As I've saidbefore, Vista has been horrible for games. And these aren't new, flashy, supreme games. These are games from a few years back, that should fit comfortably on the hardware, and I'm not cranking up the resolution or the detail or anything. The hardware I refer to: AMD Sempron 1.8GHz (allegedly equivalent to a 3GHz+ processor), 1GB RAM, 80GB disk, Geforce 6150 integrated graphics. Not (at all) a speed demon, I know, but I'm not asking for miracles. Look at the games I'm trying to run:
Aliens versus Predator 2: Runs slow, audio is skippy. 90% of the time fails to launch properly.
Tron 2.0: Slow, skippy audio. Seems to always launch into the game menu, but firing up a save game crashes the program much more often than not. Vista doesn't crash at this point, but it takes about five minutes for it to recover.
No One Lives Forever 2: Actually runs okay, much of the time. But about 20% of the time it won't launch a saved game, it instead crashes to the desktop. At least it's faster than Tron 2.0 at crashing, and a relaunch usually (~90% of the time) is successful.
Freedom Force: "This program is not compatible with Vista."
Freedom Force vs. The Third Reich: Seems to run as well as NOLF2.
Half-Life, Half-Life 2: Worked for the limited testing I did. HL2 is quite slow and jittery on this system, though. (Not totally surprising, but still...)
So, really, only two games actually run well enough to bother with: NOLF2 an FFvTTR. (Oh, okay, HL2, Blue Shift, Opposing Force work all right.) Obviously I'm not a huge gamer, and I know this is a low-end machine, but oy. My previous experience was with XP on a dual Athlon MP 2600+ system (2GHz real clock), 1GB RAM, GF5700LE card. A better system (and a lot more expensive when I got it four years ago) but not that much better.
Between 1905 and 1915 the Pontifical Biblical Commission emitted
fifty-nine authoritative replies regarding certain doubts raised by
historical critics. Among other things the Commission in 1905 denied
that "those books of Sacred Scripture which are regarded as historical,
either wholly or in part, sometimes narrate what is not history properly
so-called and objectively true, but only have the appearance of history
and are intended to convey a meaning different from the strictly literal
or historical sense of the words" (EB 161). In 1909 it excluded that
"the various exegetical systems which have been elaborated and defended
by the aid of pseudo-science to exclude the literal historical sense of
the first three chapters of Genesis are based upon solid arguments" (EB
324). And also in 1909 it denied that "the three aforesaid chapters . .
. contain [purified] fables derived from mythologies and cosmologies
belonging to older nations . . . ; or that they contain allegories and
symbols destitute of any foundation in objective reality but presented
under the garb of history to inculcate religious and philosophical
truth; or, finally, that they contain legends partly historical and
partly fictitious, freely handled for the instruction and edification of
souls" (EB 325). -Monsignor John F. McCarthy, Pontifical Biblical Commission:
Yesterday And Today (Homiletic and Pastoral Review)
In other words, he found nothing in Catholicism that compelled him to give up young-Earth creationism and, indeed, felt that it was most consistent with church teaching. (Of course, as Larry Niven said, "There is no cause so noble that it will not attract some kooks.")
Almost three quarters of them are Catholic which do not have funademtalist beliefs (the catholic church has publicly embraced evolution)
I don't know if "embraced" is the right word. It tolerates it, mostly: "The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in
conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred
theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in
both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution,
insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming
from pre-existent and living matter." - Pope Pius XII
For an example of a (vocal) Catholic who's also a young-Earth creationist, see this guy.
Why is it that the truth is only the truth if it makes someone money.
Uh... not what I said. What I said was that truth (particularly truth about concrete, measurable and tangible things like geology) should have testable consequences. And one prominent test is economic utility. Mainstream geology does . If mainstream geology is totally and fundamentally wrong, how do you explain (in a "SCIENTIFIC" way) that it makes testable predictions and they're right often enough for people to bet on them and make good money? If Flood geology is solidly correct, why doesn't it make those kinds of predictions? Why can't anyone make money from it?
