And then imagine what one could do if connecting it to a machine that physically builds what you draw that easily.:-)
Damn, I forgot what that machine was. You gave it a blueprint file and it simply created it as a solid block? I.e. it wasn't made for a predetermined design. Maybe a Slashdotter remembers it because I recall it was featured in a story here a few years ago.
Umm, yes, I think most of us here got that message. It's even in the article summary. Most also agree that it's a problem, including Wikipedians. Your point?:-S
As I say below in this discussion, as a Wikipedia contributor, I agree with you and don't really see the problem.
Actually, I feel this is great and even better than simple Wikipedia mirrors.
The reason at least *I* contribute is to provide information to the world, and that definitely includes "competitors" trying to make something better out of it.
I assume I'm a "Wikipedia member" as I contribute quite a lot to that site, and the only thing I have to say about their lack of amusement is that it sounds childish to me. Why is this so bad? A big reason Wikipedia use the GFDL license is to allow forking like this, so please save me from your hypocrisity.
If they're afraid Wikipedia will have their vandal ratio worsen with their expert contributors moving to this Citizendium (sounds like a cheesy name though), well then that's only a sign Wikipedia's model and welcoming anonymous contributors didn't work quite as well as expected. Take it like men and live with it.
If on the other hand (which I don't consider too unlikely either) the Citizendium would have contributions move at a snail's pace with the project eventually dying out due to lack of interest and bueraucratic hurdles, then it's a sign Wikipedia has its problems, but necessary evils for the success it is, which can only be alleviated more or less by better safeguards.
Australia is obliged to introduce these laws as part of it's Free Trade Agreement with the USA. Gee thanks, George!"
Well, it only makes sense that in order to make free trade, the involved parties should stop their customers from using the purchased goods freely, right?
To throw your own argument back in your face - since when is artifically limiting my ability to use something I bought as I see fit a "right" of some company?
Well, since corporations started to be able to heavily influence politics for their needs.
if we let these people run things, next thing we know, the children will watch nothing but Barney on PBS.... and they will be breaking the law by doing so!
That tremble in the force you feel is the pirates quaking in their boots.
Note it's not about piracy in general, but pirates that sell their stuff. I'm sure there are still a lot though, but far less than if including "regular" pirates.
Comparing performance, I can only see this: (hopefully with a minimum of errors)
- SysMark, a $230 E6400 performs nearly as a $825 FX-52. - PCMark05, $230 E6400 similar to $346 5000+. - ScienceMark, $230 E6400 similar to $187 4200+. - 3DS Max 7, $230 E6400 between the $346 and $825 Athlons. - Cinebench, $230 E6400 a little better than a $253 4600+. - 3DS Max 7 (rendering), $230 E6400 between $253 and $346 Athlons. - LightWave, no Athlons are close to touching even a $190 Core 2 Duo. - POVRay, $230 E6400 as $825 FX-52. - After Effects, $230 E6400 as $825 FX-52. - Video encoding, $230 E6400 almost as $825 FX-52, and E6600 being better overall. - 3DMark, $230 E6400 similar to $346 5000+. - FEAR, $230 E6400 better than $346 5000+, not far from $825 FX-52. - Call of Duty, all Core 2 Duo's seem better than any Athlon, at least in low res where gfx dependency is lower - Doom 3, $230 E6400 similar to $346 5000+. - HL2, $230 E6400 similar to $825 FX-52. - FS2004, $230 E6400 similar to $346 5000+.
The difficulties in developing Vista stemmed from its monolithic structure and the need for 'backwards compatibility', ie ensuring that software used by customers on older versions of Windows will work under Vista. This vast accumulation of legacy applications acts like an anchor on innovation. The Vista trauma has convinced some Microsoft engineers that they will have to adopt a radically different approach.
I can't really agree with this. The major problems came when Microsoft decided, after about two years in development since the start in ~2002, that they were to change the foundation of "Longhorn" from Windows XP SP2 to Windows Server 2003. This was also by the time Microsoft changed their goals of what their next OS should be. Yes, when it was in the middle of development! Development managers may start feeling dizzy now and consider leaving Microsoft.:-p Needless to say, when you do this in any kind of large project and most definitely the largest operating system in the world, you'll have a big price to pay.
