OK, I agree with you about the Netscape thing. It crashes so much it seems like I spend more time killing it and restarting it than I do using it. However, I have to disagree about X. I hear all these people complaining about the stability of X all the time, but I have never had X crash a single time in my life. Not even once. Hell, I don't even know what X crashing looks like. What do you people do to X to make it crash so much? And I don't even have "quality hardware". I have three year old, crap, bargain-basement hardware.
Let's give X some credit. It's a good system. Windoze, on the other hand, crashes just about every time I use it. I can't say that windoze has much quality.
I posted a comment to the effect that I was going to buy a SB Live unless Aureal made their drivers open source in the thread about Creative open sourcing their drivers. Maybe somebody at Aureal read it;-)
Now the big question is what will this mean for 3D sound in Linux? Creative says they are going to be developing 3D sound for their Linux drivers, but as far as I know all Aureal has said is that they will be open-sourcing their regular drivers. I don't believe that they've even said they will release their specs. So will we just get some regular sound drivers that happen to be open-source, or is Aureal really committing to the Linux platform? At this point I just don't think we have enough information to get too exciting about this announcement. I probably will buy that Vortex 2 though;-)
I've always felt that Aureal's Vortex cards were better technology than the SB Live, but with this announcement I might get an SB Live anyway. Currently, the only way to get any sound support in Linux with a Vortex or Vortex 2 is by purchasing the OSS sound drivers (and even then it's only beta). I actually did this for the Vortex 1 I have now, and I have been thinking about upgrading to a Vortex 2 soon. But even when the drivers are out of beta this won't give you 3D sound in Linux, just regular sound. It seams that Aureal is beginning to take the Linux market more seriously as they have announced they will develop their own Linux drivers which will be available for free, but they still won't be open and at this point all we have is a promise. They may very well delay the drivers as companies often do.
Compare this to Creative, who are now not only announcing that their already available (and free) drivers will be made open, but they are also planning on actually implementing 3D sound in Linux. I don't particularily like Creative, but you've got to love this!
As I said before, I think Aureal has better hardware. And their 3D sound is considerably more sophisticated as they implement "wavetracing" in which the path of the sound wave is actually modelled. But does this matter if they don't have 3D sound support in Linux? OK, 3D sound is mostly used in games and most games are still in windoze, so I pretty much have windoze on my computer for the sole purpose of playing games. Lack of 3D sound in Linux didn't bother me before because there were nothing in Linux that could actually take advantage of it. This situation is thankfully starting to change. 3D video support in Linux is improving by leaps and bounds and many more games are being made available for Linux. But until now there just hasn't been any 3D sound.
So, just in case anyone from Aureal is here, if you don't offer something comparable my next sound card will be a SB Live even though I think it's inferior technology and I don't like Creative. OK?
I noticed several comments about how intel must have had this ready, but not released it until the Athlon came out. People seem to think that they were holding back. Well, I've got news for you: they weren't holding back. The coppermine isn't ready.
Sure, they say that it's been released. But what does "released" mean. There are only a handful of them out there, and don't expect that to improved soon because the yeilds are horrible. It seems that they have just enought to send to reviewers.
Has anyone actually tried buying one of these? Check pricewatch. Nothing. Nadda. Zip. Zero. Normally, new CPUs can be found weeks BEFORE the official release through various grey market channels, but in this case coppermine is nowhere to be found even AFTER it was supposably released.
It gets worse. A big part of the improvement that's supposed to come from coppermine has nothing to do with the processor itself, but is related to intel's new i820 chipset and improved memory technology. All the benchmarks seem to use this chipset, but intel isn't even pretending that you can actually buy an i820 yet. It's not out and won't be for a while. So these benchmarks that are out there are not close to the performance you will get in reality.
So, some people say that the coppermine was released because of the Athlon. Well, you've got it half right. Intel is pretending that the coppermine is released because of the Athlon. They were being humiliated by the Athlon's superior technology, so they rushed a handful of basically incomplete (I say this not only because fo the missing i820 chipset, but also because the horrible yeilds intel is getting on these things) designs to the market so that their marketing people can claim to have the best. Yeah right. Personally, I'd get an Athlon. They actually exist.
