CERT is not profiting by facilitating conspiracy to defraud the organisations and mechanisms they deal with. This is a fairly decent comparison, but flawed right through the core. This isn't a question of the data being exchanged, just the intent of the forum.
"No, information itself cannot be owned or a device for anything."
Information most certainly can be owned. in fact it is often the most valuable thing to own. Just ask Gordon Gecko.
Furthermore, it seems we differ on the most basic principles here. Sure the data being exchanged is harmless until implemented. The data is not the device. The forum is the device, a communication device built and marketted solely for the dissemination of data. In this case, it is also the vehicle for conspiracy to commit unauthorized communications interception and descrambling.
The data being exchanged isn't itself the problem- rather, it is the intent of the forum that is the problem. words like collusion and conspiracy imediately spring to mind, and for a good reason: that's what is happening at this site.
To simplify matters, just replace 'signal' with 'credit card number'. Do things start to become clear now?
The site itself is a circumvention device. It's only purpose is to facilitate the distribution of specific information on illegal exploits of a proprietary network. Not only that, but jerko webmaster here is blatently profiting from such.
An open and shut case, just you watch.
There is also the obvious fact that this is conspiracy, in the strict legal sense, and there are ample laws in both jurisdictions, as well as treaty and international law in place to curtail such behaviour.
Diversity is just a form of security through obscurity. Which we all know is bad, as it is anathema to the Open Source philosophy.
Besides, think about how expensive diversity is. Won't it be great in a few years when any code can run on any OS from any vendor, on any hardware? That notion is a just logical extension of current trends, after all. Just to name a few examples, we have cygwin and wine, thousands of ports in every direction being produced and Moore's Law all at work to tighten the gap between OS capabilities. Soon, at this rate, it is easy to see that the gap will disappear altogether, as Op/s become cheap and fast enough to allow all manner of emulation. Future chips might even run a mix of -endian-ness at will, natively (PGAs anyone?)
Diversity is not only unlikely, it is not even desirable in light of the massive costs involved with the many code incompatable platforms we are faced with even today, even with such a powerful medium as the internet easing the pressure.
Aside from all that, what's fundamentally wrong with the continuously updating security and cooperative routers the man mentioned? I don't believe he said that Symantec should be the only supplier of these services.
If you had any chops, you'd have figured out how to run NT Explorer on top of the kernel, like I have.
It was trivial, actually. All it took was a thin emulation layer to convert calls to and from. It is really little more than a compiled equivalence script named NTOSKRNL.EXE.so.
The linux kerenl may be top notch, but nobody touches Explorer for windowing. Not even Aqua/OSX.
I guess the only question is whether I should release my stuff...
Re:Two people who need examples of these drives :)
on
High Density CDs
·
· Score: 1
droppin names like you was all up in dat. yo. who you think you're kidden, holmes? that tired old oss/fs posse is whack, them brutha's be walkin around in white pants talkin 'bout the good ol days. ain't no-one care about the 9660 no more. That shit is played.
'sides, you pimpin my style'n shit. you best step off, aight?
"Apple also doesn't lose on margin to gain marketshare (gateway), bloat sales statistics to education (dell) or have high overhead and channel inventory (HPaq) - nor does any PC company even come remotely close to presence for assistance and help on the internet!"
Apple does lose on margin to gain market share (iMac), they do bloat sales statistics to education (see your comment, also 1988-1998 SEC filings) and oh, they DO have high overhead and channel inventory (maybe because they contain everything from R&D to Sales under one roof?) and I am sorry to tell you, but the web presence customer service is laughably paltry compared to MSFTs, the 10^9 greater customer base notwithstanding.
It is as if you do not even know what the terms you are throwing about actually mean.:(
If what you were saying was the case, the writeup might appear more along the lines of '..feature freeze for the "2.5 kernel"...' instead of '..."feature freeze" for the 2.5 kernel...'.
If you see what I am saying. The emphasis established by putting the phrase "feature freeze" in quotes is suggestive of that particular practice being unusual.
Doesn't this bode ill for the kernel dev efforts, if the concept of "feature freeze" must be reported on and placed in quotes as if it were some novel new design technique?
This should be standard practice. Sure reporting on the features to be included before the freeze is worthwhile, I can see why that's interesting, but "feature freeze" in quotes? C'mon already. every two-bit dev team from Seattle to Sri Lanka must reach a point of "feature freeze" during a dev cycle.
in general. Common sense suggests national IDs are in our future, whether for simple Digital ID purposes (see the k5 section discussing this topic in depth) or even for physical purposes (what you use your drivers license and ssi cards for today).