I wouldn't even want to do it in a personal software project.
To see the problem, check out this build 5048 review (build 5000 was the kernel switch) with screenshots. It looks almost like "old Windows" again with mostly the same old features after a few years in development? Windows enthusiast Paul Thurrott is screaming blood. What happened to the progress they had made? Well, they had to strip a ton of features to get their stuff working again. Say hello to huge two year delays, feature cuts, and sweating.
So Vista seems to me to be more about a planning/design mistake than a complex beast that will take around 5 years to get out the door. Vista has actually only had around 2-2.5 years of uninterrupted development on the correct kernel and with the final goal of what it should even do!
I'd like to object to the article and actually claim I'm impressed by how quickly Microsoft put together something that looks to even end up as stable during that short time with this many features, given the stupidity that went on in planning. Or rather in-development-planning.
Of course, WinFS and other technologies had to go due to this wild change of focus in mid-development, but that's not surprising or a lack of efficiency due to having think of backwards compatibility, like this article claims.
But it's at the same time very visible how Microsoft is struggling, and I'm doubting we will see a clean release of this one when it "goes gold".
Actually, atmospheric scattering can make the Sun be perceived as more yellow than it actually is too, especially when we talk sunset/rises. It shines in a very light yellow.
I don't get it... How would a cube / 3D monitor help you here. With a 2D interface, you have to rotate the metaphor for a cube, with a 3D interface, you have to rotate the real thing.
Ugh, thought this was about suing for similar designs, not for accessibility design crap. Well, there's the sound my silly joke falling flat on its face.:-(
Slashdot Mirror
If MS would allow this, you can just as well do a replace of "Symantec and McAffee" with "malware developers" to see the problem.
Modding is not an unfair advantage. There is just as much chance that there will be a modder on the other team
What if there isn't?
Now that was pretty short sighted.
But of course, that's how cheaters are.
No election frauds should be "let go".
Was probably about rapid prototyping. Thanks for introducing me to the correct term. :-)
And then imagine what one could do if connecting it to a machine that physically builds what you draw that easily. :-)
Damn, I forgot what that machine was. You gave it a blueprint file and it simply created it as a solid block? I.e. it wasn't made for a predetermined design. Maybe a Slashdotter remembers it because I recall it was featured in a story here a few years ago.
Umm, yes, I think most of us here got that message. It's even in the article summary. Most also agree that it's a problem, including Wikipedians. Your point? :-S
As I say below in this discussion, as a Wikipedia contributor, I agree with you and don't really see the problem.
Actually, I feel this is great and even better than simple Wikipedia mirrors.
The reason at least *I* contribute is to provide information to the world, and that definitely includes "competitors" trying to make something better out of it.
I assume I'm a "Wikipedia member" as I contribute quite a lot to that site, and the only thing I have to say about their lack of amusement is that it sounds childish to me. Why is this so bad? A big reason Wikipedia use the GFDL license is to allow forking like this, so please save me from your hypocrisity.
If they're afraid Wikipedia will have their vandal ratio worsen with their expert contributors moving to this Citizendium (sounds like a cheesy name though), well then that's only a sign Wikipedia's model and welcoming anonymous contributors didn't work quite as well as expected. Take it like men and live with it.
If on the other hand (which I don't consider too unlikely either) the Citizendium would have contributions move at a snail's pace with the project eventually dying out due to lack of interest and bueraucratic hurdles, then it's a sign Wikipedia has its problems, but necessary evils for the success it is, which can only be alleviated more or less by better safeguards.
In Soviet Russia, children rape CBS.
Sometimes I wish I lived in Soviet Russia.
Well, it only makes sense that in order to make free trade, the involved parties should stop their customers from using the purchased goods freely, right?
Well, since corporations started to be able to heavily influence politics for their needs.
if we let these people run things, next thing we know, the children will watch nothing but Barney on PBS. ... and they will be breaking the law by doing so!
Don't write a novel, you won't reach the public. Help direct a movie about it instead. :-p
That tremble in the force you feel is the pirates quaking in their boots.
