Well, it's pretty handy when used in combination with dosemu, as it allows distros to ship a fully functioning DOS box on Linux without requiring non-free software.
For some things subliminal messages can work. For others, it is well-known to be completely ineffective.
Yeah, it's a pity that Vicary actually falsified the results of his now-infamous theatre experiment. Futhermore, I challenge you to provide any real evidence of a controlled, repeated study in which subliminal advertising was actually proven to work. My guess, you can't.
We've had a net neutral Internet for 30 years. I think we know how it's going to net out in that situation
LOL, you honestly think the net of today is the same net of 30 years ago? Consumers are using more and more bandwidth. The ISPs overpromised and are now underdelivering. Something has to give. This is a *new* phenomenon because, like, stuff changes, believe it or not.
So, the ISPs have two options: charge customers more, or find alternate revenue streams. Option 1 == neutral network. Option 2 == non-neutral network. It's unclear which one, in the end, is cheaper for the end-user.
But, hey, god forbid you should realize that we live in a changing world with changing economics. It's a lot easier to put your head in the sand and assume that the last 30 years will be the same as the next 30, isn't it?
Because what you missed is that grandparent comment claimed that net neutrality and non-net neutrality were on equal footing and there was no way to determine how either of them turned out.
No, the GP said that a neutral and non-neutral net are on equal footing, because we have no way to determine how either will work out, in terms of cost to the consumer. And the GP is absolutely correct. It may be that a neutral internet will ultimately cost more in direct fees to the subscriber, in order to offset steadily increasing consumer bandwidth use. Or it may be that a non-neutral internet will result in greater hidden costs to the end-user. But, the point is, *we don't know* "how market forces would net out in either situation".
This isn't a "minor issue", this is turning the most experienced, and often wisest segment of our population into second class citizens.
And this is new? In the western world, we take the most experienced, and often wisest segment of our population and throw them into rest homes because we're too damned lazy/selfish to take care of them ourselves. This is just the continuing of a trend... in our culture, the elderly are considered a useless, incompetant burden on the young. It should be amusing to see how we handle the baby-boomers as they enter their 70s and 80s...
As more and more customers shift to obtaining things like entertainment content and voice/video communications capability from internet-based services, the less customers will patronize cable and telephone operators in their traditional markets.
Actually, the *real* reason they're pushing to charge content providers is related to this point, but tangential to your argument. It's quite simple, really: ISPs, due to competition, have bunch forced to *significantly* over-promise bandwidth while generally under-delivering. This keeps subscription rates down, but the ISP does this expecting the user will only consume a fraction of their promised bandwidth at any given moment.
Fast-foward to today. People are moving a *lot* more data than the ISPs ever expected them to. Things like Bittorrent are a significant thorn in their sides because users aren't just downloading massive amounts of data, they're uploading too, and they're doing it 24/7. Suddenly the ISPs over-allocated networks are being strained, and users are not getting the service they've payed for.
Now, in order to solve this problem, ISPs need to build more network. In order to pay for it, they must either raise subscription rates (thus destroying their business... subs are the bread and butter of the ISP business), pull in more subscribers (which exacerbates the problem), or search for "alternative revenue streams". And this brings us to Net Neutrality.
Plain and simply, this is an attempt by ISPs to subsidize their overtaxed networks by charging the content providers. This allows them to pull in more revenue while making it appear to the user that their subscription rates are steady, or perhaps even declining. Of course, there may be hidden costs that ultimately make it down to the consumer, but the ISP obviously doesn't give a damn, because if it doesn't appear on their monthly statement, the consumers won't notice.
So, ultimately, this has all been caused by a race to the bottom by ISPs, who never expected their users would actually *use* the service they've been promised. Can I blame them for their actions? No. Any ISP that charged higher rates or advertised lower bandwidth caps would be pushed out of the market by less honest operators. Do I have any idea what a decent solution to this problem is? Unfortunately, no.
This would be called "muddying the waters", and is a tried and true way to win a public debate. Leave the people scared and confused about their (personal safety|finances|future), and then propose a solution that seems to solve the aforementioned problem. No amount of reasoned debate can compete.
Just look at how the US government managed to turn the search for Osama into the War on Iraq. Why are we suprised corporations are using the same tactics?
The Internet has practiced net neutrality since its inception. Why do you suggest that one can only guess how it will play out? It's playing out just fine right now and has been doing so since the beginning.
Because, since it's inception, no ISP has seriously considered the idea of charging content distributors an extra fee for using their wires. Thus, we have no idea how this will pan out.