What better way to go about implementation than to harness the the free market solutions, namely the market leader in such things. Face it, the only reasonable competition to Passport, in terms of seamlessness and stability, is the authentication used by AOL and perhaps Yahoo!, at least in terms of scalability and track record.
Sure there are other potential schemes, especially those popular with the so-called technically sophisticated, but I'm afraid they have yet to even vaguely be put to the test. Passport is tried and true by comparison to any of the suggestions listed here today in this story.
Face it folks: Free market == quick evolution. Open source tactics and proprietary systems engineered from the ground up are bound to be hobbled by slow development (mozilla), politics/corruption (the DNS system) or simple flakiness (any OSS/FS windowing system). Passport has survived its trial-by-fire and come out reasonably sturdy as a result.
The mechanical argument fails as the intent of a program is not the setting of gates (so a program rarely deals with the gates), it is the production of a desired transformation of some input data to some output data.
I beg to differ here: each and every piece of software must by definition, set a 'machine state'. The commonly understood process known as compiling is directly responsible for translating the shorthand programmers use into an explicit and specific arrangement of gates, or transistors, ergo a mechanical system.
As to your claim that software is exempted from consideration of these points because the aim is the 'production of a desired transformation' is entirely equivalent to a chemical process, or really, any manufacturing process wherein resource A is combined or manipulated to produce resource B.
your arguments are little more than straw men in a field of lies! Your 'breakdown' can be applied to nearly any engineering task, but the only thing mechanical engineers have at the end of the day are machines that can be patented.
behold:
An Idea, as you refer to it, is an heuristic/algorithm. This might equate to a 'problem' for structural or mechanical engineers to isolate and define.
Source Code amounts to little more than working blueprints or mechanical drawings under this excessively tight metaphor. Blueprints can (and should be), of course, be Copyrighted.
Object Code is ultimately a physical relationship of modular components, and the only practically useful form of the art. It is entirely equivalent to, in fact, by definition is a mechanical system.
Take for your example the simple fact that you or I could, with enough resolve and determination, implement absolutely any software using naught else but millions of garden hoses and 3-way water faucets (presuming limitless water pressure and component durability, and forgiving the latency inherent in manually turning all those knobs in sequence...)
It seeems that your rebuttal consists of little more than towing the party line, whereas I am attempting to advance the state of affairs with a little rational consideration. That you fail to even hint at consideration of my points in your attack against my comment would indicate, at least to me, that you have little creativity and/or only the smallest grasp of the over-all picture here. I don't mean to be overly harsh with that, but you could at least rebut my actual points rather than just condescending to give me a cursory lesson in the basics of this current and timely debate!
I continually find myself at a loss as to why so many consider software as something to be covered under Copyright Law. Unless I am mistaken, and I rarely am, Programming Code is nothing more than the ordering of electronic gates through a high-level intermediary, i.e., a text document which is then 'compiled' into the necessary arrangement to form a machine that acts on electrons.
You can copyright all the blueprints you want, but that doesn't give people the legal right to market your 'invention', which is the arrangement of electronic gates found in the CPU, regardless if they obtain or duplicate your blueprints.
Computer Code clearly falls under the auspices of Patent Law, and nothing further. It is a purely mechanical system, and the code is ultimately just shorthand to arrive at the desired effect. In other words, a diagram. Just as a lawnmower or lightbulb would require for a patent. That it is inconvenient to show a physical diagram of software is irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant to copyright computer code.
That this simple fact continues to elude even the most (self-styled) brightest minds of our age boggles the mind. Individuals and Companies have been getting away with 'copyrighting' their mechanical inventions for far too long now, and I say it is high time that some sense is brought to the table.
Perhaps not as influential as it was prophetic, but here are a few of the many entertaining elements made real with each passing year: First, the term 'cyberspace' is coined here (or was it in an earlier short story?) and the rowdy, lawless net culture that we have today us described in detail. Second, the visualization of data as high-res 3D abstraction is presented as the main interface to this new 'cyberspace', and this was in 1983, long before even the first vga adaptor. While we still primarilly rely on CLIs and window systems to manipulate data, this does describe the 3D games that are played today rather well. Large polygonal objects projected in perspective was not commonplace technology 20 years ago.
