At my old HS they were runnint Novel Netware with one of those butt ugly login screens. All of the student accounts were locked down to a rediculesly low 500K of storage. I "needed" more ( to install wolfenstein ) so I wrote a pascal app that looked "just" like the novel login screen that logged usernames and passwords. Then would give a cookie.."wrong password" message and show the real loing screen.
After a week of going in just after class and starting it on every pc in the lab I had all of the privlidged account passwords.
The main reason for using 32 bit color is for multi pass rendering. The eye can't see the 32 bits of color. BUT when you do several transforms on a 32 bit image, (Such as blends, color mixes, etc) there is always errors that are being inroduced into the image. After several passes of such operations using 16 bit color the image quality is severly impacted.
At 32 bit color depth the impact is signifigantly smaller. ( A lot of people like John Carmack are urging for even HIGHER color depths so that the image errors are reduced even more so ).
As far as framerate:
Most framerates mentioned are PEAK rates. You might get 210 FPS when staring at a wall (and thus most geometry has been remved by the game engine) but in a fire fight that frame rate may drop to 30 fps.
A lot of people say that 30 is enough.. but frankly I can "feel" the flicker in flourescent lights ( That operate at 60Hz ) The higher the fps the smoother the game feels. And even though you may not be able to emperically measure the differance between 100 to 120 fps for some reasonj it just "feels" better.
The GPL FORCES external contribution. This IMHO is awesome for projects that want to progress ahead VERY quickly. With the GPL you release your code for FREE as in SPEECH, but not as in BEER. Because you ARE requesting a payment, anyone that modifies your code is required to give the modificatons back to you. There fore you "profit" from the GPL. ( I use the term "profit" lightly here )
If you really want to release your source for "free" as in BEER and SPEECH you should use the BSD License. With this license the user of your source can do anything they want with it. Including making money of YOUR work, and not giving you anything back. That's the FREE BEER part.
IMHO, if you are developing a product to compete with someone like MS your best bet is to use the GPL because it prevents MS from subverting your code. If they want to use YOUR code, they HAVE to give something back to you. The GPL FORCES cooperation. However it is not co-orced, MS can ALWAYS choose to write their own code.
On the other hand if you are trying to establish an industry standard, your best bet is the BSD License.. because other companies use closed source projects, and they will not be willing to "infest" their closed source projects with GPL source.
gTv: which is used in quake3 matches these days to do the same thing, runs on a 10 min delay. ( I believe the delay is adjustable, but 10 min is pretty standard since matches usually run 20 min)
The main reason for this was "spectator" cheating. All top clans these days use voice communications (RogerWilco, Battlecom, etc) so it's a MUST to run with a delay.
From the sound of the article Valve is just taking the gTv concept a bit further providing Multicasting, instead of the connection based method that gTv uses.
Notice however that his statement of 100% utilization was accompanied by "I track its performance and I can assure you that it has not ever slipped into the throttling"
He is not saing that he expected the cpu utilization to drop top 50%, He is saing that he is running his apps at 100% cpu utilization and didn't notice any performance drop.. meaning that his cpu never kicked into the throttle mode. This 100% is meant to say that he is STRESSING his cpu.
I watch FOX news to get the conservative view point then switch to cnn for the liberal one. It's actually quite ammusing how much spin every news network puts on THE SAME news.
This is the real reason people don't watch the news. The damn reporters are BIASED. Every report they do has their own underlieing bias in it. It's actually quite amusing and sad to watch at the same time. What ever happaned to give me the news and I'll decide?
1. If he writes it during work hours he WON'T use it in his "own time" projects.
2. And if he writes it in his "own time" the employer has NO RIGHT to it.
I fully support that idea. What you are sugesting is that if I am say a woodworker. (I carve statues,figurines whatever for the company I work for and they sell them) If I go home and over the weekend with my own tools carve out a magnificent work of art and sell on ebay the company ACTUALLY owns it and I should give any earnings to said company. That is BS.
He is NOT being a bad employee because he rewrites something from scratch that he has handy access to because he already did it at home. He doesn't want the company owning the original version (which is HIS IP). Hey if a company told me yeah bring in the old stuff you did and it'll stay your IP I bet he would. The problem is a lot of companies seem to think they own everything you do. Whether its on their time (where they are right in thinking so) or if you do it on your own time. (In which case they can kiss my arse because it's MINE noth theirs, as long as I have not stollen or used anything that's their IP)
I thought America was about CHOICE and FREEDOM for the individuals. NOT large companies striving to own everything in sight and extracting every penny from us. Wasn't that what the Boston Tea incident was all about?
Besides That OS gives me freedom. I write software for a living. I CHOOSE to release source that I write. I also CHOOSE NOT to release some of my source. But in the end I have the choice.
Sure they can say the GPL forces me to release source. But it does NOT force me to use GPL code in my applications. If i do it clean room style I DON'T have to release any source. But I CAN if I want. That's CHOICE and FREEDOM.
The OS movement is NOT forcing Microsoft to release their source code. What MS is really afraid of is that they can't go off and pattent everyting under the sun because OS provides prior art. It also ERASES their IP. Because if an OS developer releases some code clean room that does exactly what MS code does.. they loose that "We have it and no one else does" selling point. So what?
Is MS affraid of some competition?
Moreover. They keep saing how Linux and the whole OS movement isn't worth squat. So why are they coming out and trying to BAN it? This coming from a company that gives away products to force their competitors out of the marketplace. Bunch of hypocrites if u ask me.
I'm not sure which camera angle you saw it from, but most of the LA game I watched was done from a "behind and above the qb" view. A nice change of pace as you could kindof picture what the qb saw.
