You are equating "easier to use" with "easier to customize". Nothing could be further from the common definition of ease of use. Indeed, your "simple example" may be a fine example something which is horrible and broken in Windows XP, but worrying about wireless DHCP is hardly type kind of thing that typifies an ease-of-use discussion.
I didn't bother to go into detail because I saw that others (here for example) were already doing that.
Microsoft's best hope is that people like you continue to insist that Linux doesn't need to change to accomodate those who aren't hardcore day-in/day-out geeks. I am imagining trying to explain apt-get to my mother. Or even my father, who is now a bit old, but has used computers (strictly as a user) continuously since 1980.
Linux is usable. It is not easy to use.
As for the almost irrelevant question of how long I've been here -- 200586 certainly doesn't make me a crusty old slashdotter who remembers logging in from an acoustic-coupler teletype, but it does show that I've been here for several years at least, and that's a long time.
If you could pass your hand through it, it wasn't the same thing. I do remember some games about 15 years ago, though, which used mirrors to project 3D-ish figures on a sort of "stage" where the game took place. (I say 3D-ish because I can't remember if it was truly 3D, or if the projection was the gimmick. If it was actually 3D, I don't think it was a very impressive approach, or I'd probably remember more about it. Seems to me it was a cowboy shoot-em-up type of thing.)
The point is, the sports-themed games are rarely creative. If you want to play football, go play football. I'm looking for something like Space Duel, which will obviously never happen in real life, or perhaps Qix, which has no direct relationship to the real world. To me, that type of creativity was the strength of early arcade games. To a degree it was a byproduct of the limited capabilities of the hardware, but that doesn't make it a bad thing.
Another poorly-chosen article title. To most people, this is a "pager". And here is a link to the actual patent application, rather than a generic link to the patent office.
While most people seem to be of the "get rid of your cat" mindset, I'm taking a fresh approach and suggesting that you get rid of your computer. That way you solve your problem AND ours at the same time.
Unless I'm missing something, this approach (as others have noted, this is Hitachi's take on a relatively old idea) means you have to constantly generate an image for EVERY viewing angle. In this case, you're cranking out 24 3D images for every frame.
Either your images have to be very simple, or you need extremely powerful hardware, or the resolution sucks, or you're going to have to accept low frame rates.
I wonder how frame rate relates to the rotational speed of the projection surface.
Actually, the most famous ones are holograms of Alice Cooper sitting Indian-style and one where his head turns into a skull. They aren't free-standing, they're engraved (or etched, or something, not sure of the proper terminology) on a tube of foil. When I've seen them on display, they're mounted on a motorized base which slowly rotates them, and of course, they're protected by a circular glass case.
They're sort of cool, but not at all the same thing.
Tried-and-true formulas and good old profit motive killed American video games. If it wasn't the next "Defender" and didn't have a Sports Theme(TM) then it never saw the light of day. That combined with the absolutely stupid trend of ever-increasing per-play prices nailed the coffin-lid on American arcade games. (As a kid in the 80s, I spent hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars in quarters -- but I only played a few fifty-cent games, and I've never looked twice at the dollar-or-more games.) I also have to assume the constant improvement in home console games and PCs contributed heavily to the demise, but I really think the Sports Theme(TM) trend was the beginning of the end. I still shake my head when I think about those endless lines of idiots mindlessly banging away on the buttons of Track & Field...
What characterized the heyday of the arcade game was creativity... and that doesn't mean "unchecked weirdness", or weird gimmicky controls, or spaz-friendly concepts like DDR.
the difference is that apple dosn't *abuse* their monopoly with quicktime, while Microsoft does.
Apple doesn't *have* a monopoly.
As far as I can tell, you have Sculley to thank for that. According to this anecdote from a key Mac developer, Jobs wanted to sell the original Mac for about $1500 (up from his original target of $500, incidentally). It was Sculley who decided to charge the outrageous price of $2500, thus establishing the Mac tradition of paying WAY too much for relatively run-of-the-mill hardware.
And if they're willing to price-rape you while they're still just a single-digit market-share player, I imagine they wouldn't hesitate to stick it to you if they actually had influence to bring to bear.
The guy was right -- having a high moderation score doesn't say anything about whether or not you're correct. If you believe otherwise, you really are either new here, or just not very smart.