Third, the fragmentation of the US by corporate influence is held as an obvious trend, something again that is coming to pass with each mega-merger we see in the news. AOL/TW anyone? Microsoft? oh, the list goes on. Gibson is loosing his edge with the younger generation taking his works for granted, even un-inspired. They fail to grasp how utterly amazingly accurate many of his early 80's predictions have come to pass.
I know it seems foolish now, but I want to see the technology advancing at this rate in anticipation of real 3D displays. How many FPS do you think the NV25 could pull at 1200x1200x1200? There are a host ofcompaniesandresearchers working on displays that have cubic resolutions such as this, and while the usual approach has been shining lasers at points in a plastic space treated with rare earth elements, I believe R&D at the major companies is focused on multi layering transparent LCDs (can't find any links just now:().
The demand for copious amounts of pixel data is looming and as such, there is a ways to go in the realm of graphics horsepower if we are ever going to get high definition 3D displays working. The notion of 3D displays made of many physical layers is not only feasable, but surely right around the corner. For the example of a 17" monitor, the form factor would almost be the same using a 1200-deep sandwich of pixel thick layers of LCD emulsion...
I suspect the material technology is available, but the datapath to drive such a display will have to be fast and wide in the extreme compared to the graphics systems available today. And the problem is made worse considering there will be no more backface culling to hide behind (yes, pun). Consider:
2d display, bits-per-second
1280 px X 1024px X 32bpp X 24fps = 1,006,632,960 (billion)
Volumetric 3D Display, bits-per-second
1280 px X 1024px X1024 X 32bpp X 24fps = 1,030,792,151,040 (quadrillion)
As you can see, your standard game of quake jumps two entire orders of magnitude more demanding on a video card by adopting a volumetric display strategy. That's some heavy minimum requirements. We may see the day when we all switch back to 8-bit diplays for a while as technology races to keep up with the next big leap in display technology.
Coupled with demanding framerate needs and the order of magnitude more polys that'll need rendering, the NV25 we drool over today will seem as crude and worthless as the CGA adaptor of only 10 years ago, and it'll all be here before you know it.
This is clearly just a ploy to establish iron-fisted control over the internet. What is more likely to be for the best in the long run is an extensible, completely open holographic DNS schema distributed across each client. That the problem of DNS and the fecundity of PtoP have not been mated seems to me an absurd thing.
This is the difference between hackers and bureaucrats in a nutshell. Centralized control over resiliant sophistication. God damn each of those bimbo sellout engineers for their short sightedness. If I had one ounce of say, one chance at effecting or affecting the logical and liberty enhancing solution I mention above, I could consider my life more or less comlete. (And I'm a card carrying member of ICANN at-large, dammit, and so much closer to such a goal than the bulk of you all!!) This is surely going to be the doom of the net as we know it.
How long before the governing body (ICANN) of such a rigid and authoritarian system becomes a mere appendage of one of the big players (IBM, AOL, MSFT)? That ICANN is already rotten with corruption is apparent to almost everyone, but what I am asking is how long before even the lip service is discarded? I am aghast at the thought of a monopoly on basic existance that such moves as this do threaten.
This is a call to arms. Anyone involve with open DNS or PtP should reply to this thread or email me at: this adress to discuss superceding such insidious and freedom wrecking evil as presented in the parent story.
I know this'll just get lost in the noise of idiotic posts that this place is famous for, but it struck me as extremely ironic that slashdot, an open source riddled, smouldering pile of turgid code collapsed today when this story was posted. very funny stuff. You realize you people were prevented spouting off about how much more superior and wonderfully stable this open source malarky is because it collapsed yet again? LOL. MS bashing never looked so foolish.
I am posting this using win2k. for all your badmouthing and lies, it is a fantastic OS. no crashes, no reboots, no complex conf files to dicker with on setup, my registry is comfortably backed up under (count em) FOUR different system states, making rollback a simple matter in the event of bad 3rd party corruption or even - get this- restoring my system to freshly installed status in under FIVE minutes!!! haha.
You people and your 'make', 'dependencies', 'inodes', 'conf' and a fantastically crash prone windowing system are the most foolish tech advocates possible. If you hate Winders and MS, at least have the sense to use a worthwhile alternative- QNX, MacOS, *BSD etc. This Linux disaster is your own just dessert.
