see that game designers might think it nice to be able to send stuff to your screen but for you to be unable to send it to storage somewhere.
This *is meant to be* a dumb question. Mod me down if I'm wrong; it's only Karma.
So... they probably won't care that much. It just makes it a stupid move on the part of the Indian ISPs, who are facing a cash crunch due to shrinking subscriber numbers (see the first article).
I'm a PHP kinda guy, but somebody already mentioned the PHP manual (which is all I've ever used), so I thought some DHTML resources:
Hold your breath and try MSDN. It's got everything about everything for MSIE, from HTML to scripting, from tutorials to reference. I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but MSDN is truly useful. It's also a good reference for CSS2 properties, since these are thankfully the same (and reasonably well supported) on both MSIE and Mozilla.
To ensure cross-browser DHTML compatibility however, cross-reference with the Gecko DOM reference from the Mozilla project. It's DHTML for Mozilla; the model is completely different sadly but it works, and it's possible to write code that works for both MSIE and Mozilla/Gecko simultaneously with a little thought -- I learned most of what I know from Dan Steinman's excellent dynamic duo site.
If you're also using PHP, then you'll probably end up using MySQL as well. I learned most of the SQL I know simply by reading the MySQL manual. It's just as useful as the PHP Manual.
Who says it has to be 150 minutes? LotR hasn't done too bad a job (so far), by taking the enormous Rings books and turning them into 3 movies (although I tend to agree with many that it could easily have been six). The movie-going audience seems to have redeveloped a taste for the epic movie ever since the 3 hours of Titanic. The Foundation saga could be turned into one movie per book and be interesting without losing too much detail.
This might be construed as off-topic, since it's not about technical aspects of CG, it's about the artistic side of CG. But hear me out:
Although recently a lot of the big names in science fiction and fantasy are finally making it onto the screen in a plausible way (e.g. Tolkein) there are still plenty of great books out there that haven't even been optioned. If you could turn any science-fiction/fantasy book or series into a movie, which would it be?
[My personal choice: the Foundation saga by Asimov. So huge! Such a great plot! So eminently filmable! Somebody make this movie, dammit!:-)]
With modern FX, it's fair to say that anything that can be imagined can be produced on screen. However, that hasn't been the case until recently: if you had the option of re-making one movie of your choice (science fiction or otherwise) in which the imagination of the film-maker was clearly hampered by the technology available at the time, which would it be?
The Windows version is really scary to try; the letters fly by and it's not very intuitive how you select things at first -- just letting them fly by doesn't give very good feedback. It's a neat concept, but I can't say I rate it as being faster than grafitti, for instance -- especially since it apparently has a 60 second+ loading time on a Palm!
It would be a whole order of magnitude better if they open-sourced it. Why? Because this will set the standard for graphics in future. Conversely, it means that people setting new standards for quality will be unable to use it. If you want to do more realistic/better graphics than Cg can manage, you'll have to go right back to assembly code, and your improvements in technology will be lost. If they open-sourced it, then every time somebody pushed the envelope, they would push it for the language as a whole, not just for their particular game.
But it'll never happen, because it's unlikely to be in anyone's best financial interests to open-source either all the work NVidia has done on this language, or all the work other people have done on their own engines.
Have you read this article? It's not funny unless you think "of course, Linux doesn't get viruses" is funny. 'Cause it says that about a million times.
During term-time is another matter; I seldom get any serious reading done during term-time: I have too much to do, and too little time. I tend to read on vacations, and when I'm working 9-5 -- I can read while commuting, and when I'm at home, since jobs don't have homework:-) However, these friends of mine never read at *all*, ever. They have no books in their rooms, no favourite authors, no favourite book even. You miss out so much incidental knowledge by not reading novels, they open you up to new ideas and ways of thinking. I generally find people who don't read for pleasure are less interesting to talk to and certainly much less knowledgeable than those who do (with some exceptions).
We used to have parents deploring their children's taste in books, or that they didn't read at all, something I've always found distressing: many of my friends at university never seem to read anything; I don't know what they fill that gap in their lives with. We are already well on the way to parents deploring their children's taste in music and children who, as with books now, listen only to the sensational mega-selling singles, with no real loyalty or continuing interest in any one author/musician. And eventually, we will have people who don't listen to music at all, and don't miss it either.
