While at first it seems to be a wonderful idea, it is in fact not. Keeping something like tar or bz2, zip, etc... standard is important but not a packaging technique or manager. Different operating systems are too different, and would never be accepted on non-open platforms. If a standard packaging system is to be done, do it for linux and unix like operating systems only. Then if non-open platforms like it, they can adopt it on their own. I personally think the best thing that could happen would be for debian, redhat, the linux standard base, and others to get together, take features and components from rpm, deb, and create something new that everyone can agree on. From a developer and corporate standpoint, making packages for rpm, deb, and tar is too much of a hassle and not practical. Everyone needs to put aside their differences in opinions and come to a compromise that can benefit everyone. There ought to be a standard packaging system for binary data and stick to tar for source. If average computer users are to ever migrate to linux, this has to be done. Enough with all the ghettoness and disorder.
actually, Einstein came up with relativity after noticing the differences between classical mechanics and electro dynamics. Amazily, everything we've known about electro statics, and electro dynamics has been relativistically correct. Einstein noticed this and began to question the classical dynamics which lead him to deduce relativity.
I'm not snickering. I have taken both Quantum mechanics 1 and Quantum mechanics 2. Have you taken any? I believe I know what math is involved in quantum mechanics and the little alegbra involved, is trival. 99% of quantum mechanics is differentials, and eigenfunctions or hamiltonians.
a troll? No, I just get aggrevated by cs people acting like they know everything about everything. Yes, Hawking is a important person in the physics world but not that important. He is viewed as more of a fiction writer than anything else. If any of you where physicists, you would know that speculating things from pure theory is usually 99% wrong and take be taken as true. The lack of experiemental data is the reason his views are not held high. Also, for you of those that think all of this can be understood by reading his book, you are just lying to yourself. As I said before, you guys are getting ahead of yourself. It would be like a newbie programmer trying to write a game before he even knows how to us malloc. Hell, I bet most of you can't even work simple gravitational field problems much less the electrodynamics, quantum relativity, and other materials needed to actually piece together possibilities of blackholes. I'm not trying to bash anyone for not being a physics guru but many people talk a lot of shit about blackholes, etc... with no real knowledge about it. It is about as annoying as a linux guru seeing linux being called a company by some tech reporter, etc... You get the point.
hehe, algebra? Algebra can't even be put into the same sentense as quantum mechanics.:) You can give some simple expressions for momentum, energy, etc.. bu they are specific scenarios and found either through extensive derivation or from experiments.
one of my points was that space time is so complicated that it's impossible to grasp it from reading a book like that of stephen hawkings. When I've studied space-time relativity, the making up of the theories were so complex, so mathamatically in depth, etc... that any ideas or knowledge you do get from a book from stephen hawkins is so limited that it isn't worth reading. On top of that, you are forced to take it all for granted. As far as blackholes goes, the true nature of blackholes can't even be put into words that would make a valid argument.
one could make a nuclear weapon without e=mc^2 but purely by luck. The true understanding of what is happening is from e=mc^2. When you have nucleons binding through nuclear forces, you have a binding energy related to that. That binding energy is what causes the weight per nucleon go up with increasing nucleons. That binding energy is directly related to e=mc^2. If you look at the mass differences, my oh my, the binding energy is mc^2 where m is the mass difference. This is just the cover of what e=mc^2 is.
no offense but this original post gets a score of 4? There isn't a single thing said that is true. A brief history of time doesn't even scratch einstein's theories. Also, the statement that
"the applications of E=MC^2 are more interesting the then the nuts 'n bolts of the theory itself" is completely ridiculous. This person obviously has no grasp of eintein's theories. However, like always, slashdot tends to give incorrect posts the highest score or the posts that conform to their own thoughts. Besides, if a physics book isn't 60% math, it's no good. Words and contexts of blackholes, etc.... doesn't teach you a thing about physics. I probably seem a bit pissed over this and I am. It really pisses me off when I see slashdot people comment over physics related subjects because everytime they do, Hawkings is always brought up. Well let me tell you, in the physics community, no one gives a shit about Hawkins and his books. It's like the National Enquirer to us. On top of that, trying to even understand space-time, blackholes, etc... without the fundamentals of physics is like trying to crank up the car without gas in it.
I'm a physicist and I don't have the intentions of putting anyone but. However, if you want to learn some physics, stop reading these fairy tell books and grab a real physics book. Any book you get from Hawkings pr abpit Einstein and relativity is about as informative as a two year old when it comes down to real physics. I've seen some of you talk about E=mc^2 but yet none seem to have any true grasp on what it is, how it is applied, etc.. I only see thoughts that it is, cool, and "the applications of E=MC^2 are more interesting the then the nuts 'n bolts of the theory itself" which is complete rubish. The nuts and bolts of E=mc^2 defines everything in modern physics. We would not understand nuclear reactions, nuclear binding energies, etc... without E=mc^2. Radioactive Nuclear Structure just so happens to be what I do research on. Anyway, the "nuts and bolts" of E=mc^2 is by far the most important thing. As far as quantum mechanics, your view on what quantum mechanics is will do a 180 when you take a real class in it. Reading what Stephen Hawkings has to say is a lot different than reading pure quantum mechanics and working out real problems. Hell, if you haven't at least had every calculus, differential equations, and analysis, there is no way you can even attempt to do quantum mechanics. Part of understanding a large bit of quantum mecanics is directly related to your understanding of the math behind it. Anyway, my point is for many of you guys to stop reading such books for learning physics and read some real textbooks instead.