Meanwhile, I can stop working and live comfortably on the dividend MS stock pays quarterly. I was smart, I bought another 3500 shares earlier this year, bringing me up to a total of 35k shares. DotCom money invested soundly, I might add:) so all you suckers working $10/hr desk support trying your hardest to believe this socialist/communist nonesense can keep on struggling, keep trying to make the rent while giving away your work (for those of you fools around here that actually even contribute to an OSS project) while the rest of you trying so desperately to latch on to some of the feeling of 1337ness attached to being a kernel hacker, even though you have yet to grok the frickin pipe, have a nice day. suckers.
some of us do this die-hard techno geek thing for our bread and butter. some of us work in places that have generators and battery backups. some of us may even be off the power grid entirely, with technologies like fuel cell electrical generators and windmills serving our electricity less and less implausable with each passing day. SO, the question bears some merit:
However, it is patently obvious that power company connectivity will include equipment that draws its power from the very power company that owns it. That being the case, a line break or a station/switching problem will obviously curtail the routing and switching of packets.
while open source is useful here, you shouldn't use this argument as a justification for the GPL. the BSD license would more than suffice for these purposes.
The GPL seriously undermines the commercial viability of software.
I second that. This is a reference to a Koan found in 'Escher, Goedel, Bach, an Eternal Golden Braid' by innimitable Douglas Hoffsteder/
Otherwise known as the seminal work of AI philosophy.
This is truly on topic, moreso that the un-enlightened could ever know. ask yourelf: Are my mod points the mod points of the un-enlightened? if no, please mod up the parent's parent as +1, Insightful.
I think this is a strange place to host the 'academic' face of the videogame industry. Norway has not been known for their great VGI culture, nor their profusion of products. Perhaps this is their way of breaking into the field? Or is the site mearly hosted in.NO and run by established members of the industry?
In any event, as a professional game designer, I am not amused by the hoity-toity leap to exclusive peer review journals cluttering up the landscape. It seems the best games come from the underground, the fresh blood seems to come out of the garage. Well, the current culture of academic arrogance has killed any chance of a new Thomas Edison appearing on the Science and Technology horizon, and I'd hate to see the trend develop for video games. Or we may never see the next John Carmack!
Slashdot Mirror
CERT is not profiting by facilitating conspiracy to defraud the organisations and mechanisms they deal with. This is a fairly decent comparison, but flawed right through the core. This isn't a question of the data being exchanged, just the intent of the forum.
"No, information itself cannot be owned or a device for anything."
Information most certainly can be owned. in fact it is often the most valuable thing to own. Just ask Gordon Gecko.
Furthermore, it seems we differ on the most basic principles here. Sure the data being exchanged is harmless until implemented. The data is not the device. The forum is the device, a communication device built and marketted solely for the dissemination of data. In this case, it is also the vehicle for conspiracy to commit unauthorized communications interception and descrambling.
The data being exchanged isn't itself the problem- rather, it is the intent of the forum that is the problem. words like collusion and conspiracy imediately spring to mind, and for a good reason: that's what is happening at this site.
To simplify matters, just replace 'signal' with 'credit card number'. Do things start to become clear now?
The site itself is a circumvention device. It's only purpose is to facilitate the distribution of specific information on illegal exploits of a proprietary network. Not only that, but jerko webmaster here is blatently profiting from such.
An open and shut case, just you watch.
There is also the obvious fact that this is conspiracy, in the strict legal sense, and there are ample laws in both jurisdictions, as well as treaty and international law in place to curtail such behaviour.
Let's all go out this afternoon and get a life.
"Monoculture is bad."
Diversity is just a form of security through obscurity. Which we all know is bad, as it is anathema to the Open Source philosophy.
Besides, think about how expensive diversity is. Won't it be great in a few years when any code can run on any OS from any vendor, on any hardware? That notion is a just logical extension of current trends, after all. Just to name a few examples, we have cygwin and wine, thousands of ports in every direction being produced and Moore's Law all at work to tighten the gap between OS capabilities. Soon, at this rate, it is easy to see that the gap will disappear altogether, as Op/s become cheap and fast enough to allow all manner of emulation. Future chips might even run a mix of -endian-ness at will, natively (PGAs anyone?)
Diversity is not only unlikely, it is not even desirable in light of the massive costs involved with the many code incompatable platforms we are faced with even today, even with such a powerful medium as the internet easing the pressure.
