One of my biggest gripes (aside from the boring click-and-lean-back-and-occasionally-press-1-2-or- 3-every-30-seconds combat) with Anarchy Online was the implant and buff system.
There is something wrong when you might have to go to such lengths as paying a trader to skill wrangle you to cast some buff to install an implant. Laddered buffs (in ANY system, not just spells or items or whatnot) like that are terrible. I'm of the opinion that buff spells and item equiping should be limited to *BASE* stats only, with buffed stats taken into account of course for combat or other actions like success rates or crafting. But never should you be able to buff yourself in order to buff yourself in order equip a buffing item. That's just obnoxious (and expensive.) Though I suppose item (like armor or ring) buffs counting for anything is okay -- just really no spells.
My favorite part of AO was the universe: the scenery, the armor and the factions, it was all wonderful. The skill system was ruined by this crap.
Antitrust laws are VERY counterintuitive seeming. See, what the EU is saying is that MS has APIs in it's Windows Desktop OS that only microsoft knows how to use. Since everybody uses Windows on the desktop, this allows microsoft to put out an XYZ server that talks to the desktop OS (like exchange or something, I don't know exactly which APIs are in question.) while other companies have no idea how the XYZ works. They're telling MS to tell people how to use parts of the OS so microsoft won't have the advantage of being the only person to know how to make these XYZ servers.
As it stands (or stood depending on how you look at it) people could still make these XYZ servers, but they have to spend a whole lot of time figuring out how windows does XYZ before they can come to market (SAMBA), and by then microsoft could shut them out by beating to them to the punch very easily.
It's not about MS putting out something great, it's about letting others put the same thing out with equal footing. This way companies will be required to make the best software to take over the market instead of possibly just being a defacto monopoly because nobody else can do it, which is good for the overall software climate if you ask me.
The idea is that the EU claims (rather correctly, and you'll see why this is not an issue) that MS used it's desktop monopoly to attempt to gain a monopoly in the media player market. They were then forced to unnbundle WMP, which they did in Windows N. Also to pay that original fine we already heard about last year.
Now here's where you lost the trail; the contention now is NOT ABOUT WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER. It's about underlying windows APIs that the EU claims MS is leveraging to use their DESKTOP os monopoly (which is okay) to shoehorn their way higher up in the server space. What they required MS to do was provide their competition with information about the windows OS that would let competing products interoperate as smoothly as microsoft products.
It's kind of a convoluted, complicated, and misreported case. The EU commision is saying "Look, you can't hide these details about your desktop os just so nobody can make a (whatever server) as good as yours, you can make the whatever server, but your competitors need to have equal footing. SO tell them how (whatever) works."
theres a bunch more, 12000 pages of docs, source code sharing (under a restrictive license competitors must pay for, this is more complicated due to the possibility of DMCA claims) etc.
Cut that out, nobody bought anything not SocketA, 754, 939, and now AM2. 940 was for ECC memory used in servers, and very rarely at home.
The 754->939 seems superflous but the difference was the dual channel memory controller, AM2 is for DDR2 memory. The moral here is AMD will be flipping a socket every time you need to change your memory controller to support a new class of memory. Socket F is like 940 for the new gang, except it will introduce what's called a Advanced Memory Buffer (AMB) on a FB-DIMM (Fully Buffered). Memory would communicate serially with the AMB increasing bandwidth and theoretically providing the ability to use a hardware agnostic memory controller. Using Socket F may stop the need to buy procs to shange memory. You can go back to buying boards.
Notice it's all about the memory, since the controller is on the die. I don't know that much about Intel Socket Twister, perhaps someone else can enlighten me, but I don't think it had anything to do with memory controllers on die. Was there a real difference between Slot and Socket p3's?
I'd like to note (from tfa) that the study cited compares OpenOffice opening ODF vs MS Office opening Excel. The study says:
"Even when dealing with what is essentially the same data, OpenOffice Calc uses up 211 MBs of private unsharable memory while Excel uses up 34 MBs of private unsharable memory. The fact that OpenOffice.org Calc takes about 100 times the CPU time [...] Most of that massive speed difference is due to XML being very processor intensive, but Microsoft still handles its own XML files about 7 times faster than OpenOffice.org handles OpenDocument ODS format and uses far less memory than OpenOffice.org."
So yeah, OpenOffice is slow and memory hungry. This is fud, and has not so much to do with ODF as OpenOffice. Nothing to see here.
Actually, I find an intersting way to rate search engines is to search for the word "cocks"
yeah, I know what your thinking.
You typically get a couple things from this search:
Porn (duh) Chicken related things and the band "The Revolting Cocks"
By looking at which ones come up first, you can infer some interesting and useful things about how an engine works. What those things are I will let you decide. Mostly because it's funnier.