I think it's really interesting that China has spent so much time and effort trying to protect its citizens from ideas from outside without realising that ideas that come from inside are just as dangerous. People who talk to each other cannot be fooled by propaganda, as the article mentions -- a mining disaster which killed 81 people was initially supressed, but when word about it spread on the 'net anyway the official newspapers ended up reporting on it.
The logical conclusion of this is that the much-protested firewall that China has put around itself will be of no help at all in supressing dissent, as long as chat rooms and even e-mail exist.
Mexico, for instance, has mandated open source in its education system - although it is widely believed to have botched the implementation. And Peru is considering a law mandating open source software.
Microsoft wrote protesting about the law and warning of collapsing software markets and portraying a nightmare scenario of incompatibility. But the answer - from a Peruvian congressman - refuted the letter point by point.
Hee hee! Viva la revolution!:-) There does seem to be an encouraging trend towards the use of Linux by big institutions and governments. And since people tend to "buy what they know" perhaps we will see a top-down pattern to Linux usage -- companies first, and then their employees at home -- rather than the bottom-up approach everyone seems to be expecting.
IBM has changed its business model: they no longer sell software products; they sell a "solution to a problem", which they use some of their own software products to solve. They provide a service, which is what their customers need, and it provides them with steady, subscription-style income that fosters a better and more honest relationship with their clients than the hit-and-run attitude developed by salespeople who only need to sell a product once. Plus, because it's clear from the outset that they're going to be selling a service, customers don't get pissed off (as they do with Microsoft) having to pay continuous fees. Make no mistake, both companies charge continuously: however, Microsoft charges for support (which gets people pissed off -- the product is supposed to work without help!) while IBM charges for the service (which includes support when things go wrong). It's the same thing, but with important psychological differences on both sides.
Microsoft is already seeing the value of selling services rather than products (spurred by the success of subscription-based AOL) and is slowly moving to software-as-a-service. However, their legacy of selling expensive products is making software-as-a-service very unpopular with their customers, who see it only as a way of charging many times for a product they used to buy only once. By changing their model to being entirely service-based, they would be free to use open source wherever it happened to be better than their in-house solutions (e.g. Apache) without it costing them any revenue. They could then contribute to the open-source products they use just like everybody else does.
Illegality is not part of the definition of terrorism. Terrorism is using tactics the promote fear in the general public to force leaders to do what you want. What the BSA does is promote fear in the minds of the leaders so they pass laws that force the public to do what they want.
So things were tougher in your day. Things nearly always were. But that's the kind of logic that would have us all living in caves and avoiding fire because raw meat was good enough for our grand-daddies. I'm at university, and you know what? My PDA is really useful, so screw you. It's not necessary, but neither was your 386. It just makes life easier, and probably better. By taking care of the simple things for her, she'll be able to concentrate on her *real* goals: aceing her degree, but more importantly running up huge debts, going to raves, and spending hours wasting time with her friends. Because university (or college) is what turns you into the person you will be for the rest of your life, and if you have to spend it busting your ass just to afford food, then it turns you into what, apparently, you are: a hard-ass with no sense of fun. I'd rather be the mollycoddled, whiny brat, if it's all the same to you.
And in case you're wondering, I don't scrounge off my parents. I paid for my £2000 computer myself, with money I earned working 9-5, and the same goes for most of the rest of the stuff that I own.
Re:Nobody here is upset at the system crackers?
on
California Hax0red
·
· Score: 2
But the difference is that it's not somebody's house being burgled, it's the state. If somebody robs a bank, you complain that the bank should have had better security measures, because you *expect* people to try to rob a bank. The same applies when the bank is full of data.
Which is interesting, since "free trade" was a key part of his election platform. Since getting into office, he's slapped tariffs on steel, signed a huge farm-subsidy bill, and made a bunch of other dumb decisions which benefit the people who funded his campaign at the expense of free trade and fair competition. This move is just another drop in the bucket.