I don't mean to sound like a troll or something, but I just don't get what is so great about an iBook. It's an overpriced, underperforming, oversized, heavy laptop that looks like a toilet seat. Why would I WANT to run Linux on this thing? Why would anyone (unless of course they're a mac fan, in which case everything Apple does is by definition good)? Of course, I never got the iMac either. I guess I can see non-techies being attracted to its styling or something (although personally I think it's incredibly ugly), but these don't strike me as the type of people who would run Linux.
Can somebody explain to me why these things are so damn popular?
All the chipset problems you mentioned there apply to the old super 7 motherboards, but not the Athlon. For super 7, AMD relied on 3rd party chipset makers to supply all the necessary chipsets, and they had a lot of problems. But for the Athlon AMD designed their own chipset. While I don't actually have one (not yet, anyway), everything I've read about them seems to indicate that AMD got it right. Their Athlon chipset doesn't have ANY of the problems that the super 7 chipsets did. So really, the only con you have for AMD is the availability situation (and you can blame intel pressuring mobo makers to not make Athlon mobos for that).
Now wait a second there! Believe me, if the L2 cache wasn't enabled you would notice! A PIII (or any modern processor for that matter) will perform like shit without L2. CPUID never gets new processors identified correctly. It just compares the processor to known processor types and matches it to the closest one. If a processor is not in its database (in the case of a new design), it simply won't get it right. But that does not mean that the processor isn't working correctly! It just means that CPUID doesn't know what it is.
The coppermine (Which has absolutely nothing to do with copper. Does that bug anyone else?) does have some improvements over the PIII, but it's still just another revision of an aging core design. There is only so much better caching can do. It will probably be able to match the Athlon in business apps, for which cache is very important, but does anyone really need faster performance in business apps? Just wondering. In floating point intensive programs the coppermine will not even come close to Athlon performance. And better floating point is going to matter more than integer performance.
"The only way any form of Communism works in when scarcity doesn't exist, i.e. infinite supply"
Hmm...now there's something that's always bugged me about software licenses. In case people haven't noticed, SOFTWARE ISN'T SCARCE, at least not in the traditional sense of the word. Scarce resources refers to the simple fact that there is a limited number of resources available in the world, and everyone cannot have all of them. There needs to be some way in which to distribute the resources in a sensible manner.
But, as I said before, THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO SOFTWARE! How much does it cost to make a billion copies of a piece of software? OK, it's not quite zero, but it's pretty close. Unlike the case of scare resources, in which it is impossible to give everyone all the resources they want, it IS possible to give everyone all the software they want. Does the model of having software as a product that you have to buy, like any other physical product, really make sense?
All the arguments for traditional liscensing deal with "rewarding innovation". Now, I'm not saying that innovation shouldn't be rewarded, but is making software into a more traditional "product" by placing artificial liscensing restrictions on it reall the only way to do this? Programmers should be paid. They do work, afterall. They need to eat. But do we need to use traditional software licenses to do this? Red Hat seems to be able to make money off of support even though you can get their "product" for free. Certainly there must be other ways to create a business model off of open source software.
Will they make more money than traditional software companies? Probably not. Is this a good or bad thing? I'd say good. Sure, entrepreneurism (is that a word) should be rewarded. But you know what? It can be rewarded without having a company like microsoft dominating the market and making absurd amounts of money. Quite frankly, if microsoft didn't hold their current position then somebody else would. The very nature of the software market (in the traditional, non-open source sense), seems to encourage monopolies. This is especially true in the operating system market. I'm not sure it's even possible to have a normal competitive market for software. But if the market was dominated by free software, then would a competitive really need to exist?
