It seems to be using feedback from the rendering itself. If one GPU falls behind, it sends more work to the other GPU. It may have some kind of database of cards to prime the algorithm, but there's no reason it has to run extra benchmarking jobs.
No civilized society, he adds, can endure 'purely voluntary payment for art, knowledge, and culture.'
When I go to the Symphony, and listen to "Pictures at an Exhibition", I'm voluntarily paying to listen to a piece that I probably have half a dozen copies of already.
Is the logic here that the symphony isn't culture, or that it's not art, or that it's not civilized?
As I recall SL sits in the background and alerts (icon bounces or changes color, depending on the OS) when you have a message. Have you actually tried this, or are you just assuming that it doesn't work?
Actually, their business model was based entirely on creating a unique and brilliant piece of software and selling it for millions.
Just because software is brilliant and unique doesn't mean it will sell for millions.
Business models aren't based on making a better mousetrap, they're based on finding use cases that are so compelling that people buy them.
The primary use case for Napster was "unauthorised sharing of copyrighted files". The role that Napster themselves played was acting as the go-between. That was why people paid money for the program, not because it was an efficient file transfer tool, but because it gave them plausible deniability while they shared ripped tracks... and Napster thought it gave THEM plausible deniability too because their servers were just getting traders together, not hosting any files.
There's Second Life and OpenSim and Lively and There and IMVU and ActiveWorlds and HiPiHi and Habbo Hotel and...
It's a mess.
You're saying, it sounds like, that the ad-hoc system that (I suppose) only geeks can understand is useless for business because it's too complex and people don't spend money in it. Like Internet Mail was, because unlike MCI Mail and Compuserve Mail, it was too complex and there was no way to charge people for it.
Which is why my email address is still "c=us/o=compuserve/ou=cis/id=70216,1076".
Microsoft also replaced the BSD TCP stack, but they kept the same userland commands. They already had a different config command (ipconfig instead of ifconfig)... probably because they had to rewrite that to cooperate with their netbios and other stacks, but...
C:\WINDOWS\System32\> strings ftp.exe [...] @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California. [...]
Here's a message I posted in 1991 bemoaning the lack of business interest in the Internet, in particular Compuserve's lack of telnet access:
In article <1991May21.165458.7441@sci34hub.sci.com> gary@... (Gary Heston) writes: > Compuserve likes to bill for the use of their systems; billing people > who telnet in would be very difficult.
Why?
I'm sure it'd look like this:
% telnet compuserve.com
Trying...
Connected to compuserve.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
Host: CIS
Username: 70216,1076
Password:
Welcome to Compuserve!
Similarly, they would provide FTP service on the same basis:
% ftp compuserve.com
Connected to compuserve.com.
220 compuserve.com FTP server... ready.
Name: (compuserve.com:peter): 70216,1076
331 Password required for 70216,1076.
Password:
230 User 70216,1076 logged in.
ftp> cd amigatech
100 CWD command okay. ...
> If CIS could see money in telnet/ftp connections, it'd already be done.
They have their eyes closed.
70216,1076 was my real CIS ID. We were all a bit naive back then.:)
Yes, you had gopher, and FTP, and Finger. You had BBS systems. You had Compuserve and other online services that were totally dominating in the search for a business model: I was paying $60 a month for a news clipping service called NewsNet in 1984, and Compuserve came up with something similar and I dropped it.
The only non-centralized system that had any business interest was email.
Email was a huge mess: there were at least 30 competing email systems... it was the only network protocol that business really saw a need for, and evereyone "just knew" that email was going to settle down into this X.400 based protocol that the big boys like MCI Mail were using, because X.400 had all the hooks to get your email where you needed it to be, no matter what the network, and more important it had *billing* built in, so you didn't have to worry about who was going to pay for it all. People really worried about where the money to pay for this stuff was coming from. There were three competing grassroots mail protocols: ARPAnet mail (SMTP) and UUCP mail and a BBS network called Fidonet that was kind of UUCP-lite. To send mail to someone you had to come up with addresses like "this!that!arpagate!c=us/o=mcimail/id=whatever%mci-gateway@x400-gateway", and the way you entered an address depended on where you started. Even in @-land you had ARPAnet (user@cs.university.stuff) vs JANET (user@uk.stuff.cs). Business looked at that and went to MCI or Compuserve and got an address and printed stuff like "c:us, o:mcimail, id:bigboss" on their business cards if they were REALLY trendy.