Aside from all that, what's fundamentally wrong with the continuously updating security and cooperative routers the man mentioned? I don't believe he said that Symantec should be the only supplier of these services.
If you had any chops, you'd have figured out how to run NT Explorer on top of the kernel, like I have.
It was trivial, actually. All it took was a thin emulation layer to convert calls to and from. It is really little more than a compiled equivalence script named NTOSKRNL.EXE.so.
The linux kerenl may be top notch, but nobody touches Explorer for windowing. Not even Aqua/OSX.
I guess the only question is whether I should release my stuff...
droppin names like you was all up in dat. yo. who you think you're kidden, holmes? that tired old oss/fs posse is whack, them brutha's be walkin around in white pants talkin 'bout the good ol days. ain't no-one care about the 9660 no more. That shit is played.
'sides, you pimpin my style'n shit. you best step off, aight?
"Apple also doesn't lose on margin to gain marketshare (gateway), bloat sales statistics to education (dell) or have high overhead and channel inventory (HPaq) - nor does any PC company even come remotely close to presence for assistance and help on the internet!"
:(
Apple does lose on margin to gain market share (iMac), they do bloat sales statistics to education (see your comment, also 1988-1998 SEC filings) and oh, they DO have high overhead and channel inventory (maybe because they contain everything from R&D to Sales under one roof?) and I am sorry to tell you, but the web presence customer service is laughably paltry compared to MSFTs, the 10^9 greater customer base notwithstanding.
It is as if you do not even know what the terms you are throwing about actually mean.
"But you pay for it dearly, of course."
On the other hand, no you don't. Fibre channel is as cheap as cheese since the dot-com crash.
I think you might have it wrong...
..feature freeze for the "2.5 kernel"...' instead of ' ..."feature freeze" for the 2.5 kernel...'.
If what you were saying was the case, the writeup might appear more along the lines of '
If you see what I am saying. The emphasis established by putting the phrase "feature freeze" in quotes is suggestive of that particular practice being unusual.
This should be standard practice. Sure reporting on the features to be included before the freeze is worthwhile, I can see why that's interesting, but "feature freeze" in quotes? C'mon already. every two-bit dev team from Seattle to Sri Lanka must reach a point of "feature freeze" during a dev cycle.
What better way to go about implementation than to harness the the free market solutions, namely the market leader in such things. Face it, the only reasonable competition to Passport, in terms of seamlessness and stability, is the authentication used by AOL and perhaps Yahoo!, at least in terms of scalability and track record.
Sure there are other potential schemes, especially those popular with the so-called technically sophisticated, but I'm afraid they have yet to even vaguely be put to the test. Passport is tried and true by comparison to any of the suggestions listed here today in this story.
Face it folks: Free market == quick evolution. Open source tactics and proprietary systems engineered from the ground up are bound to be hobbled by slow development (mozilla), politics/corruption (the DNS system) or simple flakiness (any OSS/FS windowing system). Passport has survived its trial-by-fire and come out reasonably sturdy as a result.
The mechanical argument fails as the intent of a program is not the setting of gates (so a program rarely deals with the gates), it is the production of a desired transformation of some input data to some output data.
I beg to differ here: each and every piece of software must by definition, set a 'machine state'. The commonly understood process known as compiling is directly responsible for translating the shorthand programmers use into an explicit and specific arrangement of gates, or transistors, ergo a mechanical system.
As to your claim that software is exempted from consideration of these points because the aim is the 'production of a desired transformation' is entirely equivalent to a chemical process, or really, any manufacturing process wherein resource A is combined or manipulated to produce resource B.
behold:
- An Idea, as you refer to it, is an heuristic/algorithm. This might equate to a 'problem' for structural or mechanical engineers to isolate and define.
- Source Code amounts to little more than working blueprints or mechanical drawings under this excessively tight metaphor. Blueprints can (and should be), of course, be Copyrighted.
- Object Code is ultimately a physical relationship of modular components, and the only practically useful form of the art. It is entirely equivalent to, in fact, by definition is a mechanical system.
Take for your example the simple fact that you or I could, with enough resolve and determination, implement absolutely any software using naught else but millions of garden hoses and 3-way water faucets (presuming limitless water pressure and component durability, and forgiving the latency inherent in manually turning all those knobs in sequence...)It seeems that your rebuttal consists of little more than towing the party line, whereas I am attempting to advance the state of affairs with a little rational consideration. That you fail to even hint at consideration of my points in your attack against my comment would indicate, at least to me, that you have little creativity and/or only the smallest grasp of the over-all picture here. I don't mean to be overly harsh with that, but you could at least rebut my actual points rather than just condescending to give me a cursory lesson in the basics of this current and timely debate!
