You are wrong, it is in Q3. Originally Carmack had fixed this Q2 bug in Q3test, but he decided to bring it back when a lot of players complained that Q3 didn't 'feel' right without it.
I fully agree about the shipping costs.... I would have been willing to pay the $49.95 for q3a which is 15% more than what the windows version costs here, but the extra $36.95 for shipping is hilarious.
Unfortunately there's no chance of finding Loki games in shops here:(
I just read over some old tomshardware stories and found a section about 3dfx sueing nvidia over patent infringement:). In the end the companies will agree to cross license some patents and all will be peace.
This looks like an improvement... consecutive memory addresses are decoded to the same hardware destination, so that a whole series of commands can be sent in a single burst. With normal memory mapped I/O you would have to write the commands to the same memory address, so burst mode can't be used.
But IANAHE either.
Currently I can only find this. It used to hold for Helix's setup tools too, but apparently that has been already been changed after protests. If I haven't missed other projects, I guess things are not as bad as I initially thought.
Let's hope it stays this way. For one thing, requiring copyright donation would most probably keep other companies from contributing. And individual contributors who code in their spare time might be lured into things they don't really stand behind.
Really? Take a look at gb.
Ok, I seem to be unable to find other examples (besides libart but Helix is not involved in that). So not as bad as I thought it was. But still I think it's a danger to free software if these twisted licences would become common place.
Yes, one argument is that this enables Helix to protect the GPL. However it does not protect against an unfriendly takeover of Helix, for example.
If Helix wrote most of the code, they won't have any trouble defending the GPL. And individuals or companies that decide to contribute to these projects should be able to defend themselves. Telling people that they are not capable to defend their own rights by 'forcing' them to sign away their rights is not correct.
Following Helix's reasoning, Red Hat should have required the copyright of all code residing on their cvs repositories to be assigned to them. But there have never been worries about these issues before.
I know exactly what I am talking about. If you own the copyright, you are free to do whatever you want with the code, including adding non-free extensions and selling the result without opening the code. Of course the GPL still stands, but it would not apply to the proprietary version.
This is exactly why it is important to have individuals retain their copyrights! Then the most Helix can do is to take their own code and use that for proprietary stuff, which is perfectly ok with me since they wrote their own code. I do not like it if they require outside contributors to donate their copyright.
For a growing number of Gnome projects, Helixcode now demands that contributors assign their copyright to them. This scares me. The only good reason for this demand is that Helixcode wants to be able to fork proprietary non-free versions. Helping to turn a few men into multimillionaires should not be what contributing to Gnome is about.
I don't know if umsdos based linux distros really won't work on Windows ME, but I can only hope so! Linux deserves its own partition. Introducing people to a crippled version of Linux is what makes them prefer Windows.
Anyway, implying that this whole thing somehow is a plot by Microsoft to fight Linux is just silly.
The 60Hz is probably hardcoded in your video card's bios. VESA doesn't allow for a standard way to set this. The only option is to not use VESA, or to look for some binary at nVidia's website that might instruct your video card otherwise. (I don't know if nVidia has that; I know that Matrox has it.) Of course it's much simpler to just disable VESA and use a native driver if there is one.
The reason all cards default to 60Hz in VESA mode is that they want it to work on all monitors.
At least this is my understanding of it. I can imagine that if DDC is working properly, the monitor would just tell the videocard to use a higher refresh rate, but apparently that doesn't happen.
Not really true: in fact it is very easy to find big primes. The problem lies in factoring the product of two particular big primes. The fact that you can find lots of primes of about the right size doesn't help here at all.
(Primes are pretty common, even when you get to very large numbers you find an awful lot of primes and in fact way way way too much to check them all.)
You are correct in saying that the Riemann hypothesis is very important to find the distribution of primes. If all non-trivial zeroes are on the trivial strip, we have very good estimates for, say, the number of primes smaller than x. However, this will never be precise enough to 'predict' the next one since 'locally' the distribution of primes is inherently irregular (it's only on a large scale where the pattern becomes clear).
The single fact that Fermat's last theorem is of mostly historical value. However, it was proved by showing that a large parts of the Taniyama conjecture hold (in fact, by now the full Taniyama conjecture has been proven). The Taniyama conjecture is important in the theory of elliptic curves, and a lot of mathematics has been built on top of it (even though for a long time it was not clear that the conjecture was actually true). The theory of elliptic curves nowadays has applications in areas from cryptography (factorization of integers) to theoretical physics.