Of course, as I mentioned before, companies will probably not make as much money under this model. This doesn't mean they can't make money, it just means they won't make the same ridiculus quantities of money. However, it does mean that they won't walk down this path willingly. Why give up a business model that is making you tons of money for one which will require just as much work and make less money? At best, we will see semi-open source licenses like the SCSL which, as others have said, ignore all the principles of open source and free software and just try to get programmers to work for Sun for free. Fortunately, most programmers are smart people and don't really want to work for Sun for free. But if we want real change to happen, there are only two ways I can think of this happening:
1. The government gets involved. Or, more accurately, the government gets uninvolved. By getting rid of software copywrite and patents (While they're at it, why don't they get rid of all patents?), an open-source style business model would become the only really viable business model. Of course, with the amount of money the government receives from business and the fact that it is almost impossible to have any real change unless you create some media sensation that gets Average Joe all upset (and somehow, I don't think that Average Joe will either understand or care about the issue at hand), I just don't think this would be a real possibility. Unless I went off and started my own country, that is;-)
2. What we are doing. Constantly improving Linux and other free software programs will create an interesting problem for traditional software companies: what do you do when your competitors are releasing a superior product that costs absolutely nothing? How do you stay in business? Of course, it's an uphill battle. There is already such a ingrained opinion in Average Joe that everything Microsoft is good. These are people who believe that having computers crash is normal and there is nothing that can done about it. They've never used anything besides Microsoft products so they honestly believe that all software is like that (of course, they also think that Microsoft makes the best stuff just because they have a lot of adds and everyone else they know uses Microsoft stuff). Microsoft calls this "mindshare" (doesn't anybody else find this term to be really disturbing?). The community has to make something vastly superior to ever convince these people to switch. And I don't see this happening (in the home market, anyway) very soon.
Looking back on this post, I am kind of surprised at how long I made it. I didn't really intend for it to be this long, it was a kind of stream-of-consciousness thing. Of well. Even if nobody reads this, it was good to get all of that off of my chest. Hey, slashdot can function as a kind of therapy!;-)
Actually, I believe (although I may be mistaken) that the Jurassic Park thing was based on a very real interface that SGI was experimenting with. They never made it standard (good for them), but it was an option (which eventually flopped).
This is simply absurd. A lot of people don't realize it, but even once a processor design is finished it doesn't mean it will be in full production. The shortest time there has ever been between a processor tapping out and going into production is 11 months. It normally takes longer than that. The Willamette has not tapped out yet. The probability of it being out this year at all, let alone at 1100 mhz, is simply 0.
It's a very real possibility. They probably confuses Opposing Force (which is an add-on to Halflife) with the Half-Life Game of the Year Edition (Which is just Half-Life in a different box. Go marketing!).
Of course, I suppose somebody might point out that it is equally likely that this is the reason that they made this error when they "made up" the article. Take your pick. Personally, I'm not quite ready to start rolling out the conspiracy theories (and I'm normally one of the first people to do so).
I have absolutely nothing against the entrepreneur who finds some way to make a fortune (as long as they do it legally and morally). What bugs me is their kids. You know, people who are BORN rich. People who think that they're better than you because they've never actually had to WORK for a living. Isn't there something we can do about them?
Teller has been treated extremely poorly by history and by the press. Just look at this interview for crying out loud! The fact of the matter is that he is a brilliant man. A lot of his proposals would work, and could really help our society if it wasn't for the fact that the general public is too afraid of something they don't understand to take advantage of it.
And if you're so concerned about nuclear weapons, here's a thought: nuclear weapons have saved far, far, more lives than they have taken. The only time they were actually used in combat was at the end of WWII, and while it is true that many were killed, and actual invasion would have cost many more lives on BOTH sides. And the conflict between the US and the Soviet Union were caused by political differences, not nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are the reason it was a COLD war, if it wasn't for nuclear weapons it may very well have been WWIII between the two most powerful nations in the world. The death toll would have made WWII look like a day in the park.
I do not see what possible advantage this would have over a conventional console. You just can't compete with specialized hardware using a general purpose CPU, especially one with a heritage like x86. Current computers can compete in performance with consoles by using the brute force approach, but they are much more expensive. I don't think it is possible to use something like x86 to compete in both performance and price with something like the psx2.
Anyway, think about the hardware they are talking about. This is supposed to be out over a year from now? Using an NV10? The NV10 sounds great now, but at the speed the graphics industry moves at it will be totally obsolete in a year. And a 500 mhz processor?! In a year we will have Ghz processors. You'd be lucky to even find somebody still making 500 mhz processors. I know that AMD is only making a handful of 500 mhz Athlons right now, and they will probably stop production of that speed before the end of the year.
In short, this console sounds simply like a bad product. Of course, that never stopped M$ before.