But that internet stuff? That's for academics. It'd never be useful for business.
Seriously, what are they going to do on Second life?
Second Life now? Second life in five or ten years? Some descendent of OpenSim in five or ten years? You're looking at the equivalent of the Internet in the late '80s and early '90s, when the only browser available required a NeXT workstation, and asking why there isn't a Google yet.
That's because the Linux folks were worried about the pending USG/CSRG lawsuit so they reimplemented TCP instead of using the BSD TCP stack and utilities like almost everyone else (including Microsoft) did.
Just about any non-Linux UNIX implementation is going to have the BSD TCP.
On the upside the lawsuit did set SCO up the bomb. Oh, it wasn't the only thing by any means (did they actually do ANYTHING right in that lawsuit?), but one of the side effects of the USG/CSRG lawsuit was that a lot of early UNIX code code was open-sourced. Including some of the SCO claimed were examples of "infringing code" in Linux. Come on, folks, wasn't it great to have Dennis Ritchie himself point that out?
Wouldn't a chatroom on the show's website offer an easier way to communicate? (As it lowers the barrier to entry and is more efficient with regards to multitasking).
In what way is a "chatroom" more efficient with regards to multitasking? I'm not sure I get this one. What kinds of things are you thinking of?
They don't need to attack Wine and Samba, and they probably don't need to attack Mono. So long as they're implementations of protocols they control, they can always Gates them to death if they need to.
There's a reason companies like NetApp are licensing Microsoft's SMB implementation rather than using Samba... they get to see the extensions before they're embraced-and-extended.
Nothing, it isn't exploitable by corporations [...]
That's yet to be determined. There have been a number of corporations that have done some really dumb things in SL... like expecting people to pay for a box textured to look like an MP3 player or PC... and turned around and thrown their hands up. That just means that they haven't figured it out yet.
The same kinds of comments were made about the web in the early days. It's useless. People don't get it. Corporations can't succeed. It's only for porn. You know the stuff. Look at this thread for example.
I'm talking about the one where someone shot Kirk with a "web bullet", a particularly nasty weapon that extended a kind of fungal growth through his entire body causing a slow agonizing death. I believe it was by Diane Duane... at any rate I was told the author claimed that scene was the most satisfying one she'd ever written.
I bought the book, and was not terribly surprised and only a little disappointed to learn that Spock had to go back in time to save the universe (again) and only incidentally prevent Kirk from getting shot.
Amusing as "the laws of toon robotics"* may be, they are intended as a joke. I don't think that appending "unless it is funny" to ones actions changes them from being wrong to being right.
Now, on the other hand, it is possible that you've found a gray area. Certainly they exist. And there are also undoubtedly areas where the labels do wonderful work for their artists, and the RIAA's actions are entirely reasonable and justified. In fact I suspect that the balance of such exceptions on the side of the music industry, but I wouldn't quibble about them in the RIAA's favor any more than I would quibble about them in *ster's favor. There's a reason that exceptions are *called* exceptions, after all.
* The laws of toon robotics:
First Law. A robot must not embarrass a human or through inaction allow a human to be embarrassed, unless it is funny.
Second Law. A robot must provide any straight lines or other schtick requested by a human, except when this violates the first law, unless it is funny.
Third Law. A robot must maintain its patter and promote its own schtick, except when this violates the first or second laws, unless it is funny.
Because the result of Psystar's actions will be bad for their customers and Apple's customers alike, and benefit nobody, and if you can't see why then I'm not going to explain it again.
PS: that should be "How are Psystar the bad guys?" or "How is Psystar a bad guy?".
Windows XP Service Pack 3 (SP3), the update scheduled to be released next year, runs Microsoft Corp.'s Office suite 10% faster than XP SP2, a performance testing software developer reported Friday.
Just wait, it'll be delayed or have additional "security fixes" that slow it down by 11%.
Where "ripping off artists to make sure they don't get paid is okay" as long as you've got them to sign some kind of contract, however convoluted, because of course all musicians are expert contract lawyers AND are negotiating on a level playing field.
Get this through your head: there are very few good guys.
Napster were bad guys (and the fact that there's still a "Napster" in any form gives me a bad taste in my mouth). The labels are the bad guys. People sourcing ripped torrents are the bad guys. The RIAA are the bad guys. People illegally posting copyrighted binaries to Usenet are the bad guys. The judges who let the RIAA get away with it are the bad guys. Psystar are bad guys.