The world's formation by God and the transformation via the Flood are easily seen if you use a truly open SCIENTIFIC mind.
I cited the articles to show that creationists have considered these issues, as the parent post apparently thought their "modest proposal" was a new thought.
The original thought is that, if creationists were right, and believed they were right, that should have concrete economic consequences. Oil companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars hiring geologists to find oil. Literally hundreds of billions of dollars are riding on them finding oil. Which kind of geology do they actually use, mainstream or "Flood geology", and what does that say about which kind actually delivers the goods?
I don't expect to crack any creationists out of their hermetically sealed little mental compartments. But this is a simple, obvious, testable notion that illustrates to others exactly why and how creationism is wrong.
For anyone who says they really believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, I have a a modest proposal:
Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did
the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the
Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or
perhaps it really did form from plants and dinosaurs, but about
10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could? Any way you
look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting
scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely
valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody's actually
pursuing such research programs?
Why don't fundamentalists put together an investment fund, where
people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like
oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better
theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw
materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a
venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone doing
this?
That just means the film-makers need to learn to shoot for the new medium
This was a few years back, but when I saw one of the Imax 3D movies (some girl goes back in time and sees a bunch of dinosaurs) I realized that some new conventions would be needed for 3D films. When you're looking at a 2D movie, all the action is in one plane, and your eyes can easily focus on that distance.
But a cross-fade in 3D broke my brain. I couldn't figure out where to focus as some objects were getting transparent and fading away, and others were fading in. It was all a confused mess until the crossfade settled down.
(Say, what's the 3D equivalent of a star-wipe?:-> )
First of all, let's face it: you'll be dead never mind if it's a portal or not. The fact that my energy will somehow exit on the other end offers little comfort, knowing that to be alive, I need to also have my structure preserved.
To quote the paper: "It is interesting that, using only normal matter, we may in principle
counteract tidal forces encountered in extreme situations. This might
also find application in trips near neutron stars or small black holes
(without falling in) where an adjustable-radius, actively-oriented
life preserver might enable you to venture closer than would otherwise
have been the case and still return safely home from the adventure."
If you want to see the oldest computer gear simply go to a hospital, insurance company or doctors offices.
I was involved in a project a few years back where a hospital's IT system ran on a bunch of OpenVMS systems, because the main application only ran on OpenVMS. (Which I concede is a capable operating system (logicals are even more powerful than symlinks, etc. etc.) but was outdated even in 2001.) They were also - by a factor of four or so - the largest deployment of the software, so they ran into all the bugs. Downtime was a major problem.
The local admins had some scripts for diagnosing problems, but they only tended to find out about issues once complaints of frozen screens started coming in. I had to develop something that allowed our product to talk to OpenVMS machines and try to detect problems before they snowballed. We succeeded, and downtime was dramatically reduced.
It worked out nicely for us, but even at the time I wondered if such a band-aid should really have been necessary.
Your own link points out that Iraqi (Arab) forces did poorly against Iranian (Persian) troops in the Iran-Iraq war.
And yet neither actually won, they fought to basically a stalemate. Neither country fields an effective military, certainly not compared to the U.S. one. The point stands - Iran is not a serious threat to the United States.
it ticks me off when people mix up Arab/Arabic with Persian/Farsi
Point taken, but the cultures are not all that dissimilar when it comes to the factors identified in the article.
To quote the actual post you're replying to: "The vast majority of things that Ahmadinejad is saying is purely for internal support."
Let me ask you a question: What do you think would happen to Iran if they attacked us openly? Our military, even as overstretched as it is, can kick six kinds of crap out of their military. Do you really think they don't know that?
Now, what if they did something covert? Well, we've proven the ability to trace the lines of funding and organization for terrorist operations pretty well, at least after the fact. (It was the investigation of 9/11 that showed it had nothing to do with Iraq, remember?) Iran would be taking a terrible risk doing that, because if it was found out they'd be just as screwed as if they'd attacked us openly.