It's been possible to start at 0 after posting a lot of bad comments for a while. The new rule makes it so that you can start at -1 after posting even more bad comments. Honestly, anyone who posts that many bad comments deserves it.
Jeez. I guess some people just don't understand the concept of A JOKE! It was obviously suppose to be A JOKE! Why is it that whenever somebody tries to make A JOKE there is somebody like you who replies to it as if it were serious.
Honestly though, that shows been going downhill for a while. I really liked it in the begginning, but nowadays I have trouble staying awake through some of their episodes. Or maybe it's just that after so many years of them doing the same exact thing without ever accomplishing anything I just got sick of it.
The bandwidth is fine, but what about latencies?
on
Microwave T1 Service
·
· Score: 1
Afterall, what's the point of a fancy new microwave T1 connection if you can't play Quake III on it? Isn't that the entire point of T1 lines?
Re:why why and why??????!!!!! (plz pity us)
on
Linux on a SIMM
·
· Score: 1
Delete it?! Why? I think it should be moderated up as "funny".
What exactly "blows" about it? It doesn't support any fancy new features like DDR ram or anything, but it was never intended to. It was designed simply to ensure that the Athlon had a chipset for its release. It does support UDMA 66, making it more full featured than intel's current top of the line chipset (the BX). It certainly doesn't have any speed problems. The AGP problems which plagued super 7 chipsets are non-existent in the Irongate. Why do you say it "blows"? And AMD plans to build on it to add new features (such as SMP, DDR ram, AGP 4x, etc.). It seems like a fine chipset to me.
You say $100 dollars a processor like that's cheap. In reality, that's very expensive. The cost of physically manufacturing a PIII is around $50-$60. The Athlon is about the same. The K6 series is more in the $40-$50 range. There are also designs like the winchip that are made to be cheap. We're talking around $30. Like software, what you're paying for is the development cost (only for hardware those costs are much higher). If you had a processor that cost $100 to make and you sold it for $110 you would NOT make a profit.
I got a freakin 3% for openess and a 7% for extroversion. The rest of my scores were "neither high nor low" in the 35-45 range. I'm messed up or something.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I agree with you about the Netscape thing. It crashes so much it seems like I spend more time killing it and restarting it than I do using it. However, I have to disagree about X. I hear all these people complaining about the stability of X all the time, but I have never had X crash a single time in my life. Not even once. Hell, I don't even know what X crashing looks like. What do you people do to X to make it crash so much? And I don't even have "quality hardware". I have three year old, crap, bargain-basement hardware.
Let's give X some credit. It's a good system. Windoze, on the other hand, crashes just about every time I use it. I can't say that windoze has much quality.
Now I can get that Vortex 2 I've always wanted.
;-)
;-)
I posted a comment to the effect that I was going to buy a SB Live unless Aureal made their drivers open source in the thread about Creative open sourcing their drivers. Maybe somebody at Aureal read it
Now the big question is what will this mean for 3D sound in Linux? Creative says they are going to be developing 3D sound for their Linux drivers, but as far as I know all Aureal has said is that they will be open-sourcing their regular drivers. I don't believe that they've even said they will release their specs. So will we just get some regular sound drivers that happen to be open-source, or is Aureal really committing to the Linux platform? At this point I just don't think we have enough information to get too exciting about this announcement. I probably will buy that Vortex 2 though
I've always felt that Aureal's Vortex cards were better technology than the SB Live, but with this announcement I might get an SB Live anyway. Currently, the only way to get any sound support in Linux with a Vortex or Vortex 2 is by purchasing the OSS sound drivers (and even then it's only beta). I actually did this for the Vortex 1 I have now, and I have been thinking about upgrading to a Vortex 2 soon. But even when the drivers are out of beta this won't give you 3D sound in Linux, just regular sound. It seams that Aureal is beginning to take the Linux market more seriously as they have announced they will develop their own Linux drivers which will be available for free, but they still won't be open and at this point all we have is a promise. They may very well delay the drivers as companies often do.
Compare this to Creative, who are now not only announcing that their already available (and free) drivers will be made open, but they are also planning on actually implementing 3D sound in Linux. I don't particularily like Creative, but you've got to love this!