distro? What are you smoking.:) They wouldn't use a distro man. All a distro does is package a kernel with all the basic apps, libs, etc... and install it for you. Nokia isn't going to use any distro. They'll do it all themselves. They may have some consulting from a distro but they will not use a distro.
You shouldn't expect something back all the time. Sure, it's a ideal and plesant thought but it's not a practical one. Sticking to such thoughts will only hurt linux.
I am really surprised that Carmack actually considers his test as a valid one. I thought he would have considered the factors a little bit bettter than he did. As it has been said before, the main reason that the linux specific Q3 didn't sell well is due to:
A.) Released a good bit after the windows version
B.) Binaries for each platform would become available on the web.
C.) The 3d driver status wasn't so hot. As far as exceptable peformance goes, a V3 was the only solution so that narrowed it down even further to those that had a V3.
So what possible solutions could there be to improve game sells?
A.) Better 3d drivers obviously. However, this will take time and patience. A great deal of work is being put into creating wonderful drivers for current cards and even future cards as we speak. X 4.x is improving a great deal too. All we need is a little patience and possibly a urge to help out.
B.) A more user friendly setup. Stock linux installs aren't geared towards gaming. I belive that Nvidia and 3dfx should both provide a their own linux distro which should just be a modified version of some other distro like redhat but more oriented to games and their hardware.
C.) Gnome or kde panels that contain all apps loved by the typical computer user that exist in windows. Ex. Mpeg players, mixers, cd rippers, mp3 player, etc.... (this portion has improved greatly in the last 6 months but has plenty of room to improve more.)
D.) Lastly, a well know site that contains a list of substitutions for windows applications. Ex. ICQ->Licq,Kicq,gnomeicu. Word97-->Staroffice. Winamp-->xmms. etc...
Slashdot Mirror
While at first it seems to be a wonderful idea, it is in fact not. Keeping something like tar or bz2, zip, etc... standard is important but not a packaging technique or manager. Different operating systems are too different, and would never be accepted on non-open platforms. If a standard packaging system is to be done, do it for linux and unix like operating systems only. Then if non-open platforms like it, they can adopt it on their own. I personally think the best thing that could happen would be for debian, redhat, the linux standard base, and others to get together, take features and components from rpm, deb, and create something new that everyone can agree on. From a developer and corporate standpoint, making packages for rpm, deb, and tar is too much of a hassle and not practical. Everyone needs to put aside their differences in opinions and come to a compromise that can benefit everyone. There ought to be a standard packaging system for binary data and stick to tar for source. If average computer users are to ever migrate to linux, this has to be done. Enough with all the ghettoness and disorder.
actually, Einstein came up with relativity after noticing the differences between classical mechanics and electro dynamics. Amazily, everything we've known about electro statics, and electro dynamics has been relativistically correct. Einstein noticed this and began to question the classical dynamics which lead him to deduce relativity.
I'm not snickering. I have taken both Quantum mechanics 1 and Quantum mechanics 2. Have you taken any? I believe I know what math is involved in quantum mechanics and the little alegbra involved, is trival. 99% of quantum mechanics is differentials, and eigenfunctions or hamiltonians.
So I don't know anything about physics because I spelled his name wrong? Give me a break.
a troll? No, I just get aggrevated by cs people acting like they know everything about everything. Yes, Hawking is a important person in the physics world but not that important. He is viewed as more of a fiction writer than anything else. If any of you where physicists, you would know that speculating things from pure theory is usually 99% wrong and take be taken as true. The lack of experiemental data is the reason his views are not held high. Also, for you of those that think all of this can be understood by reading his book, you are just lying to yourself. As I said before, you guys are getting ahead of yourself. It would be like a newbie programmer trying to write a game before he even knows how to us malloc. Hell, I bet most of you can't even work simple gravitational field problems much less the electrodynamics, quantum relativity, and other materials needed to actually piece together possibilities of blackholes. I'm not trying to bash anyone for not being a physics guru but many people talk a lot of shit about blackholes, etc... with no real knowledge about it. It is about as annoying as a linux guru seeing linux being called a company by some tech reporter, etc... You get the point.
sorry, I meant That binding energy is what causes the weight per nucleon to go down with increasing nucleons
hehe, algebra? Algebra can't even be put into the same sentense as quantum mechanics. :) You can give some simple expressions for momentum, energy, etc.. bu they are specific scenarios and found either through extensive derivation or from experiments.