I continually find myself at a loss as to why so many consider software as something to be covered under Copyright Law. Unless I am mistaken, and I rarely am, Programming Code is nothing more than the ordering of electronic gates through a high-level intermediary, i.e., a text document which is then 'compiled' into the necessary arrangement to form a machine that acts on electrons.
You can copyright all the blueprints you want, but that doesn't give people the legal right to market your 'invention', which is the arrangement of electronic gates found in the CPU, regardless if they obtain or duplicate your blueprints.
Computer Code clearly falls under the auspices of Patent Law, and nothing further. It is a purely mechanical system, and the code is ultimately just shorthand to arrive at the desired effect. In other words, a diagram. Just as a lawnmower or lightbulb would require for a patent. That it is inconvenient to show a physical diagram of software is irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant to copyright computer code.
That this simple fact continues to elude even the most (self-styled) brightest minds of our age boggles the mind. Individuals and Companies have been getting away with 'copyrighting' their mechanical inventions for far too long now, and I say it is high time that some sense is brought to the table.
Jules Verne wrote about nuclear submarines a long time before their invention."
not true. there were submarines as early as the US civil war. pedantic nitpicking sure, but them's the facts.
Perhaps not as influential as it was prophetic, but here are a few of the many entertaining elements made real with each passing year: First, the term 'cyberspace' is coined here (or was it in an earlier short story?) and the rowdy, lawless net culture that we have today us described in detail. Second, the visualization of data as high-res 3D abstraction is presented as the main interface to this new 'cyberspace', and this was in 1983, long before even the first vga adaptor. While we still primarilly rely on CLIs and window systems to manipulate data, this does describe the 3D games that are played today rather well. Large polygonal objects projected in perspective was not commonplace technology 20 years ago.
Third, the fragmentation of the US by corporate influence is held as an obvious trend, something again that is coming to pass with each mega-merger we see in the news. AOL/TW anyone? Microsoft? oh, the list goes on. Gibson is loosing his edge with the younger generation taking his works for granted, even un-inspired. They fail to grasp how utterly amazingly accurate many of his early 80's predictions have come to pass.
I know it seems foolish now, but I want to see the technology advancing at this rate in anticipation of real 3D displays. How many FPS do you think the NV25 could pull at 1200x1200x1200? There are a host of companies and researchers working on displays that have cubic resolutions such as this, and while the usual approach has been shining lasers at points in a plastic space treated with rare earth elements, I believe R&D at the major companies is focused on multi layering transparent LCDs (can't find any links just now :().
The demand for copious amounts of pixel data is looming and as such, there is a ways to go in the realm of graphics horsepower if we are ever going to get high definition 3D displays working. The notion of 3D displays made of many physical layers is not only feasable, but surely right around the corner. For the example of a 17" monitor, the form factor would almost be the same using a 1200-deep sandwich of pixel thick layers of LCD emulsion...
I suspect the material technology is available, but the datapath to drive such a display will have to be fast and wide in the extreme compared to the graphics systems available today. And the problem is made worse considering there will be no more backface culling to hide behind (yes, pun). Consider:
2d display, bits-per-second
1280 px X 1024px X 32bpp X 24fps = 1,006,632,960 (billion)
Volumetric 3D Display, bits-per-second
1280 px X 1024px X1024 X 32bpp X 24fps = 1,030,792,151,040 (quadrillion)
As you can see, your standard game of quake jumps two entire orders of magnitude more demanding on a video card by adopting a volumetric display strategy. That's some heavy minimum requirements. We may see the day when we all switch back to 8-bit diplays for a while as technology races to keep up with the next big leap in display technology.
Coupled with demanding framerate needs and the order of magnitude more polys that'll need rendering, the NV25 we drool over today will seem as crude and worthless as the CGA adaptor of only 10 years ago, and it'll all be here before you know it.
This is clearly just a ploy to establish iron-fisted control over the internet. What is more likely to be for the best in the long run is an extensible, completely open holographic DNS schema distributed across each client. That the problem of DNS and the fecundity of PtoP have not been mated seems to me an absurd thing.