They have a lot to gain from rhetoric. They have everything to lose from an actual attack.
Does this stuff affect other viruses? (Is it something that evolved for this reason?) If so, why doesn't the body make more of it already? Would that be too biologically expensive, or would that have problematic effects we haven't recognized yet?
On of the producers of Penny Arcade quipped, "I am willing to allow that gamers are more prone to violence so long as we agree that this violence is largely directed against peripherals." I haven't seen any real evidence that violent video games have any detrimental effects on kids in general, and in my personal experience I've seen the opposite.
But frankly, I'd be perfectly happy to have things be a bit more European around here, with less tolerance for violence in the media and also less prudish reserve about sex. So long as I'm quoting humorists, I direct your attention to George Carlin's statements on the subject: "People much wiser than I have said, 'I'd rather have my son watch a film with two people making love
than two people trying to kill one another.' I, of course, can agree. It is
a great sentiment, I wish I knew who said it first. I agree with that but
I'd like to take it a step further. I'd like to substitute the word 'f**k' for
the word 'kill' in all of those movie cliches we grew up with. 'Okay,
Sherrif, we're gonna f**k you now, but we're gonna f**k you slow.'"
It's a waste of space. And if you plug it in and turn it on, it's also a waste of power.
Well, for certain limited purposes they can be useful. I've got a Mac SE/30 running as my vanity page webserver. What exactly are the odds of somebody
writing an automatic exploit for an obscure httpd running on a (relatively) obscure OS on an obscure hardware
platform? The only way someone's going to break into that thing is with a custom exploit, and there's no point in spending that kind of effort.
i would suggest getting a real video card and maybe swapping out that sempron for a 4000+
Yeah, after we finish getting braces for the oldest kid, buying a new oven and stove (the current ones are from 1966), take a short vacation for our tenth wedding anniversary, and finish getting ready for the new baby coming in June, I'll get right on that.
Not to be rude, but no shit. Trying to game on a Sempron 1.8 with only a gig of ram and integrated graphics is stupid.
Well, all of the games I listed there ran fine on an Athlon 2600+ machine with 1GB RAM and a GeForce 5700LE (very closely equivalent specs) under XP. (Well, until XP corrupted itself and I gave up on it. That's a pure Linux box now.)
Given that PDAs are falling behind in the face of smart phones, going to Linux might just entice the linux haXX0r community to produce some fun applications that help Palm in the marketplace.
Actually, there's been plenty of developerattention paid to Palms already. Thanks to the head start, I think it still has more apps available for it than Windows handhelds. This despite the fact that developing for PalmOS is at best quirky and at worst painful.
But Palm is pretty much in the smartphone business already. All their development these days has been going into the Treo line. This move will be to bring Linux to their smartphone line. And that's going to make developing for Palms much easier, and make a large number of Linux apps available for Palms. Sweet...
Re:Handhelds and PDF?
on
Palm to go Linux
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I have never owned a handheld or even touched one, but would like to know whether a basic handled to be used to read PDF documents downloaded from the internet is reasonable. I am concerned about fonts, battery life usability and durability.
Well, there's PalmPDF, which I've had reasonable success with on my Treo 650. PDFs contain their own fonts so that's not an issue, really. My Treo doesn't have a case and seems to be holding up pretty well, even after I've dropped it a few times (and my kids have dropped it a few more times). Works pretty well, though with only a 320x320 screen, there's only so much you can see at a time. You'd probably want one with a bigger screen (e.g. 320x480 ones exist), and as much RAM and as fast a processor as possible.
I make too many phone calls with it, but I use its PDA and viewing functions quite a bit every day, and battery life is fine. Don't think I've ever gone below 75% charge (I plug it in every night).
I can't say that I've worked with 200MB PDFs, though. I think ~10MB is the biggest I've messed with. And someone else will have to tackle Windows or Linux-based platforms. However, I've heard generally good things about the Nokia 770 - it's basically a small Linux box with an 800x480 screen...