The 7 problems at hand have similar implications. For example if we know that the Riemann Hypothesis is true, we suddenly have very precise estimates on for example the growth of the number of primes. Also, the Riemann Hypothesis has generalizations in other areas of mathematics (some of these generalizations have been proven by now).
Most likely you have a much better chance at winning the lottery, unless you don't compete in the lottery in which case both chances equal nil:)
These problems are _hard_. IMHO the most notorious one is the Riemann Hypothesis. Some of the best mathematicians have been working for years on that one. It has very broad implications (but so have most of the others).
For example, one can show that there's a strip around this critical axis in which all non-trivial zeroes are located. The smaller this strip, the more accurate are our estimates on things like 'the number of primes not larger than x'.
If the Riemann hypothesis were disproved, a lot of mathematics would immediately become invalid (many papers assume the validity of the hypothesis to prove deep results). In this respect it is quite similar to the Taniyama conjecture (from which the truth of Fermat's last theorem followed, together with lots of other theorem based on this conjecture).
Should the two number-theoretic conjectures (Riemann and Birch Swinnerton-Dyer) be proven in the first half of this century, I suggest that number theorists concentrate on the abc conjecture in the 2nd half of this century.
No, the work must only remain open as long as it is distributed... It is ok to modify a GPL'd work for internal use only and keep the modifications closed.
If the modified work is to be included in a product, or will be distributed in some other way, then the modifications will have to be openend.
Copyright law states that the copyright holder is responsible for defending his rights. The copyright holder is not always the same person as the author. For example it could be the author's company, or some other legal entity to which the copyright has been transferred.
Finally, the situation doesn't have to be tough at all... maybe management will understand the situation.
Slashdot Mirror
You are wrong, it is in Q3. Originally Carmack had fixed this Q2 bug in Q3test, but he decided to bring it back when a lot of players complained that Q3 didn't 'feel' right without it.
I was there. I thought he was crazy to spend all his money on expensive equipment and internet connections. Then he even quit his job!
:)
Of course it turned him into a multimillionaire, but how could I know
I fully agree about the shipping costs.... I would have been willing to pay the $49.95 for q3a which is 15% more than what the windows version costs here, but the extra $36.95 for shipping is hilarious. :(
Unfortunately there's no chance of finding Loki games in shops here
"Trust me it is either"
a) happening already,
b) not happening at all, or
c) not going to happen.
What is there to trust here? You're listing all possibilities...
Probably marketing tactics... :)
:). In the end the companies will agree to cross license some patents and all will be peace.
I just read over some old tomshardware stories and found a section about 3dfx sueing nvidia over patent infringement
This looks like an improvement... consecutive memory addresses are decoded to the same hardware destination, so that a whole series of commands can be sent in a single burst. With normal memory mapped I/O you would have to write the commands to the same memory address, so burst mode can't be used.
But IANAHE either.
Yep, it's the time of the month again....sigh
Is it just me or am I the only one to wonder why these hoax sites get time on /.
In the first place it means "It has been a requirement until a couple of days ago" (only for a very few projects, but still).
I'm mainly worried about the possibility that this kind of condition could silently become common place.
Currently I can only find this. It used to hold for Helix's setup tools too, but apparently that has been already been changed after protests. If I haven't missed other projects, I guess things are not as bad as I initially thought.
Let's hope it stays this way. For one thing, requiring copyright donation would most probably keep other companies from contributing. And individual contributors who code in their spare time might be lured into things they don't really stand behind.
Really? Take a look at gb.
Ok, I seem to be unable to find other examples (besides libart but Helix is not involved in that). So not as bad as I thought it was. But still I think it's a danger to free software if these twisted licences would become common place.
Yes, one argument is that this enables Helix to protect the GPL. However it does not protect against an unfriendly takeover of Helix, for example.
If Helix wrote most of the code, they won't have any trouble defending the GPL. And individuals or companies that decide to contribute to these projects should be able to defend themselves. Telling people that they are not capable to defend their own rights by 'forcing' them to sign away their rights is not correct.
Following Helix's reasoning, Red Hat should have required the copyright of all code residing on their cvs repositories to be assigned to them. But there have never been worries about these issues before.
I know exactly what I am talking about. If you own the copyright, you are free to do whatever you want with the code, including adding non-free extensions and selling the result without opening the code. Of course the GPL still stands, but it would not apply to the proprietary version.
This is exactly why it is important to have individuals retain their copyrights! Then the most Helix can do is to take their own code and use that for proprietary stuff, which is perfectly ok with me since they wrote their own code. I do not like it if they require outside contributors to donate their copyright.