Slashdot Mirror
I know nothing about anything, obviously, but I can see that game designers might think it nice to be able to send stuff to your screen but for you to be unable to send it to storage somewhere.
This *is meant to be* a dumb question. Mod me down if I'm wrong; it's only Karma.
One point he mentions is making the class loader better -- but he doesn't know how. Amen! I hate the fscking class loader!! :-)
Indian online population: 3.3 million.
Total world population online: 580 million.
So... they probably won't care that much. It just makes it a stupid move on the part of the Indian ISPs, who are facing a cash crunch due to shrinking subscriber numbers (see the first article).
As of about 5 minutes ago, this thread! :-)
Hold your breath and try MSDN. It's got everything about everything for MSIE, from HTML to scripting, from tutorials to reference. I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but MSDN is truly useful. It's also a good reference for CSS2 properties, since these are thankfully the same (and reasonably well supported) on both MSIE and Mozilla.
To ensure cross-browser DHTML compatibility however, cross-reference with the Gecko DOM reference from the Mozilla project. It's DHTML for Mozilla; the model is completely different sadly but it works, and it's possible to write code that works for both MSIE and Mozilla/Gecko simultaneously with a little thought -- I learned most of what I know from Dan Steinman's excellent dynamic duo site.
If you're also using PHP, then you'll probably end up using MySQL as well. I learned most of the SQL I know simply by reading the MySQL manual. It's just as useful as the PHP Manual.
Who says it has to be 150 minutes? LotR hasn't done too bad a job (so far), by taking the enormous Rings books and turning them into 3 movies (although I tend to agree with many that it could easily have been six). The movie-going audience seems to have redeveloped a taste for the epic movie ever since the 3 hours of Titanic. The Foundation saga could be turned into one movie per book and be interesting without losing too much detail.
This might be construed as off-topic, since it's not about technical aspects of CG, it's about the artistic side of CG. But hear me out:
:-)]
Although recently a lot of the big names in science fiction and fantasy are finally making it onto the screen in a plausible way (e.g. Tolkein) there are still plenty of great books out there that haven't even been optioned. If you could turn any science-fiction/fantasy book or series into a movie, which would it be?
[My personal choice: the Foundation saga by Asimov. So huge! Such a great plot! So eminently filmable! Somebody make this movie, dammit!
With modern FX, it's fair to say that anything that can be imagined can be produced on screen. However, that hasn't been the case until recently: if you had the option of re-making one movie of your choice (science fiction or otherwise) in which the imagination of the film-maker was clearly hampered by the technology available at the time, which would it be?
The Windows version is really scary to try; the letters fly by and it's not very intuitive how you select things at first -- just letting them fly by doesn't give very good feedback. It's a neat concept, but I can't say I rate it as being faster than grafitti, for instance -- especially since it apparently has a 60 second+ loading time on a Palm!
But it'll never happen, because it's unlikely to be in anyone's best financial interests to open-source either all the work NVidia has done on this language, or all the work other people have done on their own engines.
Have you read this article? It's not funny unless you think "of course, Linux doesn't get viruses" is funny. 'Cause it says that about a million times.
"I did not sleep with that ensign..."
During term-time is another matter; I seldom get any serious reading done during term-time: I have too much to do, and too little time. I tend to read on vacations, and when I'm working 9-5 -- I can read while commuting, and when I'm at home, since jobs don't have homework :-)
However, these friends of mine never read at *all*, ever. They have no books in their rooms, no favourite authors, no favourite book even. You miss out so much incidental knowledge by not reading novels, they open you up to new ideas and ways of thinking. I generally find people who don't read for pleasure are less interesting to talk to and certainly much less knowledgeable than those who do (with some exceptions).
We used to have parents deploring their children's taste in books, or that they didn't read at all, something I've always found distressing: many of my friends at university never seem to read anything; I don't know what they fill that gap in their lives with. We are already well on the way to parents deploring their children's taste in music and children who, as with books now, listen only to the sensational mega-selling singles, with no real loyalty or continuing interest in any one author/musician. And eventually, we will have people who don't listen to music at all, and don't miss it either.
I find that heartbreaking, but sadly plausible.