As I said before, I think Aureal has better hardware. And their 3D sound is considerably more sophisticated as they implement "wavetracing" in which the path of the sound wave is actually modelled. But does this matter if they don't have 3D sound support in Linux? OK, 3D sound is mostly used in games and most games are still in windoze, so I pretty much have windoze on my computer for the sole purpose of playing games. Lack of 3D sound in Linux didn't bother me before because there were nothing in Linux that could actually take advantage of it. This situation is thankfully starting to change. 3D video support in Linux is improving by leaps and bounds and many more games are being made available for Linux. But until now there just hasn't been any 3D sound.
So, just in case anyone from Aureal is here, if you don't offer something comparable my next sound card will be a SB Live even though I think it's inferior technology and I don't like Creative. OK?
I noticed several comments about how intel must have had this ready, but not released it until the Athlon came out. People seem to think that they were holding back. Well, I've got news for you: they weren't holding back. The coppermine isn't ready.
Sure, they say that it's been released. But what does "released" mean. There are only a handful of them out there, and don't expect that to improved soon because the yeilds are horrible. It seems that they have just enought to send to reviewers.
Has anyone actually tried buying one of these? Check pricewatch. Nothing. Nadda. Zip. Zero. Normally, new CPUs can be found weeks BEFORE the official release through various grey market channels, but in this case coppermine is nowhere to be found even AFTER it was supposably released.
It gets worse. A big part of the improvement that's supposed to come from coppermine has nothing to do with the processor itself, but is related to intel's new i820 chipset and improved memory technology. All the benchmarks seem to use this chipset, but intel isn't even pretending that you can actually buy an i820 yet. It's not out and won't be for a while. So these benchmarks that are out there are not close to the performance you will get in reality.
So, some people say that the coppermine was released because of the Athlon. Well, you've got it half right. Intel is pretending that the coppermine is released because of the Athlon. They were being humiliated by the Athlon's superior technology, so they rushed a handful of basically incomplete (I say this not only because fo the missing i820 chipset, but also because the horrible yeilds intel is getting on these things) designs to the market so that their marketing people can claim to have the best. Yeah right. Personally, I'd get an Athlon. They actually exist.
I don't mean to sound like a troll or something, but I just don't get what is so great about an iBook. It's an overpriced, underperforming, oversized, heavy laptop that looks like a toilet seat. Why would I WANT to run Linux on this thing? Why would anyone (unless of course they're a mac fan, in which case everything Apple does is by definition good)? Of course, I never got the iMac either. I guess I can see non-techies being attracted to its styling or something (although personally I think it's incredibly ugly), but these don't strike me as the type of people who would run Linux.
Can somebody explain to me why these things are so damn popular?
All the chipset problems you mentioned there apply to the old super 7 motherboards, but not the Athlon. For super 7, AMD relied on 3rd party chipset makers to supply all the necessary chipsets, and they had a lot of problems. But for the Athlon AMD designed their own chipset. While I don't actually have one (not yet, anyway), everything I've read about them seems to indicate that AMD got it right. Their Athlon chipset doesn't have ANY of the problems that the super 7 chipsets did. So really, the only con you have for AMD is the availability situation (and you can blame intel pressuring mobo makers to not make Athlon mobos for that).
Now wait a second there! Believe me, if the L2 cache wasn't enabled you would notice! A PIII (or any modern processor for that matter) will perform like shit without L2. CPUID never gets new processors identified correctly. It just compares the processor to known processor types and matches it to the closest one. If a processor is not in its database (in the case of a new design), it simply won't get it right. But that does not mean that the processor isn't working correctly! It just means that CPUID doesn't know what it is.
The coppermine (Which has absolutely nothing to do with copper. Does that bug anyone else?) does have some improvements over the PIII, but it's still just another revision of an aging core design. There is only so much better caching can do. It will probably be able to match the Athlon in business apps, for which cache is very important, but does anyone really need faster performance in business apps? Just wondering. In floating point intensive programs the coppermine will not even come close to Athlon performance. And better floating point is going to matter more than integer performance.
YES
"The only way any form of Communism works in when scarcity doesn't exist, i.e. infinite supply"
;-)
;-)
Hmm...now there's something that's always bugged me about software licenses. In case people haven't noticed, SOFTWARE ISN'T SCARCE, at least not in the traditional sense of the word. Scarce resources refers to the simple fact that there is a limited number of resources available in the world, and everyone cannot have all of them. There needs to be some way in which to distribute the resources in a sensible manner.