They will first have to find the makers of these tools, is the problem.
This of course will not work. If that sort of thing worked, we would not have spam, or viruses.
Thus I am fully convinced this is a ridiculous snipe hunt. DRM is the new mating call.
Though it may spawn Symantec's new software, Symantec Anti-piracy! Now for 50 bucks you can automagically remove any evil pirated material from your home or business network! (and don't think these wheels aren't turning!)
Re:It will take years for these standards to settl
on
Buzzword du Jour: DRM
·
· Score: 1
Et tu, Microsoft?
You know, sarcasm can sometimes be really hard to portray on the internet.
Indeed you are correct. My concern is an increased number of buffer overflows in software due to the assumption that since Software Product X is not critical, an exploitable X is no big deal. Like winamp, for example.
If this technology is not foolproof (I see no proof that it is, It is vapor still I understand) and someone manages to get around this protection in some way, then there is a huge-ass worm on the loose. That creates a potentially very dangerous low-bandwidth DDoS which could be turned on anything at that point.
But even if there is no way around the hardware checks, You may still have a potentially very dangerous, low-bandwidth DoS attack somewhere. Does anyone remember those WinNuke exploits?
All implimented in hardware. While I am far from a Lawyer, I could see that as being a tiny liability.
Perhaps its just doomsaying, But I am a wee bit worried. I would be much much less worried if there were an "Off" switch somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
One of my biggest gripes (aside from the boring click-and-lean-back-and-occasionally-press-1-2-or- 3-every-30-seconds combat) with Anarchy Online was the implant and buff system.
There is something wrong when you might have to go to such lengths as paying a trader to skill wrangle you to cast some buff to install an implant. Laddered buffs (in ANY system, not just spells or items or whatnot) like that are terrible. I'm of the opinion that buff spells and item equiping should be limited to *BASE* stats only, with buffed stats taken into account of course for combat or other actions like success rates or crafting. But never should you be able to buff yourself in order to buff yourself in order equip a buffing item. That's just obnoxious (and expensive.) Though I suppose item (like armor or ring) buffs counting for anything is okay -- just really no spells.
My favorite part of AO was the universe: the scenery, the armor and the factions, it was all wonderful. The skill system was ruined by this crap.
Spike TV runs like 4 hours of trek every weekday. So yeah, Star Trek is nowhere NEAR Law & Order but still rather impressively on all the time.
Try Evny24 based chipsets (m-audio delta family)!
best high end open source experience I've ev er had, and the 410 is CHEAP!
It's a joke you fools.
Seduce you say? ...Which university was this?
Yes, but $1.99 is close enough to two dollars for you to drop that penny, isn't it?
Antitrust laws are VERY counterintuitive seeming. See, what the EU is saying is that MS has APIs in it's Windows Desktop OS that only microsoft knows how to use. Since everybody uses Windows on the desktop, this allows microsoft to put out an XYZ server that talks to the desktop OS (like exchange or something, I don't know exactly which APIs are in question.) while other companies have no idea how the XYZ works. They're telling MS to tell people how to use parts of the OS so microsoft won't have the advantage of being the only person to know how to make these XYZ servers.
As it stands (or stood depending on how you look at it) people could still make these XYZ servers, but they have to spend a whole lot of time figuring out how windows does XYZ before they can come to market (SAMBA), and by then microsoft could shut them out by beating to them to the punch very easily.
It's not about MS putting out something great, it's about letting others put the same thing out with equal footing. This way companies will be required to make the best software to take over the market instead of possibly just being a defacto monopoly because nobody else can do it, which is good for the overall software climate if you ask me.
The idea is that the EU claims (rather correctly, and you'll see why this is not an issue) that MS used it's desktop monopoly to attempt to gain a monopoly in the media player market. They were then forced to unnbundle WMP, which they did in Windows N. Also to pay that original fine we already heard about last year.
Now here's where you lost the trail; the contention now is NOT ABOUT WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER. It's about underlying windows APIs that the EU claims MS is leveraging to use their DESKTOP os monopoly (which is okay) to shoehorn their way higher up in the server space. What they required MS to do was provide their competition with information about the windows OS that would let competing products interoperate as smoothly as microsoft products.
It's kind of a convoluted, complicated, and misreported case. The EU commision is saying "Look, you can't hide these details about your desktop os just so nobody can make a (whatever server) as good as yours, you can make the whatever server, but your competitors need to have equal footing. SO tell them how (whatever) works."
theres a bunch more, 12000 pages of docs, source code sharing (under a restrictive license competitors must pay for, this is more complicated due to the possibility of DMCA claims) etc.
try hitting '/' on make menuconfig, type ov511 hit enter. That's a hot tip that's saved me quite a bit of time...
It'll find it if it's there.