As with everything related to parenting, there are no hard and fast rules. Good parents will get a feel for how mature their kids are, and afford them the appropriate privileges.
Exactly. I've got a 7-year-old, a 4-year-old, and a 2-year-old. (And one due in June). They have plenty of fun with the Humongous games (hint: they run really well, and without the CD, under SCUMMVM), but the oldest sometimes likes to run the mouse when we play Descent3 or the older Half-Life games or a couple of other first-person shooters. Heck, I've even let him help me play Aliens vs. Predator, and that's a creepy game.
They don't get nightmares from that stuff. They even pretend to have pet headcrabs. (Go ahead, trolls, do your worst with that straight line.) What's funny is that the AvP game didn't scare the four-year-old, but he got scared by a cartoon of "Peter and the Wolf" that he saw in his music class.
It hasn't instilled a bloodthirsty lust for violence in them, either. They don't get into fights with other kids, and right now the 7-year-old loves Lego Star Wars. If you want a game with cartoon violence, as opposed to the realistic kind, check that one out.
Now, the 2 year old, and the new one coming? They might be different. I'll have to see what works for them and what doesn't. But games themselves are not inherently damaging or anything like that.
Nobody has come yet with some 3D desktop interface that wasn't just eyecandy but actually useful.
I haven't been able to come up with a full desktop interface yet, but I've got some ideas for a 3D filemanager that I think could be useful for certain kinds of users.
Slashdot Mirror
So, really, only two games actually run well enough to bother with: NOLF2 an FFvTTR. (Oh, okay, HL2, Blue Shift, Opposing Force work all right.) Obviously I'm not a huge gamer, and I know this is a low-end machine, but oy. My previous experience was with XP on a dual Athlon MP 2600+ system (2GHz real clock), 1GB RAM, GF5700LE card. A better system (and a lot more expensive when I got it four years ago) but not that much better.
Between 1905 and 1915 the Pontifical Biblical Commission emitted fifty-nine authoritative replies regarding certain doubts raised by historical critics. Among other things the Commission in 1905 denied that "those books of Sacred Scripture which are regarded as historical, either wholly or in part, sometimes narrate what is not history properly so-called and objectively true, but only have the appearance of history and are intended to convey a meaning different from the strictly literal or historical sense of the words" (EB 161). In 1909 it excluded that "the various exegetical systems which have been elaborated and defended by the aid of pseudo-science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis are based upon solid arguments" (EB 324). And also in 1909 it denied that "the three aforesaid chapters . . . contain [purified] fables derived from mythologies and cosmologies belonging to older nations . . . ; or that they contain allegories and symbols destitute of any foundation in objective reality but presented under the garb of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truth; or, finally, that they contain legends partly historical and partly fictitious, freely handled for the instruction and edification of souls" (EB 325). -Monsignor John F. McCarthy, Pontifical Biblical Commission: Yesterday And Today (Homiletic and Pastoral Review)
In other words, he found nothing in Catholicism that compelled him to give up young-Earth creationism and, indeed, felt that it was most consistent with church teaching. (Of course, as Larry Niven said, "There is no cause so noble that it will not attract some kooks.")
I don't know if "embraced" is the right word. It tolerates it, mostly: "The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter." - Pope Pius XII
For an example of a (vocal) Catholic who's also a young-Earth creationist, see this guy.
Uh... not what I said. What I said was that truth (particularly truth about concrete, measurable and tangible things like geology) should have testable consequences. And one prominent test is economic utility. Mainstream geology does . If mainstream geology is totally and fundamentally wrong, how do you explain (in a "SCIENTIFIC" way) that it makes testable predictions and they're right often enough for people to bet on them and make good money? If Flood geology is solidly correct, why doesn't it make those kinds of predictions? Why can't anyone make money from it?
That hasn't been true for a long, long time now.