I also have to agree that he's right about your post being offtopic. BPL is interesting because powerlines go to every single residence -- something which is not true of any other form of broadband connectivity.
That's it. That's the whole reason BPL is interesting to everyone.
What you posted is like saying the federal interstate system should be scrapped because somebody claimed to have invented a water-powered engine, and was subsequently exposed as a fraud.
Well good on the Austrians (and Japanese, and etc.).
Totally off-topic, but I'm really getting sick of this "good on" phrase. Not only does it sound plain ignorant, but it's grammatically meaningless. It sounds like NASCAR-hick-speak. "Good on y'all! Hoooo-eee!"
Do you really trust a spammer to send you the real goods? Counterfeit drugs are rampant, and unless you purchased the drug from a reputable (liscenced) pharmacy, it is unlikely you are getting the real deal, especially on something expensive, hotly demanded, and potentially embarassing to sue about.
I can guarantee you won't get the real thing in many cases. I know someone who edits video for a living. One of their contracts was editing on a late-night-TV commercial selling that h.e.r.b.a.l vi-a-gra stuff, and in the process of editing the video she learned that part of the company's business model involved anticipation of a lawsuit that would put them out of business. They had done this so many times they knew approximately how long it would take (seven months) before someone sued them and they'd fold the company, then start up all over again under a different name.
All I know about that specific company is that they operate out of Atlanta. Apparently, these guys hadn't hit upon spam marketing (yet) but I have to assume this is fairly typical of these companies.
I can just imagine how much it would suck working on and flying an Open Source helicopter.
Pilot: "Wait a second, control, the engine won't start."
ATC: "UR such a fscking 'tard!!1! Try MAN ENGINE"
Pilot: "Pardon me?"
ATC: "Get a clue. U have 2 mount the turbine and chmod the fuel pumps. ROFLMAO"
Pilot: "But the Apache has switches for APU and engine start."
ATC: "Don't bring that big brother military-industrial-complex Apache bullshit HERE, buddy! Your fanboy 'switches' and 'gauges' are for lusers. Besides, we won't have switches until Linus blesses release 2.7.83.0.1.a."
Btw, you shouldn't go around calling people idiots when you cannot even correctly write in english.
That's:
"BTW". In English we capitalize abbreviated acronyms.
That's:
"...you cannot even correctly write in English..."
That's:
"Well, if you're worried about pollution..."
That's:
"...dealing with one problem and then..."
That's:
"...We [comma] as a society and as a civilization [comma] must deal..."
But since you're ten times smarter, you were probably using incorrect English as some sort of masterfully sublime witticism which is beyond mere humans.
What's even more interesting is that the gun control system is also wired into the engines. When you fire the guns, it boosts engine output automatically. As we say here in the South, "Them 'r sum big damn guns, y'all..."
ATTENTION PAINFULLY STUPID POSTER: The rover isn't playing the song.
We understand this may be difficult for you to understand, so we of The Anti-Total Dumbass Consortium have provided this handy website where you may seek additional enlightenment.
That's because EA is a Sony Playstation shop, and their games show it. The graphics are crap on the XBox, just like almost every other PS2-port. Not that their games (ignoring the graphics) have been very interesting lately anyway.
Interestingly enough, Venus may be easier to terraform than Mars. Mars has less atmosphere and little ability to hold more. Venus on the other hand, has too much atmosphere. Microbes exist that could exist on Venus (at least flosting, perhaps actually on the ground). As they convert CO2 to O2, the soil would begin to absorb the excess O2. In theory, Venus's atmosphere could be thinned greatly just by making it more habitable for Earth life.
That isn't even close to accurate.
The surface temperature of Venus is about 900 degrees F. Although the greenhouse effect of the CO2-rich atmosphere is commonly cited as the main cause, another critical contributor is the extremely low rotation speed. One Venutian day lasts for 243 Earth days. This means the sun shines on the exact same spot of Venus for very, very long periods of time. The greenhouse effect plays into it by reflecting back a lot of that heat energy, but you're not going to be able to speed up the rotation of the planet. Even if you could figure out how to magically reduce 90% of the atmospheric pressure (Earth is about 14.5 PSI, whereas Venus is about 1500 PSI), a sunny day on Venus would be deadly.
