Well, this article was posted very recently, like 7 minutes ago. And in my Time Zone (EST) the show has already finished. This is about as un-news worthy as it gets. Most of the World has already seen this show (if it AIRs somewhere besides the US) and for us we'll need to wait for reruns for any substance from this report.
seriously, if you guys can't get an article up about an EVENT before it happens then maybe it wasn't worth posting.
A few months ago exactly the same thing was discussed in one of freshmeat's articles, for all interested.
I just wanted to give my personal view of the situation. Hierarchal filesystems like the Linux distros use are great. Flat file systems are great. Filesystems like windows uses (one directory=one program) are great. All at their respective times.
Personally, I don't see why everybody is is hyped up over how to organize a static filesystem. It is clear that, even theoricially, no way is perfect. The solution is simple, put every file in a database with an arbitray amount of tags. These tags can be of mime types, the package it belonged to, the version, a user specified catagory etc, etc...
This dynamic files can be arranged at any time in any structure the user wants. It could happen dynamically and transparentally.
please, all this bickering over an archaic idea could be put to good use arguing over what database to use for the the filesystem.
Instead of creating new tlds that are mostly duplicates of existing tlds, we should be restricting domain ownership, so no legal person can own more than one domain.
I know this is wishfull thinking, but I would like to see the BIOS disapear from the PC as much as it can. There are alot of things I don't like: haveing to places to configure thing (BIOS and OS), the delay on boot, poor upgradeability (having to reboot to upgrade is a pain), the inability to choose your own BIOS, and others.
All the BIOS should do is let the user choose which volitile device to boot (LAN, Harddrives, CDs).
Have you looked at your proposed solution?
As I see it there are two ways that you could have it:
1.) Put the text to speech in the phone. This allows everything local and remote to be converted into sound. The server needs to do no processing, and much bandwidth is saved. Also, it gives the end user more control over the program (this is important). The disadvantages are that the phone would need a small, cheap chip. More power may not even be used because the wireless transmission doesn't need to be powered. This works when the main server cannot be contacted.
2.) Impliment the tech. at the server. This uses more bandwidth, cpu time (unless they have these dedicated chips) and is under control of the service provider.
I think it's clear.
but if the MMOG is open source, wouldn't this open the gates for a ton of cheating?
In a poorly disigned protocol yes. If you only tell the client what the gamer is supposed to know then there is no way for him to cheat. For example: only send the data containing the surrounding landscape where the character can see.
Most multiplayer games are not open source, but most multiplayer games have cheaters.
Instead of making slashdot less attractive by putting tons of bandwidth hogging, annoying, internet congesting, unwitty, untargeted, etc banner ads, use text ads. Google serves many more people a day then/., and I'm sure that they have more costs, but they don't need banner ads. In fact I have seen reports that Google is the most succesful search engine in terms of money making.
I love text ads. I click on ads on Google more than any other website because they are targeted and easy on my eyes. Banners with cycling images make you wait to see what the ad is for.
I'm not sure what the costs of slashdot are that are increasing, but I'm sure that there are effective ways to reduce them. Is it the server load? If you use technologies that are more efficent or pass the processing onto the client ( like XML, XSLT, and CSS ) then it would be less cost to you. Also using text ads would decrease load.
On another note: I think that a better, more streamlined, ad free slashdot would be worth a few cents a day. I suggest if you move to a pay system (which I would love) then use a micropay system. Something like $0.03 per page load. It is the fairest way to go, and would encourage people to start reading slashdot because there wouldn't be a commitment.
I'm also running one of the new C3s. At 800Mhz, it appears about the performance equivelent of my slot A 500Mhz Athlon, while costing as much as a 800Mhz. Without this chip, however, it would have been more difficult to build a nearly-silent PC.
I hope if VIA makes a Pentium 4 clone they make it run very cool so no fan is needed, because it is my opinion that quiet operation is the only selling point for their chips. I really am craving a silent, multiple gigahertz PC.
Some people think that GNOME is
far better than both Windows and KDE. Lately, the GNOME has got a
valuable addition: Open Office, the remnants of StarOffice. This would
really make it possible for GNOME to gain acceptance in the desktop.