But, as I said before, THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO SOFTWARE! How much does it cost to make a billion copies of a piece of software? OK, it's not quite zero, but it's pretty close. Unlike the case of scare resources, in which it is impossible to give everyone all the resources they want, it IS possible to give everyone all the software they want. Does the model of having software as a product that you have to buy, like any other physical product, really make sense?
All the arguments for traditional liscensing deal with "rewarding innovation". Now, I'm not saying that innovation shouldn't be rewarded, but is making software into a more traditional "product" by placing artificial liscensing restrictions on it reall the only way to do this? Programmers should be paid. They do work, afterall. They need to eat. But do we need to use traditional software licenses to do this? Red Hat seems to be able to make money off of support even though you can get their "product" for free. Certainly there must be other ways to create a business model off of open source software.
Will they make more money than traditional software companies? Probably not. Is this a good or bad thing? I'd say good. Sure, entrepreneurism (is that a word) should be rewarded. But you know what? It can be rewarded without having a company like microsoft dominating the market and making absurd amounts of money. Quite frankly, if microsoft didn't hold their current position then somebody else would. The very nature of the software market (in the traditional, non-open source sense), seems to encourage monopolies. This is especially true in the operating system market. I'm not sure it's even possible to have a normal competitive market for software. But if the market was dominated by free software, then would a competitive really need to exist?
Of course, as I mentioned before, companies will probably not make as much money under this model. This doesn't mean they can't make money, it just means they won't make the same ridiculus quantities of money. However, it does mean that they won't walk down this path willingly. Why give up a business model that is making you tons of money for one which will require just as much work and make less money? At best, we will see semi-open source licenses like the SCSL which, as others have said, ignore all the principles of open source and free software and just try to get programmers to work for Sun for free. Fortunately, most programmers are smart people and don't really want to work for Sun for free. But if we want real change to happen, there are only two ways I can think of this happening:
1. The government gets involved. Or, more accurately, the government gets uninvolved. By getting rid of software copywrite and patents (While they're at it, why don't they get rid of all patents?), an open-source style business model would become the only really viable business model. Of course, with the amount of money the government receives from business and the fact that it is almost impossible to have any real change unless you create some media sensation that gets Average Joe all upset (and somehow, I don't think that Average Joe will either understand or care about the issue at hand), I just don't think this would be a real possibility. Unless I went off and started my own country, that is
2. What we are doing. Constantly improving Linux and other free software programs will create an interesting problem for traditional software companies: what do you do when your competitors are releasing a superior product that costs absolutely nothing? How do you stay in business? Of course, it's an uphill battle. There is already such a ingrained opinion in Average Joe that everything Microsoft is good. These are people who believe that having computers crash is normal and there is nothing that can done about it. They've never used anything besides Microsoft products so they honestly believe that all software is like that (of course, they also think that Microsoft makes the best stuff just because they have a lot of adds and everyone else they know uses Microsoft stuff). Microsoft calls this "mindshare" (doesn't anybody else find this term to be really disturbing?). The community has to make something vastly superior to ever convince these people to switch. And I don't see this happening (in the home market, anyway) very soon.
Looking back on this post, I am kind of surprised at how long I made it. I didn't really intend for it to be this long, it was a kind of stream-of-consciousness thing. Of well. Even if nobody reads this, it was good to get all of that off of my chest. Hey, slashdot can function as a kind of therapy!
Actually, I believe (although I may be mistaken) that the Jurassic Park thing was based on a very real interface that SGI was experimenting with. They never made it standard (good for them), but it was an option (which eventually flopped).
This is simply absurd. A lot of people don't realize it, but even once a processor design is finished it doesn't mean it will be in full production. The shortest time there has ever been between a processor tapping out and going into production is 11 months. It normally takes longer than that. The Willamette has not tapped out yet. The probability of it being out this year at all, let alone at 1100 mhz, is simply 0.
It's a very real possibility. They probably confuses Opposing Force (which is an add-on to Halflife) with the Half-Life Game of the Year Edition (Which is just Half-Life in a different box. Go marketing!).