For a growing number of Gnome projects, Helixcode now demands that contributors assign their copyright to them. This scares me. The only good reason for this demand is that Helixcode wants to be able to fork proprietary non-free versions. Helping to turn a few men into multimillionaires should not be what contributing to Gnome is about.
I don't know if umsdos based linux distros really won't work on Windows ME, but I can only hope so! Linux deserves its own partition. Introducing people to a crippled version of Linux is what makes them prefer Windows.
Anyway, implying that this whole thing somehow is a plot by Microsoft to fight Linux is just silly.
#0 0x401b6d91 in QFontDatabasePrivate::families () from /usr/lib/libqt.so.2 /usr/lib/libqt.so.2 /usr/lib/libqt.so.2 /lib/libc.so.6
(gdb) bt
#0 0x401b6d91 in QFontDatabasePrivate::families () from
#1 0x404bc514 in QPrintDialog virtual table () from
#2 0x80d8836 in XtRemoveTimeOut ()
#3 0x40608a05 in __libc_start_main () from
I have no idea. Stuff that I compile myself always works, though...
As one of the gurus of Pi, he came up with some algorithms himself. Look here.
The 60Hz is probably hardcoded in your video card's bios. VESA doesn't allow for a standard way to set this. The only option is to not use VESA, or to look for some binary at nVidia's website that might instruct your video card otherwise. (I don't know if nVidia has that; I know that Matrox has it.) Of course it's much simpler to just disable VESA and use a native driver if there is one.
The reason all cards default to 60Hz in VESA mode is that they want it to work on all monitors.
At least this is my understanding of it. I can imagine that if DDC is working properly, the monitor would just tell the videocard to use a higher refresh rate, but apparently that doesn't happen.
Not really true: in fact it is very easy to find big primes. The problem lies in factoring the product of two particular big primes. The fact that you can find lots of primes of about the right size doesn't help here at all.
(Primes are pretty common, even when you get to very large numbers you find an awful lot of primes and in fact way way way too much to check them all.)
You are correct in saying that the Riemann hypothesis is very important to find the distribution of primes. If all non-trivial zeroes are on the trivial strip, we have very good estimates for, say, the number of primes smaller than x. However, this will never be precise enough to 'predict' the next one since 'locally' the distribution of primes is inherently irregular (it's only on a large scale where the pattern becomes clear).
An important difference with the Nobel prize is that one has to be under 40 to be eligible for a Fields Medal.
The single fact that Fermat's last theorem is of mostly historical value. However, it was proved by showing that a large parts of the Taniyama conjecture hold (in fact, by now the full Taniyama conjecture has been proven). The Taniyama conjecture is important in the theory of elliptic curves, and a lot of mathematics has been built on top of it (even though for a long time it was not clear that the conjecture was actually true). The theory of elliptic curves nowadays has applications in areas from cryptography (factorization of integers) to theoretical physics.
The 7 problems at hand have similar implications. For example if we know that the Riemann Hypothesis is true, we suddenly have very precise estimates on for example the growth of the number of primes. Also, the Riemann Hypothesis has generalizations in other areas of mathematics (some of these generalizations have been proven by now).
Most likely you have a much better chance at winning the lottery, unless you don't compete in the lottery in which case both chances equal nil :)
These problems are _hard_.
IMHO the most notorious one is the Riemann Hypothesis. Some of the best mathematicians have been working for years on that one. It has very broad implications (but so have most of the others).
For example, one can show that there's a strip around this critical axis in which all non-trivial zeroes are located. The smaller this strip, the more accurate are our estimates on things like 'the number of primes not larger than x'.
If the Riemann hypothesis were disproved, a lot of mathematics would immediately become invalid (many papers assume the validity of the hypothesis to prove deep results). In this respect it is quite similar to the Taniyama conjecture (from which the truth of Fermat's last theorem followed, together with lots of other theorem based on this conjecture).
Should the two number-theoretic conjectures (Riemann and Birch Swinnerton-Dyer) be proven in the first half of this century, I suggest that number theorists concentrate on the abc conjecture in the 2nd half of this century.
And the 400% figure comes from....?
You are correct. If they don't release, the modified source does not have to be opened.
No, the work must only remain open as long as it is distributed... It is ok to modify a GPL'd work for internal use only and keep the modifications closed.
If the modified work is to be included in a product, or will be distributed in some other way, then the modifications will have to be openend.
Copyright law states that the copyright holder is responsible for defending his rights. The copyright holder is not always the same person as the author. For example it could be the author's company, or some other legal entity to which the copyright has been transferred.
Finally, the situation doesn't have to be tough at all... maybe management will understand the situation.