Pointing out that one set of bad guys are bad guys doesn't mean that another set of bad guys are good guys.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to be using feedback from the rendering itself. If one GPU falls behind, it sends more work to the other GPU. It may have some kind of database of cards to prime the algorithm, but there's no reason it has to run extra benchmarking jobs.
Can it work with Linux or OS X?
No civilized society, he adds, can endure 'purely voluntary payment for art, knowledge, and culture.'
When I go to the Symphony, and listen to "Pictures at an Exhibition", I'm voluntarily paying to listen to a piece that I probably have half a dozen copies of already.
Is the logic here that the symphony isn't culture, or that it's not art, or that it's not civilized?
As I recall SL sits in the background and alerts (icon bounces or changes color, depending on the OS) when you have a message. Have you actually tried this, or are you just assuming that it doesn't work?
Jesus christ, you're comparing stuff like Second life and Habbo Hotel and claiming they're the same thing.
It's not like "MCI Mail" and "SMTP" are the same thing either.
Actually, their business model was based entirely on creating a unique and brilliant piece of software and selling it for millions.
Just because software is brilliant and unique doesn't mean it will sell for millions.
Business models aren't based on making a better mousetrap, they're based on finding use cases that are so compelling that people buy them.
The primary use case for Napster was "unauthorised sharing of copyrighted files". The role that Napster themselves played was acting as the go-between. That was why people paid money for the program, not because it was an efficient file transfer tool, but because it gave them plausible deniability while they shared ripped tracks... and Napster thought it gave THEM plausible deniability too because their servers were just getting traders together, not hosting any files.
There's Second Life and OpenSim and Lively and There and IMVU and ActiveWorlds and HiPiHi and Habbo Hotel and ...
It's a mess.
You're saying, it sounds like, that the ad-hoc system that (I suppose) only geeks can understand is useless for business because it's too complex and people don't spend money in it. Like Internet Mail was, because unlike MCI Mail and Compuserve Mail, it was too complex and there was no way to charge people for it.
Which is why my email address is still "c=us/o=compuserve/ou=cis/id=70216,1076".
Is there any actual animation (can you make Emily blow a kiss, stand up, do something the actor didn't do), or is this just fancy rotoscoping?
Microsoft also replaced the BSD TCP stack, but they kept the same userland commands. They already had a different config command (ipconfig instead of ifconfig)... probably because they had to rewrite that to cooperate with their netbios and other stacks, but ...
Here's a message I posted in 1991 bemoaning the lack of business interest in the Internet, in particular Compuserve's lack of telnet access:
70216,1076 was my real CIS ID. We were all a bit naive back then. :)
Yes, you had gopher, and FTP, and Finger. You had BBS systems. You had Compuserve and other online services that were totally dominating in the search for a business model: I was paying $60 a month for a news clipping service called NewsNet in 1984, and Compuserve came up with something similar and I dropped it.
The only non-centralized system that had any business interest was email.
Email was a huge mess: there were at least 30 competing email systems... it was the only network protocol that business really saw a need for, and evereyone "just knew" that email was going to settle down into this X.400 based protocol that the big boys like MCI Mail were using, because X.400 had all the hooks to get your email where you needed it to be, no matter what the network, and more important it had *billing* built in, so you didn't have to worry about who was going to pay for it all. People really worried about where the money to pay for this stuff was coming from. There were three competing grassroots mail protocols: ARPAnet mail (SMTP) and UUCP mail and a BBS network called Fidonet that was kind of UUCP-lite. To send mail to someone you had to come up with addresses like "this!that!arpagate!c=us/o=mcimail/id=whatever%mci-gateway@x400-gateway", and the way you entered an address depended on where you started. Even in @-land you had ARPAnet (user@cs.university.stuff) vs JANET (user@uk.stuff.cs). Business looked at that and went to MCI or Compuserve and got an address and printed stuff like "c:us, o:mcimail, id:bigboss" on their business cards if they were REALLY trendy.
But that internet stuff? That's for academics. It'd never be useful for business.
Seriously, what are they going to do on Second life?
Second Life now? Second life in five or ten years? Some descendent of OpenSim in five or ten years? You're looking at the equivalent of the Internet in the late '80s and early '90s, when the only browser available required a NeXT workstation, and asking why there isn't a Google yet.
That's because the Linux folks were worried about the pending USG/CSRG lawsuit so they reimplemented TCP instead of using the BSD TCP stack and utilities like almost everyone else (including Microsoft) did.