It would be really nice if they threw in a couple of plays from the QB helmet cam. Just so you could get a feel what he's seeing.
Re:Small niggle with the article
on
2.2 vs 2.4
·
· Score: 2
Well in that case let's digest FURTHER. Perhaps the problem is that yer comments aren't exactly that clear.
First Off: I'm getting the data to the cache from the media, as I've tried to make clear with: "disk -> cache" (assuming that one enables the read cache on the drive), since bursting from the cache (as I was saying) gives the highest possible channel speed.
Ok so if on a UDMA100 controler I can get data from a Solid State drive at 80-90MB sec.. that means my channel can sustain up to 90MB/sec.
If the drive can sustain 40MB/sec thus drive->cache->controler->PC Memory can sustain 40MB/sec.
Therefor your original comment about:
Peak media transfer rate != channel rate... Just because you can get the data to the drive cache that quickly doesn't mean you can pump it over the channel that fast.
Is, like I have stated previously, incorrect. You are always bottlenecked by the slowest component. Which is infact the drive.
Next Up:
But I said (note the new emphasis):
"Well, using my Adaptec 2940-UW, and ***a couple*** of 2-3 yr old (maybe a generation ago, if you like) UW drives (10krpm 9GB, 7200 RPM 18GB) I can do 33-35MB/s at about 4-6% util"
Ok now. If we are to compare apples to apples I can take a "couple" of 2-3 year old IDE drives and ALSO get 33-35 MB sec. (Raid 0 - Striped across 2+ IDE drives) Apples to Apples.
And Finally:
ATA specification is infact a subset of SCSI. ATA was never intended to be used with tape drives, scanners,printers, etc. ATA is a simplified technology and command set for random access block devices only. ( Disks,cdroms,etc ) Heck look at the supported commands and their HEX values.. they are the same as SCSI. And Simple is not always worse. It is true that 5-6 year old IDE controler implemetations were frankly crap.. this is not the case today. As with all things in the technology where there is harsh competition the products released improve in quality tremedeously from generation to generation.
BTW, the areal density on the biggest SCSI drives isn't any different than that of the big IDE drives right now.
Please prove me wrong by showing me a 7200RPM (or faster) SCSI Drive that I can purchase today with a platter density of 20GB/platter or more. The one such IDE drive is the Western Digital Caviar WD400BB.
The reason you can't is because there isn't any. SCSI drives sacrifice capacity for performance. The lower platter density allows SCSI drives that 5ms access time. The other reason is because IDE drive manufactureres are in a Capacity war. SCSI vendors are in a accestime war. 2 different requirements yielding 2 different results. IDE == high capacity/ high acces time. SCSI == low capacity / low acces time. Each has their use.
Re:Small niggle with the article
on
2.2 vs 2.4
·
· Score: 2
I shouldn't bother repling this late in the game. BUT I hate to see ignorant posts.
UDMA100 channel is capable of up to 100MB/sec. We've actually tested various UDMA 100 controlers on a RAM IDE drives. (Where storage was to NVRAM not a platter) And we've seen sustained transfer rates of up to 70-92 MB/sec (depending on the IDE controler) Yes 92MB/sec. What does this mean? Well when the data goes from the media->drive cache->cable it's capable of going at the same speed as data coming of the drive. Your limiting speed is the media read/write speed.
Sure if you are using a 40MB/sec drive on a UDMA 33 channel you're limiting factor will be the IDE channel. But that's like using a UW drive on a SCSI 1 controler. Same issues.
Ok Driver isssues? Exactly what driver issues are you refering too? The only drivers you need for IDE are for the controller and only if u want to use the high performance features of SOME manufacturers. (Same as with SCSI or are you trying to tell me I don't need the Adaptec 2940 etc SCSI driver to use a scsi drive? )
As far as this sentance (your quote):
because I said: "Just because you can get the
data to the drive cache that quickly doesn't mean you can pump it over the channel that fast... ie the speed of the channel. 33/66/or 100 MB/sec (UDMA33/66/100)"
"Just because you can get data to the drive cache... "
Well if I get the data to the drive cache that quickly it's ALREADY traveled over the channel. Tus the speed the data arived in the cache == speed of the channel. hmm make sense? Or are you trying to convince me that data magically arives at the drive cache and THEN travels over the channel. The only way I could logically interpret that sentance was by by assuming that by channel you are refering to the read/write channel... which is the internal channel between the cache and the read/write channels ON the drive itself.
So before you argue with someone that's written drive firmware as well as debuged drive hardware please read up on disk drive design 101.
On a further note 33/66/100 are infact SUSTAINED rates.. not BURST. Often times you hear people say "you'll never see 100MB/sec with current drives except in a burst mode". What they are refering to is that since the read/write channel of the drive, (The read/write speed to the media) can't sustain 100 MB/sec (limited to about 40MB/sec right now) the only time you see 100MB/sec is during a short burst where data is being dumped to the drive cache.
However.. when the cache is full the channel speed will back off to the sustained rate of the drive. So on a drive with 2MB onboard cache the first 2 MB will BURST at 100MB/sec.. any data following that (if we are constantly streaming) will be then transfared at the to media speed of the drive, 40MB/sec in the case of the seagate drive.
This IS the same thing as puting the X15 on a UW (80MB/sec) SCSI controller. The drive will burst at 80 MB till it's cache is full, after which it will transfer at 41.5 MB/sec in the case of the X15. In otherwords the same damn principle aplies whether you are using a SCSI or an IDE drive. And by the way an 2-3 year old SCSI drive will no way in hell sustain 33-35 MB/sec as you claim. Check your numbers. Like I've said earlier the sustained transfer rate is a component of (media density)*(rpm). The current generation plater technology is now at 20MB/platter (soon to be 30) 2 years ago they were still at about 6MB. This is roughly a 2.5-3x performance increase in raw transfer rate. A 2-3 year old 7200 rpm drive is somewhere near 18-20 MB/sec at best.