Of course, I suppose somebody might point out that it is equally likely that this is the reason that they made this error when they "made up" the article. Take your pick. Personally, I'm not quite ready to start rolling out the conspiracy theories (and I'm normally one of the first people to do so).
I have absolutely nothing against the entrepreneur who finds some way to make a fortune (as long as they do it legally and morally). What bugs me is their kids. You know, people who are BORN rich. People who think that they're better than you because they've never actually had to WORK for a living. Isn't there something we can do about them?
Teller has been treated extremely poorly by history and by the press. Just look at this interview for crying out loud! The fact of the matter is that he is a brilliant man. A lot of his proposals would work, and could really help our society if it wasn't for the fact that the general public is too afraid of something they don't understand to take advantage of it.
And if you're so concerned about nuclear weapons, here's a thought: nuclear weapons have saved far, far, more lives than they have taken. The only time they were actually used in combat was at the end of WWII, and while it is true that many were killed, and actual invasion would have cost many more lives on BOTH sides. And the conflict between the US and the Soviet Union were caused by political differences, not nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are the reason it was a COLD war, if it wasn't for nuclear weapons it may very well have been WWIII between the two most powerful nations in the world. The death toll would have made WWII look like a day in the park.
I do not see what possible advantage this would have over a conventional console. You just can't compete with specialized hardware using a general purpose CPU, especially one with a heritage like x86. Current computers can compete in performance with consoles by using the brute force approach, but they are much more expensive. I don't think it is possible to use something like x86 to compete in both performance and price with something like the psx2.
Anyway, think about the hardware they are talking about. This is supposed to be out over a year from now? Using an NV10? The NV10 sounds great now, but at the speed the graphics industry moves at it will be totally obsolete in a year. And a 500 mhz processor?! In a year we will have Ghz processors. You'd be lucky to even find somebody still making 500 mhz processors. I know that AMD is only making a handful of 500 mhz Athlons right now, and they will probably stop production of that speed before the end of the year.
In short, this console sounds simply like a bad product. Of course, that never stopped M$ before.
It's been possible to start at 0 after posting a lot of bad comments for a while. The new rule makes it so that you can start at -1 after posting even more bad comments. Honestly, anyone who posts that many bad comments deserves it.
Upsilon
Jeez. I guess some people just don't understand the concept of A JOKE! It was obviously suppose to be A JOKE! Why is it that whenever somebody tries to make A JOKE there is somebody like you who replies to it as if it were serious.
Whatever will I do without my X-Files?
Honestly though, that shows been going downhill for a while. I really liked it in the begginning, but nowadays I have trouble staying awake through some of their episodes. Or maybe it's just that after so many years of them doing the same exact thing without ever accomplishing anything I just got sick of it.
Afterall, what's the point of a fancy new microwave T1 connection if you can't play Quake III on it? Isn't that the entire point of T1 lines?
Delete it?! Why? I think it should be moderated up as "funny".
That's what LGPL (library GPL) is for. There are no restrictions for a commercial program linking to an LGPL library.
What exactly "blows" about it? It doesn't support any fancy new features like DDR ram or anything, but it was never intended to. It was designed simply to ensure that the Athlon had a chipset for its release. It does support UDMA 66, making it more full featured than intel's current top of the line chipset (the BX). It certainly doesn't have any speed problems. The AGP problems which plagued super 7 chipsets are non-existent in the Irongate. Why do you say it "blows"? And AMD plans to build on it to add new features (such as SMP, DDR ram, AGP 4x, etc.). It seems like a fine chipset to me.
You say $100 dollars a processor like that's cheap. In reality, that's very expensive. The cost of physically manufacturing a PIII is around $50-$60. The Athlon is about the same. The K6 series is more in the $40-$50 range. There are also designs like the winchip that are made to be cheap. We're talking around $30. Like software, what you're paying for is the development cost (only for hardware those costs are much higher). If you had a processor that cost $100 to make and you sold it for $110 you would NOT make a profit.
Um...I have it and it works fine. What exactly is your problem?
I got a freakin 3% for openess and a 7% for extroversion. The rest of my scores were "neither high nor low" in the 35-45 range. I'm messed up or something.