In the end, not having net neutrality also means higher costs financially and social fabric of society
Nice to see you eventually addressed the GPs point. Unfortunately, it's pretty clear the GP isn't refering to the "social cost" of net neutrality, which is what the bulk of your rant covers, and your treatment of the financial cost comes to down "no, it's higher!".
Unfortunately, the GP is right. It's unclear if the financial cost would end up as a net positive for the consumer. Perhaps the ISPs would shift some of their cost onto giants like Google while continuing to push down subscription rates. I doubt it, but it's possible. And thus, as the GP rightly points out, it isn't a "blatant lie" to suggest it could work out this way.
Of course you can edit the same buffer in multiple frames.:) It would seem rather silly, otherwise. In fact, by default, when you do a window split with ^W-(s|v), it presents the same buffer in both frames. As for the other commands:
I'm not sure I understand. Aren't those the Ctrl-x 2/3/o commands in Emacs that I provided equivalents for? They allow you to split the screen horizontally, vertically, or various combinations thereof, and you use the buffer commands when you want to switch the buffer for a given window.
So, I guess the answer is yes, though I thought I covered that before.:)
No, it's not. It's fragile, drains battery life, and introduces load times that pretty well defeat the purpose of having a portable: so you can easily open it up and play for 10 or 20 minutes. It's only advantage is cost, and given the price of PSP games versus the DS, those savings aren't being passed on to the consumer, so who cares?
The PS1 went from no thumbsticks to 2 during its lifespan,
Yes, but the difference (which seems so obvious I don't know why I need to point it out) is that you can buy a new controller for your Playstation if you want to play a newer game. The same is clearly not true for the PSP.
Re:Whoever modded parent 'flamebait' is full of it
on
The Future of NetBSD
·
· Score: 1
The GPL is one of the most important aspects of the success of the Linux revolution.
If you think the GPL is the *reason* Linux, the kernel, is successful, you're an idiot. The furthering of the GPL is an interesting *consequence* of Linux's success, but it is most certainly not the cause.
Linux was successful because it provided a reasonable kernel with decent hardware support upon which the GNU toolchain could be used, and because it attracted developers, since it was a new interesting project headed by a guy with a strong personality and a willingness to accept help from outside. The license had very little to do with it.
Honestly, if you can provide one tiny bit of evidence that the BSD license has actively hindered xBSD kernel development, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, this is all just your usual GPL-fanaticism.
Umm... I'm not having problems with multiple sessions.:) In fact, I've found Vim's buffer/window management stuff to be largely equivalent to Emacs', in terms of power. The commands map pretty closely, actually:
Funny, I've done the same (well, I'm usually only editing a fraction of those, with the rest open so I can look stuff up... IMHO, if you find yourself actively *editing* 20 files at a time, something's wrong with how you've organized your project), and I find Vim copes pretty well. The buffer and window management stuff is pretty decent, assuming you 'set hidden' so Vim doesn't force you to save before switching. TBH, I can't see how a bunch of tabs in an IDE is better than just typing:ls, then:b<n>.
The problem, of course, is that the learning part takes several years.
Naw, it doesn't. It took me about a week to get comfortable when switching from Emacs to Vim. Another week or two to really get fluid with it using the command-set that was applicable to my work style. Sure, it could take several years to become familiar with all the features of Vim, but getting functional takes only a fraction of that time.
When a tool provides me a better view of how my program works, it's worth using.
No offense, but if you need a tool to tell you how your program works, you've got bigger problems. Even in multithreaded code, with sufficient diagnostic output, you should be able to solve any bug. In all my time as a developer, I have yet to come across a bug that can't be solved by developing a mental model of the code (usually with the help of extensive telemetry) and working through things logically.
Good god, just use Vim's buffer management functions (with 'set hidden', so you don't have to save when switching). I use screen, but managing multiple edit sessions that way is a pain, especially since you can't yank/paste across edit sessions without using screen's copy/paste functionality.
I'm not sure why people equate "nintendo" + "new input device"="casual gamers".
Probably based on a) their success with the DS in attracting new "casual gamers", and b) their stated goal of appealing to same. Whether it'll work, I don't know, but we'll see.
A casual game is a SIMPLE game that people KNOW - input doesn't really factor into it
What?!? A casual game is simple in part *because* of the input scheme. The whole purpose of the Wiimote is to provide a more intuitive interface so people can just pick it up and go, rather than puzzling over if they're supposed to hit triangle or square in order to perform action X.