Oh and BTW.. right now IDE is leading in platter density. Which also explains why a seagate 7200 RPM IDE drive has nearly the same sustained rate as their 15000rpm SCSI drive. The SCSI drive uses lower density platters. I can give you a reason for that. Because SCSI drives are optimized for high seek usage such as database or heavily loaded servers. To gain that kind of seek performance (about 1/2 that of ide drives) The have to use lower density platers to give themselves more tolerance for offtrack errors. The tracks are wider and more forgiving if a head is slightly of the center of the track.
I will stick by what I have said earlier. SCSI is a waste of your money unless you have a need for more then 4 drives in your PC or are running a heavily accessed DB or over loaded (Seek Heavy) server.
So before you flame me for not checking MY facts.. please insure you have yours strait. And please get a clue to what you are talking about. What you have said is typical "I spent a crapload of money on SCSI hardware and need to defend my decision FUD".
Re:Small niggle with the article
on
2.2 vs 2.4
·
· Score: 2
Sure if u compare apples to oranges. Which is what you are doing comparing a 15K rpm SCSI drive to a 7200RPM IDE drive. Compare two 7200RPM drives and u will see that the only thing a scsi drive has is better seek performance. For 30% more cost mind you.
And sure a 180 or 360 SCSI controller can transfer data at 180MB and/or 360MB/sec. BUT what good does that do you if as soon as the data has to go anywhere. (Network or CPU.. or your video editing software) It gets boged down by the PCI bus.
Additionaly Remeber that a SCSI drive (EVEN the XP15) CAN'T transfer data to it's media at even close to 360MB/sec. Sure some day the drives will hit 360MB/sec to the media.. but by then the 32Bit 33Mhz PCI bus will be long gone too.
And IDE drives will certainly keep up. The truth of the matter is that a 7200 RPM 20MB/platter IDE drive and a 7200 RPM 20MB/platter drive have nearly identical sustained transfer rates. (go to storage review and run the sort on transfer rates)
I will give SCSI that they are faster for when it comes to seeks (Most Server tasks).. but again you pay that 30%+ penalty in cost.
Additionally Max Transfer Rate Record for IDE is currently held by the Seagate Barracuda ATA III (7200RPM) at 40.5MB/sec at the OD.
Current Record Holder for SCSI is Fujitsu's MPF3xxxAH at 42.77 MB/sec. The X15 (15K RPM)weighs in at only 41.47 MB/sec.
So IDE is definetly not second chair in peak transfer rates.
The choice in the drive you buy should really depend on WHAT you are trying to do. Buying a SCSI drive for a desktop system is frankly a BIG waste of money. Hell buying a SCSI drive for a small servers is a waste of money. (instead spending the extra 30% for a SCSI drive you're better off geting more RAM for the server to use as cache instead)
The only place I'd use SCSI drives would be in servers that are under heavy load or are under constant random access patterns. (Where your read cache is being trashed constantly) Or require a lot of drives.
Re:Small niggle with the article
on
2.2 vs 2.4
·
· Score: 2
You are WRONG sir. I've worked in the HD industry for 3 YEARS. And the fact of the matter is that an IDE drive can SUSTAIN over 40MB/sec at the outer diameter. THIS IS TO THE MEDIA rate. No cache involved. Most IDE drives these days come with 2MB cache. So that if you write a 2MB file you will see peek burst rate. Ie the speed of the channel. 33/66/or 100 MB/sec (UDMA33/66/100)
However after the 1st 2MB the cache is now full and you will see the true to media data rate. Which like I've said is upwards of 40MB/sec on the outer diameter and 26+MB/sec on the inner diameter. Remeber the OD moves FASTER then the ID relative to the head. This is why the OD transfer rate is much higher.
The BS you are saying about SCSI is just that; BS and FUD. The only differance between SCSI and IDE is the protocol and controller. It's the same PHYSICAL hardware with a diff chipset. SCSI vendors would like you to believe that their SCSI drive is FASTER then everyones IDE drive but that is just NOT THE CASE. (It used to be the case but is no longer true)
SCSI is excelent for multiple devices on a chain. That's about it. (Well that and if you want to pay for that 10K rpm drive, since there is no IDE drives at 10K right now) Additionally those 180MB/sec 360MB/sec SCSI transfer rates are also misleading. For that kind of performance they require a 64Bit/66Mhz pci slot.. because otherwise you are limited to a max of 132MB/sec by your PCI bus ANYWAYS.
So before you go of and tout how SCSI creams IDE. 1st check your facts and LOOK at www.storagereview.com and compare 7200 rpm scsi and 7200 rpm IDE drives.
The problem you see with IDE drive "slowness" is because your PC does not have UDMA mode turned on. "/hdparm -d1/dev/hda" (Or compile it as default into the kernel) A current generation IDE drive running in UDMA100 mode streaming data at 35MB/sec only uses 10-15% CPU on a P2-400.
Re:Small niggle with the article
on
2.2 vs 2.4
·
· Score: 2
This is untrue. Todays IDE hard Drives top out at 40+MB/sec (YES 40 Mega BYTES per sec) at the outer diameter. This is a SUSTAINED transfer rate. At the inner diameter they hit 26+MB/Sec. So an IDE drive can indeed saturate a UDMA33 bus.
Take a look at the Baracuda ATA II and Maxtor DM+ 60 reviews at http://www.storagereview.com if you don't believe me.