The original (or at least, 'one I haven't seen presented this way') thought isn't "creationists haven't considered where oil, coal, etc. have come from". (Of course, 'The huge deposits of coal came from the more than 60% of the forests before the Flood that were actually floating on the surface of the oceans, but somehow none of the species of plants involved in such a hypothetical aqueous forest managed to survive the Flood or leave a single fossil' is not exactly convincing.)
The original thought is that, if creationists were right, and believed they were right, that should have concrete economic consequences. Oil companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars hiring geologists to find oil. Literally hundreds of billions of dollars are riding on them finding oil. Which kind of geology do they actually use, mainstream or "Flood geology", and what does that say about which kind actually delivers the goods?
I don't expect to crack any creationists out of their hermetically sealed little mental compartments. But this is a simple, obvious, testable notion that illustrates to others exactly why and how creationism is wrong.
It doesn't add anything important, but here's the correct link.
Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plants and dinosaurs, but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?
Why don't fundamentalists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone doing this?
This was a few years back, but when I saw one of the Imax 3D movies (some girl goes back in time and sees a bunch of dinosaurs) I realized that some new conventions would be needed for 3D films. When you're looking at a 2D movie, all the action is in one plane, and your eyes can easily focus on that distance.
But a cross-fade in 3D broke my brain. I couldn't figure out where to focus as some objects were getting transparent and fading away, and others were fading in. It was all a confused mess until the crossfade settled down.
(Say, what's the 3D equivalent of a star-wipe? :-> )
Well, actually, you could wear a life preserver.
To quote the paper: "It is interesting that, using only normal matter, we may in principle counteract tidal forces encountered in extreme situations. This might also find application in trips near neutron stars or small black holes (without falling in) where an adjustable-radius, actively-oriented life preserver might enable you to venture closer than would otherwise have been the case and still return safely home from the adventure."
In point of fact, there is a difference between "requiring perfection" and "avoiding obvious incompetence". Just, y'know, for future reference.
I was involved in a project a few years back where a hospital's IT system ran on a bunch of OpenVMS systems, because the main application only ran on OpenVMS. (Which I concede is a capable operating system (logicals are even more powerful than symlinks, etc. etc.) but was outdated even in 2001.) They were also - by a factor of four or so - the largest deployment of the software, so they ran into all the bugs. Downtime was a major problem.
The local admins had some scripts for diagnosing problems, but they only tended to find out about issues once complaints of frozen screens started coming in. I had to develop something that allowed our product to talk to OpenVMS machines and try to detect problems before they snowballed. We succeeded, and downtime was dramatically reduced.
It worked out nicely for us, but even at the time I wondered if such a band-aid should really have been necessary.
And yet neither actually won, they fought to basically a stalemate. Neither country fields an effective military, certainly not compared to the U.S. one. The point stands - Iran is not a serious threat to the United States.
Point taken, but the cultures are not all that dissimilar when it comes to the factors identified in the article.
See here.
To quote the actual post you're replying to: "The vast majority of things that Ahmadinejad is saying is purely for internal support."
Let me ask you a question: What do you think would happen to Iran if they attacked us openly? Our military, even as overstretched as it is, can kick six kinds of crap out of their military. Do you really think they don't know that?
Now, what if they did something covert? Well, we've proven the ability to trace the lines of funding and organization for terrorist operations pretty well, at least after the fact. (It was the investigation of 9/11 that showed it had nothing to do with Iraq, remember?) Iran would be taking a terrible risk doing that, because if it was found out they'd be just as screwed as if they'd attacked us openly.
They have a lot to gain from rhetoric. They have everything to lose from an actual attack.
Does this stuff affect other viruses? (Is it something that evolved for this reason?) If so, why doesn't the body make more of it already? Would that be too biologically expensive, or would that have problematic effects we haven't recognized yet?