The carbon dioxide atmosphere is also supplanted by a series of sulfuric acid cloud layers (each of which are many miles thick), as well as pools of liquid sulfuric acid on the surface. If that isn't challenging enough, intense microwave radiation is emitted from the surface, and all of that heat and pressure also means any water moisture which ever existed boiled away a long, long time ago (excepting small amounts of deuterium). Venus is largely devoid of hydrogen. Thus, even if you managed to deal with the atmospheric pressure and heat, you'd still be left with nothing but a bone-dry planet.
Carl Sagan suggested in 1960 that we might terraform Venus by seeding the atmosphere with hypothetical tailored bacteria to remove CO2. At the time, the surface was thought to be around 300-400 F, but now we know that organically-fixated carbon would be liberated as CO2 again, once it fell into the 900 F furnace that is the lower atmosphere.
Thus, Venus would certainly NOT be easier to terraform than Mars, even if we had any idea how to actually terraform in the first place. In fact, the surface of Mercury is probably more hospitable.
None of the links even mention batteries or power requirements. A PC with motors, camera, amplifiers, an LCD screen, and all that other junk is going to consume a LOT of juice. Looks like vaporware to me.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't bother to go into detail because I saw that others (here for example) were already doing that.
Microsoft's best hope is that people like you continue to insist that Linux doesn't need to change to accomodate those who aren't hardcore day-in/day-out geeks. I am imagining trying to explain apt-get to my mother. Or even my father, who is now a bit old, but has used computers (strictly as a user) continuously since 1980.
Linux is usable. It is not easy to use.
As for the almost irrelevant question of how long I've been here -- 200586 certainly doesn't make me a crusty old slashdotter who remembers logging in from an acoustic-coupler teletype, but it does show that I've been here for several years at least, and that's a long time.
When I saw a Windows Longhorn screenshot the first time, I thought it took ten years for MS to catch up and create such a useful utility for its UI.
I imagine it simply wasn't a priority. After all, there have been many third-party products doing this under Windows going back to Windows 3.1.
If you could pass your hand through it, it wasn't the same thing. I do remember some games about 15 years ago, though, which used mirrors to project 3D-ish figures on a sort of "stage" where the game took place. (I say 3D-ish because I can't remember if it was truly 3D, or if the projection was the gimmick. If it was actually 3D, I don't think it was a very impressive approach, or I'd probably remember more about it. Seems to me it was a cowboy shoot-em-up type of thing.)
Well excuse the hell out of me for commenting. We can't all be expected to produce high-quality material like this.
The point is, the sports-themed games are rarely creative. If you want to play football, go play football. I'm looking for something like Space Duel, which will obviously never happen in real life, or perhaps Qix, which has no direct relationship to the real world. To me, that type of creativity was the strength of early arcade games. To a degree it was a byproduct of the limited capabilities of the hardware, but that doesn't make it a bad thing.
That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on /., and I've been here a long time...
Another poorly-chosen article title. To most people, this is a "pager". And here is a link to the actual patent application, rather than a generic link to the patent office.
While most people seem to be of the "get rid of your cat" mindset, I'm taking a fresh approach and suggesting that you get rid of your computer. That way you solve your problem AND ours at the same time.
Either your images have to be very simple, or you need extremely powerful hardware, or the resolution sucks, or you're going to have to accept low frame rates.
I wonder how frame rate relates to the rotational speed of the projection surface.
They're sort of cool, but not at all the same thing.
What characterized the heyday of the arcade game was creativity... and that doesn't mean "unchecked weirdness", or weird gimmicky controls, or spaz-friendly concepts like DDR.
Apple doesn't *have* a monopoly.
As far as I can tell, you have Sculley to thank for that. According to this anecdote from a key Mac developer, Jobs wanted to sell the original Mac for about $1500 (up from his original target of $500, incidentally). It was Sculley who decided to charge the outrageous price of $2500, thus establishing the Mac tradition of paying WAY too much for relatively run-of-the-mill hardware.
And if they're willing to price-rape you while they're still just a single-digit market-share player, I imagine they wouldn't hesitate to stick it to you if they actually had influence to bring to bear.
No. I have to admit, until you brought it up, I had never heard anyone say that -- not even here on /. where Misinformation is King.
What the hell does "grab the brass bar" mean, anyway???
I also have to agree that he's right about your post being offtopic. BPL is interesting because powerlines go to every single residence -- something which is not true of any other form of broadband connectivity.
That's it. That's the whole reason BPL is interesting to everyone.