Just about any non-Linux UNIX implementation is going to have the BSD TCP.
On the upside the lawsuit did set SCO up the bomb. Oh, it wasn't the only thing by any means (did they actually do ANYTHING right in that lawsuit?), but one of the side effects of the USG/CSRG lawsuit was that a lot of early UNIX code code was open-sourced. Including some of the SCO claimed were examples of "infringing code" in Linux. Come on, folks, wasn't it great to have Dennis Ritchie himself point that out?
Wouldn't a chatroom on the show's website offer an easier way to communicate? (As it lowers the barrier to entry and is more efficient with regards to multitasking).
In what way is a "chatroom" more efficient with regards to multitasking? I'm not sure I get this one. What kinds of things are you thinking of?
They don't need to attack Wine and Samba, and they probably don't need to attack Mono. So long as they're implementations of protocols they control, they can always Gates them to death if they need to.
There's a reason companies like NetApp are licensing Microsoft's SMB implementation rather than using Samba... they get to see the extensions before they're embraced-and-extended.
Nothing, it isn't exploitable by corporations [...]
That's yet to be determined. There have been a number of corporations that have done some really dumb things in SL... like expecting people to pay for a box textured to look like an MP3 player or PC... and turned around and thrown their hands up. That just means that they haven't figured it out yet.
The same kinds of comments were made about the web in the early days. It's useless. People don't get it. Corporations can't succeed. It's only for porn. You know the stuff. Look at this thread for example.
Poor Victor Deeb should have put away those icky chemicals and built a fusion reactor instead.
I'm talking about the one where someone shot Kirk with a "web bullet", a particularly nasty weapon that extended a kind of fungal growth through his entire body causing a slow agonizing death. I believe it was by Diane Duane... at any rate I was told the author claimed that scene was the most satisfying one she'd ever written.
I bought the book, and was not terribly surprised and only a little disappointed to learn that Spock had to go back in time to save the universe (again) and only incidentally prevent Kirk from getting shot.
You're supposed to notice. But you're supposed to *think* about it. Glad to see the slashjerk effect is still alive.
Amusing as "the laws of toon robotics"* may be, they are intended as a joke. I don't think that appending "unless it is funny" to ones actions changes them from being wrong to being right.
Now, on the other hand, it is possible that you've found a gray area. Certainly they exist. And there are also undoubtedly areas where the labels do wonderful work for their artists, and the RIAA's actions are entirely reasonable and justified. In fact I suspect that the balance of such exceptions on the side of the music industry, but I wouldn't quibble about them in the RIAA's favor any more than I would quibble about them in *ster's favor. There's a reason that exceptions are *called* exceptions, after all.
* The laws of toon robotics:
First Law. A robot must not embarrass a human or through inaction allow a human to be embarrassed, unless it is funny.
Second Law. A robot must provide any straight lines or other schtick requested by a human, except when this violates the first law, unless it is funny.
Third Law. A robot must maintain its patter and promote its own schtick, except when this violates the first or second laws, unless it is funny.
Napster's business model was morally equivalent to that of a fence. Their income was based entirely on promoting illegal activities.
How is Psystar the bad guys?
Because the result of Psystar's actions will be bad for their customers and Apple's customers alike, and benefit nobody, and if you can't see why then I'm not going to explain it again.
PS: that should be "How are Psystar the bad guys?" or "How is Psystar a bad guy?".
Hey, this one only said *35%* of the PCs were being downgraded.
The last one quoted *over half* the business laptops.
Be grateful for small favors.
Windows XP Service Pack 3 (SP3), the update scheduled to be released next year, runs Microsoft Corp.'s Office suite 10% faster than XP SP2, a performance testing software developer reported Friday.
Just wait, it'll be delayed or have additional "security fixes" that slow it down by 11%.
Where "ripping off artists to make sure they don't get paid is okay" as long as you've got them to sign some kind of contract, however convoluted, because of course all musicians are expert contract lawyers AND are negotiating on a level playing field.
Get this through your head: there are very few good guys.
Napster were bad guys (and the fact that there's still a "Napster" in any form gives me a bad taste in my mouth).
The labels are the bad guys.
People sourcing ripped torrents are the bad guys.
The RIAA are the bad guys.
People illegally posting copyrighted binaries to Usenet are the bad guys.
The judges who let the RIAA get away with it are the bad guys.
Psystar are bad guys.
Pointing out that one set of bad guys are bad guys doesn't mean that another set of bad guys are good guys.