But frankly, I'd be perfectly happy to have things be a bit more European around here, with less tolerance for violence in the media and also less prudish reserve about sex. So long as I'm quoting humorists, I direct your attention to George Carlin's statements on the subject: "People much wiser than I have said, 'I'd rather have my son watch a film with two people making love than two people trying to kill one another.' I, of course, can agree. It is a great sentiment, I wish I knew who said it first. I agree with that but I'd like to take it a step further. I'd like to substitute the word 'f**k' for the word 'kill' in all of those movie cliches we grew up with. 'Okay, Sherrif, we're gonna f**k you now, but we're gonna f**k you slow.'"
Well, for certain limited purposes they can be useful. I've got a Mac SE/30 running as my vanity page webserver. What exactly are the odds of somebody writing an automatic exploit for an obscure httpd running on a (relatively) obscure OS on an obscure hardware platform? The only way someone's going to break into that thing is with a custom exploit, and there's no point in spending that kind of effort.
Yeah, after we finish getting braces for the oldest kid, buying a new oven and stove (the current ones are from 1966), take a short vacation for our tenth wedding anniversary, and finish getting ready for the new baby coming in June, I'll get right on that.
Well, all of the games I listed there ran fine on an Athlon 2600+ machine with 1GB RAM and a GeForce 5700LE (very closely equivalent specs) under XP. (Well, until XP corrupted itself and I gave up on it. That's a pure Linux box now.)
So far, for me, Vista sucks for games. I'm entirely unsurprised. My system is almost identical to the one Phoronix used in these tests.
Actually, there's been plenty of developer attention paid to Palms already. Thanks to the head start, I think it still has more apps available for it than Windows handhelds. This despite the fact that developing for PalmOS is at best quirky and at worst painful.
But Palm is pretty much in the smartphone business already. All their development these days has been going into the Treo line. This move will be to bring Linux to their smartphone line. And that's going to make developing for Palms much easier, and make a large number of Linux apps available for Palms. Sweet...
Well, there's PalmPDF, which I've had reasonable success with on my Treo 650. PDFs contain their own fonts so that's not an issue, really. My Treo doesn't have a case and seems to be holding up pretty well, even after I've dropped it a few times (and my kids have dropped it a few more times). Works pretty well, though with only a 320x320 screen, there's only so much you can see at a time. You'd probably want one with a bigger screen (e.g. 320x480 ones exist), and as much RAM and as fast a processor as possible.
I make too many phone calls with it, but I use its PDA and viewing functions quite a bit every day, and battery life is fine. Don't think I've ever gone below 75% charge (I plug it in every night).
I can't say that I've worked with 200MB PDFs, though. I think ~10MB is the biggest I've messed with. And someone else will have to tackle Windows or Linux-based platforms. However, I've heard generally good things about the Nokia 770 - it's basically a small Linux box with an 800x480 screen...
Exactly. I've got a 7-year-old, a 4-year-old, and a 2-year-old. (And one due in June). They have plenty of fun with the Humongous games (hint: they run really well, and without the CD, under SCUMMVM), but the oldest sometimes likes to run the mouse when we play Descent3 or the older Half-Life games or a couple of other first-person shooters. Heck, I've even let him help me play Aliens vs. Predator, and that's a creepy game.
They don't get nightmares from that stuff. They even pretend to have pet headcrabs. (Go ahead, trolls, do your worst with that straight line.) What's funny is that the AvP game didn't scare the four-year-old, but he got scared by a cartoon of "Peter and the Wolf" that he saw in his music class.
It hasn't instilled a bloodthirsty lust for violence in them, either. They don't get into fights with other kids, and right now the 7-year-old loves Lego Star Wars. If you want a game with cartoon violence, as opposed to the realistic kind, check that one out.
Now, the 2 year old, and the new one coming? They might be different. I'll have to see what works for them and what doesn't. But games themselves are not inherently damaging or anything like that.
I haven't been able to come up with a full desktop interface yet, but I've got some ideas for a 3D filemanager that I think could be useful for certain kinds of users.
Of course, like the Japanese version, it tends to result from a massive failure. :->