I won't address the other stuff since I think we can agree it's a dead horse that's been thoroughly beaten, so we'll just agree to disagree:), but I can answer this:
Are you a Nintendo fanboy? I ask because your reply really makes it like you are.:P
Disclaimer: I am biased (see my profile), but I'm a gamer first and foremost. I love my DS (and for a long time, I was a Nintendo fanboy, during the SNES/N64 era), play a ton of PS2 games (mostly due to my love of RPGs), and there are a number of 360 games that I enjoy (most recent is Dead Rising), so I consider myself pretty platform agnostic. Now that said, here's my response.
Oddly enough, no, I'm not. When I was a kid, we had a Mastersystem, followed by a Genesis. After that, I went console-less for *years*, until a year or so ago my wife picked up a used PS2 for my b-day, and even that was only purchased so we could play DDR. Since then, the only games I picked up for it are GTA, which I never play, and Spiderman 2, which I must admit is a really fantastic game.
On the PC, the last game I played regularly was probably Quake, primarily online in TF tournaments. But those days are *long* gone.
The point is, the videogame industry left me behind long ago. As the 16-bit era passed, game publishers became increasingly focused on unoriginal FPSs, RPGs, simulations of various types, and various crap with "mature content", leaving people like me out in the cold. That is, until I picked up my DS.
Since then, I've bought a bunch of titles, and have been playing videogames more than I have in *years*. And why? Because they're *fun*, damnit! They're focused on gameplay, rather than flashy visuals and gratuitous violence and low-polygon boobs in skimpy clothing. And they let me play in short bursts, rather than requiring hundreds of hours of steady attention (the 30 or so hours I've put into S2 is an oddity for me).
So, for me, the Wii looks like a dream come true! Finally, here we might have a console focused on enjoyable gameplay targeting individuals like myself, with a nice, simplified control scheme (I hate hate HATE modern console controllers), and to top it off, access to all those old titles I played as a kid (and continue to enjoy on emulators).
So maybe I am a bit of a fanboy... a born-again fanboy, if you will. Will I end up disappointed? Knowing my luck, probably. But I sure hope not.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's pretty handy when used in combination with dosemu, as it allows distros to ship a fully functioning DOS box on Linux without requiring non-free software.
For some things subliminal messages can work. For others, it is well-known to be completely ineffective.
Yeah, it's a pity that Vicary actually falsified the results of his now-infamous theatre experiment. Futhermore, I challenge you to provide any real evidence of a controlled, repeated study in which subliminal advertising was actually proven to work. My guess, you can't.
or they change their business model,
Umm... isn't that exactly what they're trying to do?
We've had a net neutral Internet for 30 years. I think we know how it's going to net out in that situation
LOL, you honestly think the net of today is the same net of 30 years ago? Consumers are using more and more bandwidth. The ISPs overpromised and are now underdelivering. Something has to give. This is a *new* phenomenon because, like, stuff changes, believe it or not.
So, the ISPs have two options: charge customers more, or find alternate revenue streams. Option 1 == neutral network. Option 2 == non-neutral network. It's unclear which one, in the end, is cheaper for the end-user.
But, hey, god forbid you should realize that we live in a changing world with changing economics. It's a lot easier to put your head in the sand and assume that the last 30 years will be the same as the next 30, isn't it?
Because what you missed is that grandparent comment claimed that net neutrality and non-net neutrality were on equal footing and there was no way to determine how either of them turned out.
No, the GP said that a neutral and non-neutral net are on equal footing, because we have no way to determine how either will work out, in terms of cost to the consumer. And the GP is absolutely correct. It may be that a neutral internet will ultimately cost more in direct fees to the subscriber, in order to offset steadily increasing consumer bandwidth use. Or it may be that a non-neutral internet will result in greater hidden costs to the end-user. But, the point is, *we don't know* "how market forces would net out in either situation".
Does *that* make sense now?
This isn't a "minor issue", this is turning the most experienced, and often wisest segment of our population into second class citizens.
And this is new? In the western world, we take the most experienced, and often wisest segment of our population and throw them into rest homes because we're too damned lazy/selfish to take care of them ourselves. This is just the continuing of a trend... in our culture, the elderly are considered a useless, incompetant burden on the young. It should be amusing to see how we handle the baby-boomers as they enter their 70s and 80s...
As more and more customers shift to obtaining things like entertainment content and voice/video communications capability from internet-based services, the less customers will patronize cable and telephone operators in their traditional markets.
Actually, the *real* reason they're pushing to charge content providers is related to this point, but tangential to your argument. It's quite simple, really: ISPs, due to competition, have bunch forced to *significantly* over-promise bandwidth while generally under-delivering. This keeps subscription rates down, but the ISP does this expecting the user will only consume a fraction of their promised bandwidth at any given moment.