Yes but to be removed from the mailing list the envelope would have to contain your name. If the envelope contained your name.. then they can sue you for breaking their equipment.
Wait a second.. I already pay my local telco $80/month for my 1.2/1 DSL line. I pay my ISP $20/month so that my DSL line can be connected to the rest of the net. Most ISP lease their lines from telcos anyhow so they are ALREADY paying telcos for the lines. So on top of what I and my ISP is paying.. now they are going to have to PAY extra if that bandwith is used for VoIP?
Actually the BIOS Memeory test does a "rough" memory test. The test itself is a bit different from one BIOS manufacturer to another, but for instance with Phoenix bios the test is as follows:
Write a pattern to ram.
Read it back. And compare to what it should be.
Write a aliasing pattern to ram.
Read it back and make sure u got what u expected.
This will catch quite a few serious memory problems. The 2 cases I saw recently were:
1. PC100 memory that wasn't quite up to par. (Droping bits randomly)
2. A friend of mine put a PC100 dimm in a mobo set for PC133 dimms. The PC100 ram worked.. almost.
In both cases the results were random lockups and application crashes. Turning on the BIOS ram test quickly identified the problem. Which was resolved by putting quality memory in the box.
These tests are only really usefull the first time you boot your box or if you are suspecting bad RAM. (It's a quick way to test for serious memory problems without having to pull out a RamChecker)
Yes, I'm quite aware that my opionion is based upon my interpretation, both from the definition of millitia AND how the 2nd ammendment is phrased.
However you are doing the same. You are assuming what the founders meant by millitia. You are assuming that their definition is that a melitia is basically a state controlled army. I on the other hand presume it means any one capable of defending their country in the time of need. ( As was the case during the revolution )
My intent was to give a counter point to the originals poster saing that his interpretation was the CORRECT one. Honestly no one will ever REALLY know what the founders intended. (we can assume all we want but we will never know)
But to refute your point about them intending millitia to be a state controlled force:
No one took or even tried to take guns away from the people after the revolutionary war. And at that time almost EVERY one had a gun. Which leads me to believe that their definitiaon of millitia was more in the direction of my interpretation.
It is interesting that you say that those that interpret the 2nd ammendment as giving them the rights to own guns as WRONG. Yet you believe that Your interpretationis obviously correct because it fits your beliefs. Open your eyes.
For every statistic you can bring up about why guns are bad. I can bring up at least one that says the opposite. But obviously MY statistics must be lies because I don't believe the same thing as you. (By you I don't mean to attack you specifically.. I'm attacking all the anti-gun people)
Let's Setup a baseline:
militia
n. Abbr. mil.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2.A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
By definition #1. the 2nd ammendment can't possibly mean that the right to own guns is restricted to the millitary, since our millitary is composed of PROFFESIONAL SOLDIERS. (Besides soldiers DO NOT OWN THEIR GUNS)
By Definition #2. This could refer to the national guard. I will give you that. BUT there WAS NO NATIONAL GUARD established by our founders. Thus it must refer to ordinary people that can help out in times of need. By this it means any citizen of the US.
By Definition #3: And I stress the whole body of physically fit civilians. Thus any civilian can and should be considered part of a millitia. Thus he has the right to own a GUN!
Now that we have established that ANY private citizen is a member of a millitia, we can see that the line the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed does in fact imply that the government can't regulate private gun ownership. Again because if by what you are saing that line refers to the militia and since anyone can be and is part of the militia that line applies to any citizen of the US.
Please don't misinterpret the meaning of millitia because this is where all the anti-gun people DO!
Needless to say I don't own a gun. I don't own one because at this time I CHOOSE not to own one. This contry is based on freedoms, and whether I believe in gun ownership or not, I believe everyone should have a CHOICE which is what anti-gun people are trying to take away!
It is well know that crime rates follow econimic trends. We are currently in the bigest economic boom this side of the 60's. Let's face it.. in the 80's the economy was in a depression. Crime rates rose as a result. Now we are in an economic boom, there is less stress in the general population.. and the crime rates are falling.
Now violance in schools.. that's a good question. Why do kids come in to school with guns and start shooting? It might have something to do with opression.
*snicker*.. sorry.. gata admit that's a heck of a "theory"
Re:It's not the broken mods that piss people off..
on
New Q3A Patch And Mods
·
· Score: 2
It was in there when the game was designed. Someone discovered that neat trick. Anyone can do it. (with practice) Who is to say that it goes against the spirit of the game?
The main disputes issues with the patch are:
1. Breaks Strafe jumping.
A lot of us play this game competatively. We spend a lot of time practicing these tricks and specializing. For instance my CTF clan has 2 extremely good strafe jumpers who are our flag runners and several amazing Railers who play D.
This brings strategy to the game.. since your Defense has to be very good to nail the other teams flag runners, since chances are u will not catch them once they are out of the base.
2. Through floor splash damage.
This is actually a VERY good quirk! It helps to discourage campers on high platforms. A good railer camping up high can take out anyone without any fear of geting killed. (Especially on maps that require jumppads to get to the platform) With through floor splash he can be "removed" from that spot by a few carefully placed rockets.
Like I said before the game was released with those quirks.. and they are changing it 9 months later. Thats years in gaming terms compared to sports. That's like after 20 years of tennis they ban slicing because somebody doesn't like it and it was an unforceen exploitation of the "real world" physics when tennis was invented. There is just something not right about that.
Slashdot Mirror
My Win2K machine:
\\HURICANE has been up for: 18 day(s), 8 hour(s), 27 minute(s), 57 second(s)
I only use this machine for gaming and coding some crossplatform apps. So it's not at all heavily used.