Note it's not about piracy in general, but pirates that sell their stuff.
I'm sure there are still a lot though, but far less than if including "regular" pirates.
The blindingly obvious point is to scare people into not selling pirated software because they'll get caught by Microsoft. :-p
Comparing performance, I can only see this: (hopefully with a minimum of errors)
- SysMark, a $230 E6400 performs nearly as a $825 FX-52.
- PCMark05, $230 E6400 similar to $346 5000+.
- ScienceMark, $230 E6400 similar to $187 4200+.
- 3DS Max 7, $230 E6400 between the $346 and $825 Athlons.
- Cinebench, $230 E6400 a little better than a $253 4600+.
- 3DS Max 7 (rendering), $230 E6400 between $253 and $346 Athlons.
- LightWave, no Athlons are close to touching even a $190 Core 2 Duo.
- POVRay, $230 E6400 as $825 FX-52.
- After Effects, $230 E6400 as $825 FX-52.
- Video encoding, $230 E6400 almost as $825 FX-52, and E6600 being better overall.
- 3DMark, $230 E6400 similar to $346 5000+.
- FEAR, $230 E6400 better than $346 5000+, not far from $825 FX-52.
- Call of Duty, all Core 2 Duo's seem better than any Athlon, at least in low res where gfx dependency is lower
- Doom 3, $230 E6400 similar to $346 5000+.
- HL2, $230 E6400 similar to $825 FX-52.
- FS2004, $230 E6400 similar to $346 5000+.
Just a teeny little bit?
I can't really agree with this. The major problems came when Microsoft decided, after about two years in development since the start in ~2002, that they were to change the foundation of "Longhorn" from Windows XP SP2 to Windows Server 2003. This was also by the time Microsoft changed their goals of what their next OS should be. Yes, when it was in the middle of development! Development managers may start feeling dizzy now and consider leaving Microsoft.
I wouldn't even want to do it in a personal software project.
To see the problem, check out this build 5048 review (build 5000 was the kernel switch) with screenshots. It looks almost like "old Windows" again with mostly the same old features after a few years in development? Windows enthusiast Paul Thurrott is screaming blood. What happened to the progress they had made? Well, they had to strip a ton of features to get their stuff working again. Say hello to huge two year delays, feature cuts, and sweating.
So Vista seems to me to be more about a planning/design mistake than a complex beast that will take around 5 years to get out the door. Vista has actually only had around 2-2.5 years of uninterrupted development on the correct kernel and with the final goal of what it should even do!
I'd like to object to the article and actually claim I'm impressed by how quickly Microsoft put together something that looks to even end up as stable during that short time with this many features, given the stupidity that went on in planning. Or rather in-development-planning.
Of course, WinFS and other technologies had to go due to this wild change of focus in mid-development, but that's not surprising or a lack of efficiency due to having think of backwards compatibility, like this article claims.
But it's at the same time very visible how Microsoft is struggling, and I'm doubting we will see a clean release of this one when it "goes gold".
"Skylight" is blue due to Rayleigh scattering.
Actually, atmospheric scattering can make the Sun be perceived as more yellow than it actually is too, especially when we talk sunset/rises. It shines in a very light yellow.
LOL, there's someone with a microsoft.com address in there, who's married. :-p
:-S
As well as someone on a usar.army.mil address.
What's with people not even using gmail/hotmail/yahoo/etc?
I don't get it... How would a cube / 3D monitor help you here.
With a 2D interface, you have to rotate the metaphor for a cube, with a 3D interface, you have to rotate the real thing.
To that, I can only retort with the Ultimate Insult! *starts assembling voodoo talisman*
Ugh, thought this was about suing for similar designs, not for accessibility design crap. :-(
Well, there's the sound my silly joke falling flat on its face.
Are you saying Slashdot can sue Kuro5hin??
Sorry, that was just one part (why they returned their MCE 2005) -- I really meant to include the opposing view too. :-)2 004/12/30.html
http://blog.mattgoyer.com/categories/mediaCenter/
(this view is linked to in my parent post too)