...
I just don't understand why the talented GNOME
developers don't start developing for the KDE instead?
Well, for the answer to your question look back earlier in your post. GNOME is better than KDE. Why would the GNOME workers want to start working on KDE? There would be catchup to do. Also, Qt isn't a as free as gtk. It is owned by Trolltech that sells more advanced versions of Qt. This means that if someone wanted to add new features to the free Qt, like for instance the ones included in the commercial versions, and Trolltech didn't like it, a new branch would need to be started. Then there would be two Qt's and that would be messy.
I think that anybody writing or pointing to an article that has a focus on the beauty of the steel should include a picture.
I found the article on scientific american, but it costs five dollars to get: http://www.sciamarchive.com/welcome2.asp?Sid2=FlBc IiLiBoDDfeIhoj
But they already do control the telephone! In almost everywhere in the United States your local phone company is a monopoly if you want to get on the "telephone network." It is owned by large coporations who bill you exorbitant rates. The Internet is hardly as structuralized. I'm sure that if the corporations had as much control over the Internet as they do the telephone then the Internet would be quite a different place.
Although many of the ideas may seem rediculous, that doesn't mean that it won't happen. Most corporations and the governments probably would favor getting control over the internet, and most citizens who are not technically savy would probably also favor it. There was an article in July's Popular Science where the author says that the only reason to have privacy on the Internet is so he can shop descretly. I'm pretty sure his opinions reflect the majority.
To help delay or perhaps stop this we should start taking action. The most important thing I can think of is to use Freenet and other open source privacy tools.
Re:Developers Have a Louder Voice than Speech
on
Still in DMCA Prison
·
· Score: 1
Did you get this idea from the nerd strike in revenge of the nerds (number III, I think)?
Thousands prisoners of consciousness have been tortured to death for their opinions in less civilized countries during the past ten years or so. How is this more important?
Because I don't live in less civilized countries and I don't think they will take much heed to a foreigner telling them their business. What is so bad about this case is that it is in the United States. Maybe that doesn't mean that much to you, but to me it is very important. Chances are I'll be living here my entire life, and will have to live with these laws.
I disagree with your view. First of all, my understanding is that computer hardware becomes obsolete quickly, so patents don't stop the competition for long.
Second, why would HP invest ~half the money for this project if all there competitors could have the technoogy also, when they were finished with the research. The patent it their insentive.
And this brings me to my third point. I think that the government invests too little in research. This technology is a little far off, so it may not be economically feasible for a company to reasearch it alone. The government should fund more research.
If it still bothers you, think of it from HP's stockholders perspective if the government got the patent. It would be the same situation. Both organizations can't get the patent. So, the government, being the nice guy it is, decided to let HP have it.
I can't wait until this tecnology is used to create a detailed 3D envirment of my home city so I can play counterstrike in it.
It would also be great for all other sorts of simulations when the actual place couldn't be visited.
Slashdot Mirror
seriously, if you guys can't get an article up about an EVENT before it happens then maybe it wasn't worth posting.
I just wanted to give my personal view of the situation. Hierarchal filesystems like the Linux distros use are great. Flat file systems are great. Filesystems like windows uses (one directory=one program) are great. All at their respective times.
Personally, I don't see why everybody is is hyped up over how to organize a static filesystem. It is clear that, even theoricially, no way is perfect. The solution is simple, put every file in a database with an arbitray amount of tags. These tags can be of mime types, the package it belonged to, the version, a user specified catagory etc, etc...
This dynamic files can be arranged at any time in any structure the user wants. It could happen dynamically and transparentally.
please, all this bickering over an archaic idea could be put to good use arguing over what database to use for the the filesystem.
All the BIOS should do is let the user choose which volitile device to boot (LAN, Harddrives, CDs).