And compared to my linux box:
12:16am up 183 days, 3:29, 7 users,
is nothing. ( Especially since this box is used as for web,ftp and smb file serving, mp3 ripping and cdburning, as well as "some" development work.
My 2nd Linux Box has been up for 6 days now.. after several kernel oopses while coding drivers.
At my old HS they were runnint Novel Netware with one of those butt ugly login screens. All of the student accounts were locked down to a rediculesly low 500K of storage. I "needed" more ( to install wolfenstein ) so I wrote a pascal app that looked "just" like the novel login screen that logged usernames and passwords. Then would give a cookie.."wrong password" message and show the real loing screen.
After a week of going in just after class and starting it on every pc in the lab I had all of the privlidged account passwords.
As long as the option to TURN THEM ON is left to the author of the page.
The way MS has it now, "I" have to explicitly turn them OFF. It should be OFF by default.
True, but i have a monitor that can refresh at 120Hz, a 200fps (top frame rate) gurantees me that the fps almost never drop below 120. :)
32 bit color:
The main reason for using 32 bit color is for multi pass rendering. The eye can't see the 32 bits of color. BUT when you do several transforms on a 32 bit image, (Such as blends, color mixes, etc) there is always errors that are being inroduced into the image. After several passes of such operations using 16 bit color the image quality is severly impacted.
At 32 bit color depth the impact is signifigantly smaller. ( A lot of people like John Carmack are urging for even HIGHER color depths so that the image errors are reduced even more so ).
As far as framerate:
Most framerates mentioned are PEAK rates. You might get 210 FPS when staring at a wall (and thus most geometry has been remved by the game engine) but in a fire fight that frame rate may drop to 30 fps.
A lot of people say that 30 is enough.. but frankly I can "feel" the flicker in flourescent lights ( That operate at 60Hz ) The higher the fps the smoother the game feels. And even though you may not be able to emperically measure the differance between 100 to 120 fps for some reasonj it just "feels" better.
There are valid reasons to use either licenses.
The GPL FORCES external contribution. This IMHO is awesome for projects that want to progress ahead VERY quickly. With the GPL you release your code for FREE as in SPEECH, but not as in BEER. Because you ARE requesting a payment, anyone that modifies your code is required to give the modificatons back to you. There fore you "profit" from the GPL. ( I use the term "profit" lightly here )
If you really want to release your source for "free" as in BEER and SPEECH you should use the BSD License. With this license the user of your source can do anything they want with it. Including making money of YOUR work, and not giving you anything back. That's the FREE BEER part.
IMHO, if you are developing a product to compete with someone like MS your best bet is to use the GPL because it prevents MS from subverting your code. If they want to use YOUR code, they HAVE to give something back to you. The GPL FORCES cooperation. However it is not co-orced, MS can ALWAYS choose to write their own code.
On the other hand if you are trying to establish an industry standard, your best bet is the BSD License.. because other companies use closed source projects, and they will not be willing to "infest" their closed source projects with GPL source.
gTv: which is used in quake3 matches these days to do the same thing, runs on a 10 min delay. ( I believe the delay is adjustable, but 10 min is pretty standard since matches usually run 20 min)
The main reason for this was "spectator" cheating. All top clans these days use voice communications (RogerWilco, Battlecom, etc) so it's a MUST to run with a delay.
From the sound of the article Valve is just taking the gTv concept a bit further providing Multicasting, instead of the connection based method that gTv uses.
Notice however that his statement of 100% utilization was accompanied by "I track its performance and I can assure you that it has not ever slipped into the throttling"
He is not saing that he expected the cpu utilization to drop top 50%, He is saing that he is running his apps at 100% cpu utilization and didn't notice any performance drop.. meaning that his cpu never kicked into the throttle mode. This 100% is meant to say that he is STRESSING his cpu.
I watch FOX news to get the conservative view point then switch to cnn for the liberal one. It's actually quite ammusing how much spin every news network puts on THE SAME news.
This is the real reason people don't watch the news. The damn reporters are BIASED. Every report they do has their own underlieing bias in it. It's actually quite amusing and sad to watch at the same time. What ever happaned to give me the news and I'll decide?
The original poster was making the point that:
1. If he writes it during work hours he WON'T use it in his "own time" projects.
2. And if he writes it in his "own time" the employer has NO RIGHT to it.
I fully support that idea. What you are sugesting is that if I am say a woodworker. (I carve statues,figurines whatever for the company I work for and they sell them) If I go home and over the weekend with my own tools carve out a magnificent work of art and sell on ebay the company ACTUALLY owns it and I should give any earnings to said company. That is BS.
He is NOT being a bad employee because he rewrites something from scratch that he has handy access to because he already did it at home. He doesn't want the company owning the original version (which is HIS IP). Hey if a company told me yeah bring in the old stuff you did and it'll stay your IP I bet he would. The problem is a lot of companies seem to think they own everything you do. Whether its on their time (where they are right in thinking so) or if you do it on your own time. (In which case they can kiss my arse because it's MINE noth theirs, as long as I have not stollen or used anything that's their IP)
I thought America was about CHOICE and FREEDOM for the individuals. NOT large companies striving to own everything in sight and extracting every penny from us. Wasn't that what the Boston Tea incident was all about?
Besides That OS gives me freedom. I write software for a living. I CHOOSE to release source that I write. I also CHOOSE NOT to release some of my source. But in the end I have the choice.
Sure they can say the GPL forces me to release source. But it does NOT force me to use GPL code in my applications. If i do it clean room style I DON'T have to release any source. But I CAN if I want. That's CHOICE and FREEDOM.