Cut that out, nobody bought anything not SocketA, 754, 939, and now AM2. 940 was for ECC memory used in servers, and very rarely at home.
The 754->939 seems superflous but the difference was the dual channel memory controller, AM2 is for DDR2 memory. The moral here is AMD will be flipping a socket every time you need to change your memory controller to support a new class of memory. Socket F is like 940 for the new gang, except it will introduce what's called a Advanced Memory Buffer (AMB) on a FB-DIMM (Fully Buffered). Memory would communicate serially with the AMB increasing bandwidth and theoretically providing the ability to use a hardware agnostic memory controller. Using Socket F may stop the need to buy procs to shange memory. You can go back to buying boards.
Notice it's all about the memory, since the controller is on the die. I don't know that much about Intel Socket Twister, perhaps someone else can enlighten me, but I don't think it had anything to do with memory controllers on die. Was there a real difference between Slot and Socket p3's?
I'd like to note (from tfa) that the study cited compares OpenOffice opening ODF vs MS Office opening Excel. The study says:
"Even when dealing with what is essentially the same data, OpenOffice Calc uses up 211 MBs of private unsharable memory while Excel uses up 34 MBs of private unsharable memory. The fact that OpenOffice.org Calc takes about 100 times the CPU time [...] Most of that massive speed difference is due to XML being very processor intensive, but Microsoft still handles its own XML files about 7 times faster than OpenOffice.org handles OpenDocument ODS format and uses far less memory than OpenOffice.org."
So yeah, OpenOffice is slow and memory hungry. This is fud, and has not so much to do with ODF as OpenOffice. Nothing to see here.
is here http://gadgets.fosfor.se/
OVERKILL.
Nah, he's just pinin' for the fjords.
Don't use a video camera. That's just creepy.
though a Trip wire-still photo (with flash) combo would be hilarious.
I was at home playing DNF on my quantum computer powered by a hydrogen fuel cell generator.
Sure, there'll fix the problem.
Oh, we've been planning to do just that for quite a while now.
Can you say 'Zombie Warriors'? Go, my childeren of the night! Take his brain!
In obvious homage to pioneering helpdesk personell, who's reply for help might go something like this:
Guy: Hey PCTechMan, My computer has a virus.
PCTech: We should reinstall windows.
Guy: My mouse is stuck!
PCTech: I've seen this before! We'll need to format and Reload Windows Reloaded.
Guy: IT'S ON FIRE! I'M ON FIRE! IT'S HOT!
PCTech: I suggest we Ghost it.
Though, I'm upset I'll have to wait longer to make lude references to "Longhorn".
Actually, I find an intersting way to rate search engines is to search for the word "cocks"
yeah, I know what your thinking.
You typically get a couple things from this search:
Porn (duh)
Chicken related things
and the band "The Revolting Cocks"
By looking at which ones come up first, you can infer some interesting and useful things about how an engine works. What those things are I will let you decide.
Mostly because it's funnier.
But seriously, folks, try it out.
Why don't you google it?
or yahoo it.
No, that just doesn't sound right.
Google: 1
Yahoo: sounds like something I call my neighbor
Music industry sues those who sell those tools
They will first have to find the makers of these tools, is the problem.
This of course will not work. If that sort of thing worked, we would not have spam, or viruses.
Thus I am fully convinced this is a ridiculous snipe hunt. DRM is the new mating call.
Though it may spawn Symantec's new software, Symantec Anti-piracy! Now for 50 bucks you can automagically remove any evil pirated material from your home or business network! (and don't think these wheels aren't turning!)
Et tu, Microsoft?
You know, sarcasm can sometimes be really hard to portray on the internet.
I hack IKEA furniture to bits with a rusty hatchet after being hypnotised by the strange flowing shapes and fine swedish construction.
I'm told by my doctor that just talking about it helps, in case anyone else suffers similar symptoms.
In addition, it may show a market trend that Intel does NOT want to happen.
Say, AMD no longer being just 'the other processor company' and Intel filling the shoes that AMD once did. AMD is finally, really on top of this one.
This is damage control PR.
Indeed you are correct. My concern is an increased number of buffer overflows in software due to the assumption that since Software Product X is not critical, an exploitable X is no big deal. Like winamp, for example.
If this technology is not foolproof (I see no proof that it is, It is vapor still I understand) and someone manages to get around this protection in some way, then there is a huge-ass worm on the loose. That creates a potentially very dangerous low-bandwidth DDoS which could be turned on anything at that point.
But even if there is no way around the hardware checks, You may still have a potentially very dangerous, low-bandwidth DoS attack somewhere. Does anyone remember those WinNuke exploits?
All implimented in hardware. While I am far from a Lawyer, I could see that as being a tiny liability.
Perhaps its just doomsaying, But I am a wee bit worried. I would be much much less worried if there were an "Off" switch somewhere.