Fast-foward to today. People are moving a *lot* more data than the ISPs ever expected them to. Things like Bittorrent are a significant thorn in their sides because users aren't just downloading massive amounts of data, they're uploading too, and they're doing it 24/7. Suddenly the ISPs over-allocated networks are being strained, and users are not getting the service they've payed for.
Now, in order to solve this problem, ISPs need to build more network. In order to pay for it, they must either raise subscription rates (thus destroying their business... subs are the bread and butter of the ISP business), pull in more subscribers (which exacerbates the problem), or search for "alternative revenue streams". And this brings us to Net Neutrality.
Plain and simply, this is an attempt by ISPs to subsidize their overtaxed networks by charging the content providers. This allows them to pull in more revenue while making it appear to the user that their subscription rates are steady, or perhaps even declining. Of course, there may be hidden costs that ultimately make it down to the consumer, but the ISP obviously doesn't give a damn, because if it doesn't appear on their monthly statement, the consumers won't notice.
So, ultimately, this has all been caused by a race to the bottom by ISPs, who never expected their users would actually *use* the service they've been promised. Can I blame them for their actions? No. Any ISP that charged higher rates or advertised lower bandwidth caps would be pushed out of the market by less honest operators. Do I have any idea what a decent solution to this problem is? Unfortunately, no.
This would be called "muddying the waters", and is a tried and true way to win a public debate. Leave the people scared and confused about their (personal safety|finances|future), and then propose a solution that seems to solve the aforementioned problem. No amount of reasoned debate can compete.
Just look at how the US government managed to turn the search for Osama into the War on Iraq. Why are we suprised corporations are using the same tactics?
The Internet has practiced net neutrality since its inception. Why do you suggest that one can only guess how it will play out? It's playing out just fine right now and has been doing so since the beginning.
Because, since it's inception, no ISP has seriously considered the idea of charging content distributors an extra fee for using their wires. Thus, we have no idea how this will pan out.
Does it make sense now?
In the end, not having net neutrality also means higher costs financially and social fabric of society
Nice to see you eventually addressed the GPs point. Unfortunately, it's pretty clear the GP isn't refering to the "social cost" of net neutrality, which is what the bulk of your rant covers, and your treatment of the financial cost comes to down "no, it's higher!".
Unfortunately, the GP is right. It's unclear if the financial cost would end up as a net positive for the consumer. Perhaps the ISPs would shift some of their cost onto giants like Google while continuing to push down subscription rates. I doubt it, but it's possible. And thus, as the GP rightly points out, it isn't a "blatant lie" to suggest it could work out this way.
Yeah, but then Lockheed won't get it's requisite amount of pork, and what fun is that?
Of course you can edit the same buffer in multiple frames. :) It would seem rather silly, otherwise. In fact, by default, when you do a window split with ^W-(s|v), it presents the same buffer in both frames. As for the other commands:
:)
Ctrl-x 0 - Ctrl-w c
Ctrl-x 1 - Ctrl-w o
Anything else?
I'm not sure I understand. Aren't those the Ctrl-x 2/3/o commands in Emacs that I provided equivalents for? They allow you to split the screen horizontally, vertically, or various combinations thereof, and you use the buffer commands when you want to switch the buffer for a given window.
:)
So, I guess the answer is yes, though I thought I covered that before.
but its sufficient for game distribution,
No, it's not. It's fragile, drains battery life, and introduces load times that pretty well defeat the purpose of having a portable: so you can easily open it up and play for 10 or 20 minutes. It's only advantage is cost, and given the price of PSP games versus the DS, those savings aren't being passed on to the consumer, so who cares?
The PS1 went from no thumbsticks to 2 during its lifespan,
Yes, but the difference (which seems so obvious I don't know why I need to point it out) is that you can buy a new controller for your Playstation if you want to play a newer game. The same is clearly not true for the PSP.
The GPL is one of the most important aspects of the success of the Linux revolution.
If you think the GPL is the *reason* Linux, the kernel, is successful, you're an idiot. The furthering of the GPL is an interesting *consequence* of Linux's success, but it is most certainly not the cause.
Linux was successful because it provided a reasonable kernel with decent hardware support upon which the GNU toolchain could be used, and because it attracted developers, since it was a new interesting project headed by a guy with a strong personality and a willingness to accept help from outside. The license had very little to do with it.
Honestly, if you can provide one tiny bit of evidence that the BSD license has actively hindered xBSD kernel development, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, this is all just your usual GPL-fanaticism.
If you'd ever worked in a real office, you'd realize this is basically par for the course when it comes to developers.