The OS movement is NOT forcing Microsoft to release their source code. What MS is really afraid of is that they can't go off and pattent everyting under the sun because OS provides prior art. It also ERASES their IP. Because if an OS developer releases some code clean room that does exactly what MS code does.. they loose that "We have it and no one else does" selling point. So what?
Is MS affraid of some competition?
Moreover. They keep saing how Linux and the whole OS movement isn't worth squat. So why are they coming out and trying to BAN it? This coming from a company that gives away products to force their competitors out of the marketplace. Bunch of hypocrites if u ask me.
I'm not sure which camera angle you saw it from, but most of the LA game I watched was done from a "behind and above the qb" view. A nice change of pace as you could kindof picture what the qb saw.
It would be really nice if they threw in a couple of plays from the QB helmet cam. Just so you could get a feel what he's seeing.
Well in that case let's digest FURTHER. Perhaps the problem is that yer comments aren't exactly that clear.
First Off:
I'm getting the data to the cache from the media, as I've tried to make clear with: "disk -> cache" (assuming that one enables the read cache on the drive), since bursting from the cache (as I was saying) gives the highest possible channel speed.
Ok so if on a UDMA100 controler I can get data from a Solid State drive at 80-90MB sec.. that means my channel can sustain up to 90MB/sec.
If the drive can sustain 40MB/sec thus drive->cache->controler->PC Memory can sustain 40MB/sec.
Therefor your original comment about:
Peak media transfer rate != channel rate... Just because you can get the data to the drive cache that quickly doesn't mean you can pump it over the channel that fast.
Is, like I have stated previously, incorrect. You are always bottlenecked by the slowest component. Which is infact the drive.
Next Up:
But I said (note the new emphasis):
"Well, using my Adaptec 2940-UW, and ***a couple*** of 2-3 yr old (maybe a generation ago, if you like) UW drives (10krpm 9GB, 7200 RPM 18GB) I can do 33-35MB/s at about 4-6% util"
Ok now. If we are to compare apples to apples I can take a "couple" of 2-3 year old IDE drives and ALSO get 33-35 MB sec. (Raid 0 - Striped across 2+ IDE drives) Apples to Apples.
And Finally:
ATA specification is infact a subset of SCSI. ATA was never intended to be used with tape drives, scanners,printers, etc. ATA is a simplified technology and command set for random access block devices only. ( Disks,cdroms,etc ) Heck look at the supported commands and their HEX values.. they are the same as SCSI. And Simple is not always worse. It is true that 5-6 year old IDE controler implemetations were frankly crap.. this is not the case today. As with all things in the technology where there is harsh competition the products released improve in quality tremedeously from generation to generation.
BTW, the areal density on the biggest SCSI drives isn't any different than that of the big IDE drives right now.
Please prove me wrong by showing me a 7200RPM (or faster) SCSI Drive that I can purchase today with a platter density of 20GB/platter or more. The one such IDE drive is the Western Digital Caviar WD400BB.
The reason you can't is because there isn't any. SCSI drives sacrifice capacity for performance. The lower platter density allows SCSI drives that 5ms access time. The other reason is because IDE drive manufactureres are in a Capacity war. SCSI vendors are in a accestime war. 2 different requirements yielding 2 different results. IDE == high capacity/ high acces time. SCSI == low capacity / low acces time. Each has their use.
I shouldn't bother repling this late in the game. BUT I hate to see ignorant posts.
UDMA100 channel is capable of up to 100MB/sec. We've actually tested various UDMA 100 controlers on a RAM IDE drives. (Where storage was to NVRAM not a platter) And we've seen sustained transfer rates of up to 70-92 MB/sec (depending on the IDE controler) Yes 92MB/sec. What does this mean? Well when the data goes from the media->drive cache->cable it's capable of going at the same speed as data coming of the drive. Your limiting speed is the media read/write speed.
Sure if you are using a 40MB/sec drive on a UDMA 33 channel you're limiting factor will be the IDE channel. But that's like using a UW drive on a SCSI 1 controler. Same issues.
Ok Driver isssues? Exactly what driver issues are you refering too? The only drivers you need for IDE are for the controller and only if u want to use the high performance features of SOME manufacturers. (Same as with SCSI or are you trying to tell me I don't need the Adaptec 2940 etc SCSI driver to use a scsi drive? )
As far as this sentance (your quote): because I said: "Just because you can get the data to the drive cache that quickly doesn't mean you can pump it over the channel that fast... ie the speed of the channel. 33/66/or 100 MB/sec (UDMA33/66/100)"
"Just because you can get data to the drive cache... "
Well if I get the data to the drive cache that quickly it's ALREADY traveled over the channel. Tus the speed the data arived in the cache == speed of the channel. hmm make sense? Or are you trying to convince me that data magically arives at the drive cache and THEN travels over the channel. The only way I could logically interpret that sentance was by by assuming that by channel you are refering to the read/write channel... which is the internal channel between the cache and the read/write channels ON the drive itself.
So before you argue with someone that's written drive firmware as well as debuged drive hardware please read up on disk drive design 101.
On a further note 33/66/100 are infact SUSTAINED rates.. not BURST. Often times you hear people say "you'll never see 100MB/sec with current drives except in a burst mode". What they are refering to is that since the read/write channel of the drive, (The read/write speed to the media) can't sustain 100 MB/sec (limited to about 40MB/sec right now) the only time you see 100MB/sec is during a short burst where data is being dumped to the drive cache.
However.. when the cache is full the channel speed will back off to the sustained rate of the drive. So on a drive with 2MB onboard cache the first 2 MB will BURST at 100MB/sec.. any data following that (if we are constantly streaming) will be then transfared at the to media speed of the drive, 40MB/sec in the case of the seagate drive.