one of my points was that space time is so complicated that it's impossible to grasp it from reading a book like that of stephen hawkings. When I've studied space-time relativity, the making up of the theories were so complex, so mathamatically in depth, etc... that any ideas or knowledge you do get from a book from stephen hawkins is so limited that it isn't worth reading. On top of that, you are forced to take it all for granted. As far as blackholes goes, the true nature of blackholes can't even be put into words that would make a valid argument.
one could make a nuclear weapon without e=mc^2 but purely by luck. The true understanding of what is happening is from e=mc^2. When you have nucleons binding through nuclear forces, you have a binding energy related to that. That binding energy is what causes the weight per nucleon go up with increasing nucleons. That binding energy is directly related to e=mc^2. If you look at the mass differences, my oh my, the binding energy is mc^2 where m is the mass difference. This is just the cover of what e=mc^2 is.
no offense but this original post gets a score of 4? There isn't a single thing said that is true. A brief history of time doesn't even scratch einstein's theories. Also, the statement that "the applications of E=MC^2 are more interesting the then the nuts 'n bolts of the theory itself" is completely ridiculous. This person obviously has no grasp of eintein's theories. However, like always, slashdot tends to give incorrect posts the highest score or the posts that conform to their own thoughts. Besides, if a physics book isn't 60% math, it's no good. Words and contexts of blackholes, etc.... doesn't teach you a thing about physics. I probably seem a bit pissed over this and I am. It really pisses me off when I see slashdot people comment over physics related subjects because everytime they do, Hawkings is always brought up. Well let me tell you, in the physics community, no one gives a shit about Hawkins and his books. It's like the National Enquirer to us. On top of that, trying to even understand space-time, blackholes, etc... without the fundamentals of physics is like trying to crank up the car without gas in it.
I'm a physicist and I don't have the intentions of putting anyone but. However, if you want to learn some physics, stop reading these fairy tell books and grab a real physics book. Any book you get from Hawkings pr abpit Einstein and relativity is about as informative as a two year old when it comes down to real physics. I've seen some of you talk about E=mc^2 but yet none seem to have any true grasp on what it is, how it is applied, etc.. I only see thoughts that it is, cool, and "the applications of E=MC^2 are more interesting the then the nuts 'n bolts of the theory itself" which is complete rubish. The nuts and bolts of E=mc^2 defines everything in modern physics. We would not understand nuclear reactions, nuclear binding energies, etc... without E=mc^2. Radioactive Nuclear Structure just so happens to be what I do research on. Anyway, the "nuts and bolts" of E=mc^2 is by far the most important thing. As far as quantum mechanics, your view on what quantum mechanics is will do a 180 when you take a real class in it. Reading what Stephen Hawkings has to say is a lot different than reading pure quantum mechanics and working out real problems. Hell, if you haven't at least had every calculus, differential equations, and analysis, there is no way you can even attempt to do quantum mechanics. Part of understanding a large bit of quantum mecanics is directly related to your understanding of the math behind it. Anyway, my point is for many of you guys to stop reading such books for learning physics and read some real textbooks instead.
distro? What are you smoking. :) They wouldn't use a distro man. All a distro does is package a kernel with all the basic apps, libs, etc... and install it for you. Nokia isn't going to use any distro. They'll do it all themselves. They may have some consulting from a distro but they will not use a distro.
You shouldn't expect something back all the time. Sure, it's a ideal and plesant thought but it's not a practical one. Sticking to such thoughts will only hurt linux.
That is what a NDA is for. This non-compete shit is more like "we own your skills and thoughts. Not just our technology you are others create here."
I can think of a few reasons. A.) Macs are expensive B.) Mac OS X costs money
it says $500
I am really surprised that Carmack actually considers his test as a valid one. I thought he would have considered the factors a little bit bettter than he did. As it has been said before, the main reason that the linux specific Q3 didn't sell well is due to:
A.) Released a good bit after the windows version
B.) Binaries for each platform would become available on the web.
C.) The 3d driver status wasn't so hot. As far as exceptable peformance goes, a V3 was the only solution so that narrowed it down even further to those that had a V3.
So what possible solutions could there be to improve game sells?
A.) Better 3d drivers obviously. However, this will take time and patience. A great deal of work is being put into creating wonderful drivers for current cards and even future cards as we speak. X 4.x is improving a great deal too. All we need is a little patience and possibly a urge to help out.
B.) A more user friendly setup. Stock linux installs aren't geared towards gaming. I belive that Nvidia and 3dfx should both provide a their own linux distro which should just be a modified version of some other distro like redhat but more oriented to games and their hardware.
C.) Gnome or kde panels that contain all apps loved by the typical computer user that exist in windows. Ex. Mpeg players, mixers, cd rippers, mp3 player, etc.... (this portion has improved greatly in the last 6 months but has plenty of room to improve more.)
D.) Lastly, a well know site that contains a list of substitutions for windows applications. Ex. ICQ->Licq,Kicq,gnomeicu. Word97-->Staroffice. Winamp-->xmms. etc...