Umm... I'm not having problems with multiple sessions. :) In fact, I've found Vim's buffer/window management stuff to be largely equivalent to Emacs', in terms of power. The commands map pretty closely, actually:
:ls :b<n> :b#
Ctrl-x Ctrl-b -
Ctrl-x b<name> -
Ctrl-x b<enter> -
Ctrl-x 2 - Ctrl-w s
Ctrl-x 3 - Ctrl-w v
Ctrl-x o - Ctrl-w w
Funny, I've done the same (well, I'm usually only editing a fraction of those, with the rest open so I can look stuff up... IMHO, if you find yourself actively *editing* 20 files at a time, something's wrong with how you've organized your project), and I find Vim copes pretty well. The buffer and window management stuff is pretty decent, assuming you 'set hidden' so Vim doesn't force you to save before switching. TBH, I can't see how a bunch of tabs in an IDE is better than just typing :ls, then :b<n>.
The problem, of course, is that the learning part takes several years.
Naw, it doesn't. It took me about a week to get comfortable when switching from Emacs to Vim. Another week or two to really get fluid with it using the command-set that was applicable to my work style. Sure, it could take several years to become familiar with all the features of Vim, but getting functional takes only a fraction of that time.
When a tool provides me a better view of how my program works, it's worth using.
No offense, but if you need a tool to tell you how your program works, you've got bigger problems. Even in multithreaded code, with sufficient diagnostic output, you should be able to solve any bug. In all my time as a developer, I have yet to come across a bug that can't be solved by developing a mental model of the code (usually with the help of extensive telemetry) and working through things logically.
Good god, just use Vim's buffer management functions (with 'set hidden', so you don't have to save when switching). I use screen, but managing multiple edit sessions that way is a pain, especially since you can't yank/paste across edit sessions without using screen's copy/paste functionality.
I'm not sure why people equate "nintendo" + "new input device"="casual gamers".
Probably based on a) their success with the DS in attracting new "casual gamers", and b) their stated goal of appealing to same. Whether it'll work, I don't know, but we'll see.
A casual game is a SIMPLE game that people KNOW - input doesn't really factor into it
What?!? A casual game is simple in part *because* of the input scheme. The whole purpose of the Wiimote is to provide a more intuitive interface so people can just pick it up and go, rather than puzzling over if they're supposed to hit triangle or square in order to perform action X.
I won't address the other stuff since I think we can agree it's a dead horse that's been thoroughly beaten, so we'll just agree to disagree :), but I can answer this:
:P
:)
Are you a Nintendo fanboy? I ask because your reply really makes it like you are.
Disclaimer: I am biased (see my profile), but I'm a gamer first and foremost. I love my DS (and for a long time, I was a Nintendo fanboy, during the SNES/N64 era), play a ton of PS2 games (mostly due to my love of RPGs), and there are a number of 360 games that I enjoy (most recent is Dead Rising), so I consider myself pretty platform agnostic. Now that said, here's my response.
Oddly enough, no, I'm not. When I was a kid, we had a Mastersystem, followed by a Genesis. After that, I went console-less for *years*, until a year or so ago my wife picked up a used PS2 for my b-day, and even that was only purchased so we could play DDR. Since then, the only games I picked up for it are GTA, which I never play, and Spiderman 2, which I must admit is a really fantastic game.
On the PC, the last game I played regularly was probably Quake, primarily online in TF tournaments. But those days are *long* gone.
The point is, the videogame industry left me behind long ago. As the 16-bit era passed, game publishers became increasingly focused on unoriginal FPSs, RPGs, simulations of various types, and various crap with "mature content", leaving people like me out in the cold. That is, until I picked up my DS.
Since then, I've bought a bunch of titles, and have been playing videogames more than I have in *years*. And why? Because they're *fun*, damnit! They're focused on gameplay, rather than flashy visuals and gratuitous violence and low-polygon boobs in skimpy clothing. And they let me play in short bursts, rather than requiring hundreds of hours of steady attention (the 30 or so hours I've put into S2 is an oddity for me).
So, for me, the Wii looks like a dream come true! Finally, here we might have a console focused on enjoyable gameplay targeting individuals like myself, with a nice, simplified control scheme (I hate hate HATE modern console controllers), and to top it off, access to all those old titles I played as a kid (and continue to enjoy on emulators).
So maybe I am a bit of a fanboy... a born-again fanboy, if you will. Will I end up disappointed? Knowing my luck, probably. But I sure hope not.
We do know that many violent sex fiends started with looking at violent pornography.
'know'? You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.