This IS the same thing as puting the X15 on a UW (80MB/sec) SCSI controller. The drive will burst at 80 MB till it's cache is full, after which it will transfer at 41.5 MB/sec in the case of the X15. In otherwords the same damn principle aplies whether you are using a SCSI or an IDE drive. And by the way an 2-3 year old SCSI drive will no way in hell sustain 33-35 MB/sec as you claim. Check your numbers. Like I've said earlier the sustained transfer rate is a component of (media density)*(rpm). The current generation plater technology is now at 20MB/platter (soon to be 30) 2 years ago they were still at about 6MB. This is roughly a 2.5-3x performance increase in raw transfer rate. A 2-3 year old 7200 rpm drive is somewhere near 18-20 MB/sec at best.
Oh and BTW.. right now IDE is leading in platter density. Which also explains why a seagate 7200 RPM IDE drive has nearly the same sustained rate as their 15000rpm SCSI drive. The SCSI drive uses lower density platters. I can give you a reason for that. Because SCSI drives are optimized for high seek usage such as database or heavily loaded servers. To gain that kind of seek performance (about 1/2 that of ide drives) The have to use lower density platers to give themselves more tolerance for offtrack errors. The tracks are wider and more forgiving if a head is slightly of the center of the track.
I will stick by what I have said earlier. SCSI is a waste of your money unless you have a need for more then 4 drives in your PC or are running a heavily accessed DB or over loaded (Seek Heavy) server. So before you flame me for not checking MY facts.. please insure you have yours strait. And please get a clue to what you are talking about. What you have said is typical "I spent a crapload of money on SCSI hardware and need to defend my decision FUD".
Sure if u compare apples to oranges. Which is what you are doing comparing a 15K rpm SCSI drive to a 7200RPM IDE drive. Compare two 7200RPM drives and u will see that the only thing a scsi drive has is better seek performance. For 30% more cost mind you.
And sure a 180 or 360 SCSI controller can transfer data at 180MB and/or 360MB/sec. BUT what good does that do you if as soon as the data has to go anywhere. (Network or CPU.. or your video editing software) It gets boged down by the PCI bus.
Additionaly Remeber that a SCSI drive (EVEN the XP15) CAN'T transfer data to it's media at even close to 360MB/sec. Sure some day the drives will hit 360MB/sec to the media.. but by then the 32Bit 33Mhz PCI bus will be long gone too.
And IDE drives will certainly keep up. The truth of the matter is that a 7200 RPM 20MB/platter IDE drive and a 7200 RPM 20MB/platter drive have nearly identical sustained transfer rates. (go to storage review and run the sort on transfer rates)
I will give SCSI that they are faster for when it comes to seeks (Most Server tasks).. but again you pay that 30%+ penalty in cost.
Additionally Max Transfer Rate Record for IDE is currently held by the Seagate Barracuda ATA III (7200RPM) at 40.5MB/sec at the OD.
Current Record Holder for SCSI is Fujitsu's MPF3xxxAH at 42.77 MB/sec. The X15 (15K RPM)weighs in at only 41.47 MB/sec.
So IDE is definetly not second chair in peak transfer rates.
The choice in the drive you buy should really depend on WHAT you are trying to do. Buying a SCSI drive for a desktop system is frankly a BIG waste of money. Hell buying a SCSI drive for a small servers is a waste of money. (instead spending the extra 30% for a SCSI drive you're better off geting more RAM for the server to use as cache instead)
The only place I'd use SCSI drives would be in servers that are under heavy load or are under constant random access patterns. (Where your read cache is being trashed constantly) Or require a lot of drives.
You are WRONG sir. I've worked in the HD industry for 3 YEARS. And the fact of the matter is that an IDE drive can SUSTAIN over 40MB/sec at the outer diameter. THIS IS TO THE MEDIA rate. No cache involved. Most IDE drives these days come with 2MB cache. So that if you write a 2MB file you will see peek burst rate. Ie the speed of the channel. 33/66/or 100 MB/sec (UDMA33/66/100)
/dev/hda" (Or compile it as default into the kernel) A current generation IDE drive running in UDMA100 mode streaming data at 35MB/sec only uses 10-15% CPU on a P2-400.
However after the 1st 2MB the cache is now full and you will see the true to media data rate. Which like I've said is upwards of 40MB/sec on the outer diameter and 26+MB/sec on the inner diameter. Remeber the OD moves FASTER then the ID relative to the head. This is why the OD transfer rate is much higher.
The BS you are saying about SCSI is just that; BS and FUD. The only differance between SCSI and IDE is the protocol and controller. It's the same PHYSICAL hardware with a diff chipset. SCSI vendors would like you to believe that their SCSI drive is FASTER then everyones IDE drive but that is just NOT THE CASE. (It used to be the case but is no longer true)
SCSI is excelent for multiple devices on a chain. That's about it. (Well that and if you want to pay for that 10K rpm drive, since there is no IDE drives at 10K right now) Additionally those 180MB/sec 360MB/sec SCSI transfer rates are also misleading. For that kind of performance they require a 64Bit/66Mhz pci slot.. because otherwise you are limited to a max of 132MB/sec by your PCI bus ANYWAYS.
So before you go of and tout how SCSI creams IDE. 1st check your facts and LOOK at www.storagereview.com and compare 7200 rpm scsi and 7200 rpm IDE drives.
The problem you see with IDE drive "slowness" is because your PC does not have UDMA mode turned on. "/hdparm -d1
This is untrue. Todays IDE hard Drives top out at 40+MB/sec (YES 40 Mega BYTES per sec) at the outer diameter. This is a SUSTAINED transfer rate. At the inner diameter they hit 26+MB/Sec. So an IDE drive can indeed saturate a UDMA33 bus.