What you posted is like saying the federal interstate system should be scrapped because somebody claimed to have invented a water-powered engine, and was subsequently exposed as a fraud.
Totally off-topic, but I'm really getting sick of this "good on" phrase. Not only does it sound plain ignorant, but it's grammatically meaningless. It sounds like NASCAR-hick-speak. "Good on y'all! Hoooo-eee!"
I can guarantee you won't get the real thing in many cases. I know someone who edits video for a living. One of their contracts was editing on a late-night-TV commercial selling that h.e.r.b.a.l vi-a-gra stuff, and in the process of editing the video she learned that part of the company's business model involved anticipation of a lawsuit that would put them out of business. They had done this so many times they knew approximately how long it would take (seven months) before someone sued them and they'd fold the company, then start up all over again under a different name.
All I know about that specific company is that they operate out of Atlanta. Apparently, these guys hadn't hit upon spam marketing (yet) but I have to assume this is fairly typical of these companies.
Pilot: "Wait a second, control, the engine won't start."
ATC: "UR such a fscking 'tard!!1! Try MAN ENGINE"
Pilot: "Pardon me?"
ATC: "Get a clue. U have 2 mount the turbine and chmod the fuel pumps. ROFLMAO"
Pilot: "But the Apache has switches for APU and engine start."
ATC: "Don't bring that big brother military-industrial-complex Apache bullshit HERE, buddy! Your fanboy 'switches' and 'gauges' are for lusers. Besides, we won't have switches until Linus blesses release 2.7.83.0.1.a."
etc. etc. etc.
That's:
"BTW". In English we capitalize abbreviated acronyms.
That's:
"...you cannot even correctly write in English..."
That's:
"Well, if you're worried about pollution..."
That's:
"...dealing with one problem and then..."
That's:
"...We [comma] as a society and as a civilization [comma] must deal..."
But since you're ten times smarter, you were probably using incorrect English as some sort of masterfully sublime witticism which is beyond mere humans.
What's even more interesting is that the gun control system is also wired into the engines. When you fire the guns, it boosts engine output automatically. As we say here in the South, "Them 'r sum big damn guns, y'all..."
The rover isn't playing the song.
We understand this may be difficult for you to understand, so we of The Anti-Total Dumbass Consortium have provided this handy website where you may seek additional enlightenment.
That is all.
That's because EA is a Sony Playstation shop, and their games show it. The graphics are crap on the XBox, just like almost every other PS2-port. Not that their games (ignoring the graphics) have been very interesting lately anyway.
The problem is, we already had the better job.
That isn't even close to accurate.
The surface temperature of Venus is about 900 degrees F. Although the greenhouse effect of the CO2-rich atmosphere is commonly cited as the main cause, another critical contributor is the extremely low rotation speed. One Venutian day lasts for 243 Earth days. This means the sun shines on the exact same spot of Venus for very, very long periods of time. The greenhouse effect plays into it by reflecting back a lot of that heat energy, but you're not going to be able to speed up the rotation of the planet. Even if you could figure out how to magically reduce 90% of the atmospheric pressure (Earth is about 14.5 PSI, whereas Venus is about 1500 PSI), a sunny day on Venus would be deadly.
The carbon dioxide atmosphere is also supplanted by a series of sulfuric acid cloud layers (each of which are many miles thick), as well as pools of liquid sulfuric acid on the surface. If that isn't challenging enough, intense microwave radiation is emitted from the surface, and all of that heat and pressure also means any water moisture which ever existed boiled away a long, long time ago (excepting small amounts of deuterium). Venus is largely devoid of hydrogen. Thus, even if you managed to deal with the atmospheric pressure and heat, you'd still be left with nothing but a bone-dry planet.
Carl Sagan suggested in 1960 that we might terraform Venus by seeding the atmosphere with hypothetical tailored bacteria to remove CO2. At the time, the surface was thought to be around 300-400 F, but now we know that organically-fixated carbon would be liberated as CO2 again, once it fell into the 900 F furnace that is the lower atmosphere.
Thus, Venus would certainly NOT be easier to terraform than Mars, even if we had any idea how to actually terraform in the first place. In fact, the surface of Mercury is probably more hospitable.
None of the links even mention batteries or power requirements. A PC with motors, camera, amplifiers, an LCD screen, and all that other junk is going to consume a LOT of juice. Looks like vaporware to me.