I think it's really interesting that China has spent so much time and effort trying to protect its citizens from ideas from outside without realising that ideas that come from inside are just as dangerous. People who talk to each other cannot be fooled by propaganda, as the article mentions -- a mining disaster which killed 81 people was initially supressed, but when word about it spread on the 'net anyway the official newspapers ended up reporting on it.
The logical conclusion of this is that the much-protested firewall that China has put around itself will be of no help at all in supressing dissent, as long as chat rooms and even e-mail exist.
Not alone
:-) There does seem to be an encouraging trend towards the use of Linux by big institutions and governments. And since people tend to "buy what they know" perhaps we will see a top-down pattern to Linux usage -- companies first, and then their employees at home -- rather than the bottom-up approach everyone seems to be expecting.
Mexico, for instance, has mandated open source in its education system - although it is widely believed to have botched the implementation. And Peru is considering a law mandating open source software.
Microsoft wrote protesting about the law and warning of collapsing software markets and portraying a nightmare scenario of incompatibility. But the answer - from a Peruvian congressman - refuted the letter point by point.
Hee hee! Viva la revolution!
IBM has changed its business model: they no longer sell software products; they sell a "solution to a problem", which they use some of their own software products to solve. They provide a service, which is what their customers need, and it provides them with steady, subscription-style income that fosters a better and more honest relationship with their clients than the hit-and-run attitude developed by salespeople who only need to sell a product once. Plus, because it's clear from the outset that they're going to be selling a service, customers don't get pissed off (as they do with Microsoft) having to pay continuous fees. Make no mistake, both companies charge continuously: however, Microsoft charges for support (which gets people pissed off -- the product is supposed to work without help!) while IBM charges for the service (which includes support when things go wrong). It's the same thing, but with important psychological differences on both sides.
Microsoft is already seeing the value of selling services rather than products (spurred by the success of subscription-based AOL) and is slowly moving to software-as-a-service. However, their legacy of selling expensive products is making software-as-a-service very unpopular with their customers, who see it only as a way of charging many times for a product they used to buy only once. By changing their model to being entirely service-based, they would be free to use open source wherever it happened to be better than their in-house solutions (e.g. Apache) without it costing them any revenue. They could then contribute to the open-source products they use just like everybody else does.
I know that. That's why I defined what terrorism was, and then pointed out that what the BSA does is something *different*. See?
Illegality is not part of the definition of terrorism. Terrorism is using tactics the promote fear in the general public to force leaders to do what you want. What the BSA does is promote fear in the minds of the leaders so they pass laws that force the public to do what they want.
I say we all flee to Mars to escape persecution. It's not so bad; I hear they have water there now...
So things were tougher in your day. Things nearly always were. But that's the kind of logic that would have us all living in caves and avoiding fire because raw meat was good enough for our grand-daddies. I'm at university, and you know what? My PDA is really useful, so screw you. It's not necessary, but neither was your 386. It just makes life easier, and probably better. By taking care of the simple things for her, she'll be able to concentrate on her *real* goals: aceing her degree, but more importantly running up huge debts, going to raves, and spending hours wasting time with her friends. Because university (or college) is what turns you into the person you will be for the rest of your life, and if you have to spend it busting your ass just to afford food, then it turns you into what, apparently, you are: a hard-ass with no sense of fun. I'd rather be the mollycoddled, whiny brat, if it's all the same to you.
And in case you're wondering, I don't scrounge off my parents. I paid for my £2000 computer myself, with money I earned working 9-5, and the same goes for most of the rest of the stuff that I own.
But the difference is that it's not somebody's house being burgled, it's the state. If somebody robs a bank, you complain that the bank should have had better security measures, because you *expect* people to try to rob a bank. The same applies when the bank is full of data.
The hackers lost all the data when power went down suddenly :-)
Which is interesting, since "free trade" was a key part of his election platform. Since getting into office, he's slapped tariffs on steel, signed a huge farm-subsidy bill, and made a bunch of other dumb decisions which benefit the people who funded his campaign at the expense of free trade and fair competition. This move is just another drop in the bucket.
the same thing you posted a day ago?