Take a look at the Baracuda ATA II and Maxtor DM+ 60 reviews at http://www.storagereview.com if you don't believe me.
Yes but to be removed from the mailing list the envelope would have to contain your name. If the envelope contained your name.. then they can sue you for breaking their equipment.
OR WORSE Sending you EVEN MORE junk mail.
Wait a second.. I already pay my local telco $80/month for my 1.2/1 DSL line. I pay my ISP $20/month so that my DSL line can be connected to the rest of the net. Most ISP lease their lines from telcos anyhow so they are ALREADY paying telcos for the lines. So on top of what I and my ISP is paying.. now they are going to have to PAY extra if that bandwith is used for VoIP?
Some thing sounds very wrong here.
Actually the BIOS Memeory test does a "rough" memory test. The test itself is a bit different from one BIOS manufacturer to another, but for instance with Phoenix bios the test is as follows:
Write a pattern to ram.
Read it back. And compare to what it should be.
Write a aliasing pattern to ram.
Read it back and make sure u got what u expected.
This will catch quite a few serious memory problems. The 2 cases I saw recently were:
1. PC100 memory that wasn't quite up to par. (Droping bits randomly)
2. A friend of mine put a PC100 dimm in a mobo set for PC133 dimms. The PC100 ram worked.. almost.
In both cases the results were random lockups and application crashes. Turning on the BIOS ram test quickly identified the problem. Which was resolved by putting quality memory in the box.
These tests are only really usefull the first time you boot your box or if you are suspecting bad RAM. (It's a quick way to test for serious memory problems without having to pull out a RamChecker)
Yes, I'm quite aware that my opionion is based upon my interpretation, both from the definition of millitia AND how the 2nd ammendment is phrased.
However you are doing the same. You are assuming what the founders meant by millitia. You are assuming that their definition is that a melitia is basically a state controlled army. I on the other hand presume it means any one capable of defending their country in the time of need. ( As was the case during the revolution )
My intent was to give a counter point to the originals poster saing that his interpretation was the CORRECT one. Honestly no one will ever REALLY know what the founders intended. (we can assume all we want but we will never know)
But to refute your point about them intending millitia to be a state controlled force:
No one took or even tried to take guns away from the people after the revolutionary war. And at that time almost EVERY one had a gun. Which leads me to believe that their definitiaon of millitia was more in the direction of my interpretation.
But again that is an opinion
Ex-Nt-User
It is interesting that you say that those that interpret the 2nd ammendment as giving them the rights to own guns as WRONG. Yet you believe that Your interpretationis obviously correct because it fits your beliefs. Open your eyes.
For every statistic you can bring up about why guns are bad. I can bring up at least one that says the opposite. But obviously MY statistics must be lies because I don't believe the same thing as you. (By you I don't mean to attack you specifically.. I'm attacking all the anti-gun people)
Let's Setup a baseline:
militia
n. Abbr. mil.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2.A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
By definition #1. the 2nd ammendment can't possibly mean that the right to own guns is restricted to the millitary, since our millitary is composed of PROFFESIONAL SOLDIERS. (Besides soldiers DO NOT OWN THEIR GUNS)
By Definition #2. This could refer to the national guard. I will give you that. BUT there WAS NO NATIONAL GUARD established by our founders. Thus it must refer to ordinary people that can help out in times of need. By this it means any citizen of the US.
By Definition #3: And I stress the whole body of physically fit civilians. Thus any civilian can and should be considered part of a millitia. Thus he has the right to own a GUN!
Now that we have established that ANY private citizen is a member of a millitia, we can see that the line the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed does in fact imply that the government can't regulate private gun ownership. Again because if by what you are saing that line refers to the militia and since anyone can be and is part of the militia that line applies to any citizen of the US.
Please don't misinterpret the meaning of millitia because this is where all the anti-gun people DO!
Needless to say I don't own a gun. I don't own one because at this time I CHOOSE not to own one. This contry is based on freedoms, and whether I believe in gun ownership or not, I believe everyone should have a CHOICE which is what anti-gun people are trying to take away!
Ex-Nt-User
It is well know that crime rates follow econimic trends. We are currently in the bigest economic boom this side of the 60's. Let's face it.. in the 80's the economy was in a depression. Crime rates rose as a result. Now we are in an economic boom, there is less stress in the general population.. and the crime rates are falling.
Now violance in schools.. that's a good question. Why do kids come in to school with guns and start shooting? It might have something to do with opression.
*snicker* .. sorry .. gata admit that's a heck of a "theory"
It was in there when the game was designed. Someone discovered that neat trick. Anyone can do it. (with practice) Who is to say that it goes against the spirit of the game?
The main disputes issues with the patch are:
1. Breaks Strafe jumping.
A lot of us play this game competatively. We spend a lot of time practicing these tricks and specializing. For instance my CTF clan has 2 extremely good strafe jumpers who are our flag runners and several amazing Railers who play D.
This brings strategy to the game.. since your Defense has to be very good to nail the other teams flag runners, since chances are u will not catch them once they are out of the base.
2. Through floor splash damage.
This is actually a VERY good quirk! It helps to discourage campers on high platforms. A good railer camping up high can take out anyone without any fear of geting killed. (Especially on maps that require jumppads to get to the platform) With through floor splash he can be "removed" from that spot by a few carefully placed rockets.
Like I said before the game was released with those quirks.. and they are changing it 9 months later. Thats years in gaming terms compared to sports. That's like after 20 years of tennis they ban slicing because somebody doesn't like it and it was an unforceen exploitation of the "real world" physics when tennis was invented. There is just something not right about that.