This is the difference between hackers and bureaucrats in a nutshell. Centralized control over resiliant sophistication. God damn each of those bimbo sellout engineers for their short sightedness. If I had one ounce of say, one chance at effecting or affecting the logical and liberty enhancing solution I mention above, I could consider my life more or less comlete. (And I'm a card carrying member of ICANN at-large, dammit, and so much closer to such a goal than the bulk of you all!!) This is surely going to be the doom of the net as we know it.
How long before the governing body (ICANN) of such a rigid and authoritarian system becomes a mere appendage of one of the big players (IBM, AOL, MSFT)? That ICANN is already rotten with corruption is apparent to almost everyone, but what I am asking is how long before even the lip service is discarded? I am aghast at the thought of a monopoly on basic existance that such moves as this do threaten.
This is a call to arms. Anyone involve with open DNS or PtP should reply to this thread or email me at: this adress to discuss superceding such insidious and freedom wrecking evil as presented in the parent story.
Thankyou.
I know this'll just get lost in the noise of idiotic posts that this place is famous for, but it struck me as extremely ironic that slashdot, an open source riddled, smouldering pile of turgid code collapsed today when this story was posted. very funny stuff. You realize you people were prevented spouting off about how much more superior and wonderfully stable this open source malarky is because it collapsed yet again? LOL. MS bashing never looked so foolish.
:) so all you suckers working $10/hr desk support trying your hardest to believe this socialist/communist nonesense can keep on struggling, keep trying to make the rent while giving away your work (for those of you fools around here that actually even contribute to an OSS project) while the rest of you trying so desperately to latch on to some of the feeling of 1337ness attached to being a kernel hacker, even though you have yet to grok the frickin pipe, have a nice day. suckers.
I am posting this using win2k. for all your badmouthing and lies, it is a fantastic OS. no crashes, no reboots, no complex conf files to dicker with on setup, my registry is comfortably backed up under (count em) FOUR different system states, making rollback a simple matter in the event of bad 3rd party corruption or even - get this- restoring my system to freshly installed status in under FIVE minutes!!! haha.
You people and your 'make', 'dependencies', 'inodes', 'conf' and a fantastically crash prone windowing system are the most foolish tech advocates possible. If you hate Winders and MS, at least have the sense to use a worthwhile alternative- QNX, MacOS, *BSD etc. This Linux disaster is your own just dessert.
Meanwhile, I can stop working and live comfortably on the dividend MS stock pays quarterly. I was smart, I bought another 3500 shares earlier this year, bringing me up to a total of 35k shares. DotCom money invested soundly, I might add
floating in fluid moving at 30hz would have a similar effect.
some of us do this die-hard techno geek thing for our bread and butter. some of us work in places that have generators and battery backups. some of us may even be off the power grid entirely, with technologies like fuel cell electrical generators and windmills serving our electricity less and less implausable with each passing day. SO, the question bears some merit:
However, it is patently obvious that power company connectivity will include equipment that draws its power from the very power company that owns it. That being the case, a line break or a station/switching problem will obviously curtail the routing and switching of packets.
while open source is useful here, you shouldn't use this argument as a justification for the GPL. the BSD license would more than suffice for these purposes.
The GPL seriously undermines the commercial viability of software.
omfg! 'a new hope' 'empire strikes back' and 'revenge of the jedi' are all dark and epic titles....
Lucas has lost it.
I was about to apply for a job at Lucasarts, now I just might be too embarrased!~
I second that. This is a reference to a Koan found in 'Escher, Goedel, Bach, an Eternal Golden Braid' by innimitable Douglas Hoffsteder/
Otherwise known as the seminal work of AI philosophy.
This is truly on topic, moreso that the un-enlightened could ever know. ask yourelf: Are my mod points the mod points of the un-enlightened? if no, please mod up the parent's parent as +1, Insightful.
thankyou.
I think this is a strange place to host the 'academic' face of the videogame industry. Norway has not been known for their great VGI culture, nor their profusion of products. Perhaps this is their way of breaking into the field? Or is the site mearly hosted in .NO and run by established members of the industry?
In any event, as a professional game designer, I am not amused by the hoity-toity leap to exclusive peer review journals cluttering up the landscape. It seems the best games come from the underground, the fresh blood seems to come out of the garage. Well, the current culture of academic arrogance has killed any chance of a new Thomas Edison appearing on the Science and Technology horizon, and I'd hate to see the trend develop for video games. Or we may never see the next John Carmack!