Have you looked at your proposed solution? As I see it there are two ways that you could have it: 1.) Put the text to speech in the phone. This allows everything local and remote to be converted into sound. The server needs to do no processing, and much bandwidth is saved. Also, it gives the end user more control over the program (this is important). The disadvantages are that the phone would need a small, cheap chip. More power may not even be used because the wireless transmission doesn't need to be powered. This works when the main server cannot be contacted. 2.) Impliment the tech. at the server. This uses more bandwidth, cpu time (unless they have these dedicated chips) and is under control of the service provider. I think it's clear.
In a poorly disigned protocol yes. If you only tell the client what the gamer is supposed to know then there is no way for him to cheat. For example: only send the data containing the surrounding landscape where the character can see.
Most multiplayer games are not open source, but most multiplayer games have cheaters.
I love text ads. I click on ads on Google more than any other website because they are targeted and easy on my eyes. Banners with cycling images make you wait to see what the ad is for.
I'm not sure what the costs of slashdot are that are increasing, but I'm sure that there are effective ways to reduce them. Is it the server load? If you use technologies that are more efficent or pass the processing onto the client ( like XML, XSLT, and CSS ) then it would be less cost to you. Also using text ads would decrease load.
On another note: I think that a better, more streamlined, ad free slashdot would be worth a few cents a day. I suggest if you move to a pay system (which I would love) then use a micropay system. Something like $0.03 per page load. It is the fairest way to go, and would encourage people to start reading slashdot because there wouldn't be a commitment.
I'm also running one of the new C3s. At 800Mhz, it appears about the performance equivelent of my slot A 500Mhz Athlon, while costing as much as a 800Mhz. Without this chip, however, it would have been more difficult to build a nearly-silent PC.
I hope if VIA makes a Pentium 4 clone they make it run very cool so no fan is needed, because it is my opinion that quiet operation is the only selling point for their chips. I really am craving a silent, multiple gigahertz PC.
Well, for the answer to your question look back earlier in your post. GNOME is better than KDE. Why would the GNOME workers want to start working on KDE? There would be catchup to do. Also, Qt isn't a as free as gtk. It is owned by Trolltech that sells more advanced versions of Qt. This means that if someone wanted to add new features to the free Qt, like for instance the ones included in the commercial versions, and Trolltech didn't like it, a new branch would need to be started. Then there would be two Qt's and that would be messy.
I think that anybody writing or pointing to an article that has a focus on the beauty of the steel should include a picture.c IiLiBoDDfeIhoj
h tm
I found the article on scientific american, but it costs five dollars to get: http://www.sciamarchive.com/welcome2.asp?Sid2=FlB
Here is a picture of a knife w/a blade:
http://www.jarodsworkshop.com/gallery/r6_1_pic.
But they already do control the telephone! In almost everywhere in the United States your local phone company is a monopoly if you want to get on the "telephone network." It is owned by large coporations who bill you exorbitant rates. The Internet is hardly as structuralized. I'm sure that if the corporations had as much control over the Internet as they do the telephone then the Internet would be quite a different place.
To help delay or perhaps stop this we should start taking action. The most important thing I can think of is to use Freenet and other open source privacy tools.
Did you get this idea from the nerd strike in revenge of the nerds (number III, I think)?
Because I don't live in less civilized countries and I don't think they will take much heed to a foreigner telling them their business. What is so bad about this case is that it is in the United States. Maybe that doesn't mean that much to you, but to me it is very important. Chances are I'll be living here my entire life, and will have to live with these laws.
I disagree with your view. First of all, my understanding is that computer hardware becomes obsolete quickly, so patents don't stop the competition for long.
Second, why would HP invest ~half the money for this project if all there competitors could have the technoogy also, when they were finished with the research. The patent it their insentive.
And this brings me to my third point. I think that the government invests too little in research. This technology is a little far off, so it may not be economically feasible for a company to reasearch it alone. The government should fund more research.
If it still bothers you, think of it from HP's stockholders perspective if the government got the patent. It would be the same situation. Both organizations can't get the patent. So, the government, being the nice guy it is, decided to let HP have it.
I can't wait until this tecnology is used to create a detailed 3D envirment of my home city so I can play counterstrike in it.
It would also be great for all other sorts of simulations when the actual place couldn't be visited.