If you're still using something less than Windows 2000, you should spend the $100 (not $207 that you lie about) to upgrade to at least 2000. It's been four years now--you don't still use a Linux kernel from four years ago, do you?
Sometimes I wonder why there are so many stupid "BSOD" jokes (I haven't seen a BSOD in five years), then I see that a lot of people here still haven't gotten off the 9x line like most everyone else has. Which explains it.
How about the IDE's debugger? Quite simply, nothing else beats it.
Not to mention the faster code generation that others have already mentioned here. Yes, believe it or not, Microsoft employs some incredibly smart people who know how to write a really good compiler.
This is not intended as flamebait. But I just fine it funny that someone would consult with Slashdot about how to make science and math friendly, when we're still dealing with trying to make our operating system friendly.
I mean, in all seriousness, Slashdot and the OSS community in general would be the last place I would turn to for advice making math and science "kid friendly." We're too tech-minded and used to being geeks. Some kids may find science fun, some will find cars fun. It's just how life goes.
This, ladies and gentleman, is an example of what happens when ignorance is given a voice.
You can't run Windows apps from 10 years ago b/c XP will complain that they aren't 32 bit apps; they are 16 bit.
100% wrong. Windows XP won't "complain;" it will run them just fine. Your post, however, doesn't even make sense.
Windows 3.1 apps were 16-bit but ran just fine in Windows 95. Win32 was built with a compatibility layer. Consequently, XP runs Windows 95 apps just fine, as NT4 used the Win32 library developed in 95.
You can even run the MS-DOS Executive from Windows 1.0 under Windows XP.
Not to mention the fact that Windows XP has a Compabitility tab in application properties that lets you emulate the quirks of older Windows versions if apps start complaining. Why would XP have that if it has no ability to run older Windows applications? Moron.
I had to go buy all new versions of games that I had for DOS in order to play them through Windows 95/98 because of the architectural changes in the OS.
1.) Windows 95/98 was built on top of DOS. You would have been able to run your DOS programs just fine. There were no "architectural changes" in Windows 95/98.
2.) This has absolutely nothing with what I was talking about, because those are DOS programs. I said Windows programs. Again, moron.
The Star Wars flight sim games called Xwing and Tie Fighter are the games I had to repurchase.
Then you wasted your money because they ran just fine under Windows 98. How do I know? I PLAYED THEM. Windows 98 is built on top of MS-DOS.
Some games that I used in DOS don't work at all anymore.
Again, has nothing to do with anything because I said Windows programs from 10 years ago. I said nothing about DOS. DOS was thankfully disposed of in the NT line of Windows and brought to the masses via XP.
A lib change in Linux is different than a kernel change in Windows that prevents games from running at all.
Haha, thanks for the "info." I love that you're trying to inform me when you're completely uninformed...
As far as Linux goes, fire up an RPM you got in 1997 and see if it runs fine. Let me know how it goes. Next.
Upgrade a lib and you are done...or to help the customer just statically link the libs anyway,which is what should be done for commercial apps. Don't alienate users by making them worry about the libs.
Still doesn't change the fact that older RPMs expect things in certain places, expect a certain kernel behavior, expect certain prerequisites that might not be met because they've been replace dor changed names, etc. etc.
Windows does not have this problem. The solutions I described would help Linux get over this major hassle. Next time, however, I suggest reading up on what you're talking about before you reply about something and make yourself look completely uninformed.
- It's easy to use (before someone chimes in with their anecdotal "this happened to me once" situation, yes, for the majority of people Windows is very easy to use) - Easy to download and install drivers. - As a result, easy to go down to Wal-mart and buy a new printer and have it work in less than a minute. - Endless software, including lots of freeware. There's more software for Windows because Windows is easier to develop for, with no endless list of competing, inconsistent toolkits that exist simply to reinvent the wheel yet again and introduce another "choice" - Old software still works. I can run my Windows 3.1 programs in XP if I wanted to. Linux distros are still a bit of a moving target. I can't guarantee an RPM I got five years ago will still work, can I? Meanwhile, I can run a Windows app from 10 years ago with no problems.
If you honestly think the reason that 95% of the marketshare is using Windows is simply because of Photoshop, you're deluded. OS X has Photoshop as well, but look at its share compared to Windows.
Note that despite all this, Linux can catch up and defeat Windows. But it has to abandon XFree86, implement things like binary installation/uninstallation APIs, one sane toolkit that is a joy to program for (i.e., like.NET or Cocoa), and so forth. Personally, I'm looking forward to the 1.0 release of Y-Windows.
I'm using it in the Slashdot sense, in which any company that seeks to make money gets a dollar sign in their name and is declared "evil."
Yes, the fact that IBM and Novell support Linux is an example of hypocrisy, especially considering how evil IBM has been in the past. You always get Slashdotters telling me "I can't trust Microsoft because of their past behavior," but they'll curl up in IBM's lap simply because IBM supports their favorite hobby OS.
Yes, Slashdot is anti-capitalism. It's not even a question. Next.
This site is owned by a Linux company. Didn't you know that?
It's kind of an amusing joke--all the anti-capitalism spiel you read daily here, all done on a corporate-owned website...OSDN's "tech news" site which just so happens to post a lot of articles that are derogatory toward competitors.
Lateralus apparently has the most clever track listing I've ever heard. If you're not aware, there are a lot of references to parabolas, cycles, and so forth throughout the songs.
Halfway through the album are two tracks, back-to-back called Parabol/Parabola. Apparently, doing things like splitting the track listing there generates some interesting results. But the most interesting is as follows.
Someone on the Internet posted about an alternate tracklisting for the songs that seems to have been intentional, and throws a whole new tone to the entire record.
I'll quote it below:
To me, Tool's Lateralus is the most amazing piece of music ever composed. I think Tool deliberately wanted to give their fans something truly amazing, but wanted them to find it on their own. "Recognize this as a holy gift..." At first, I thought that the song Lateralus was about tripping acid - discovering true color by seperating the body from the mind. At first listen, I imagined the bending envelope as an intense visual. After becoming more familiar with the track, however, I had reformed my interpretation to something broader: think deeper. Lateralus, perhaps because it is the album's "title track", serves as the central clue for a puzzle that a friend of mine had read about somewhere on the internet. "All I know is that there is a different order for the songs - something about two spirals. Oh yeah, and thirteen is in the middle." After scavenging through endless google search results, I gave up on finding more about this 'alternate order'. Intent to figure the album out, and very curious about the spirals - I put on the proverbial 'thinking cap'. I understood how the spirals could have a lot of significance, in that the album's title track offers the inspiring, "swing on the spiral of our divinity and still be a human..........And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been. We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been." In my internet scavenging, I had read one review, written by a drummer, who mentioned that Danny Carey's drum beat formed a fibonacci sequence during the song Lateralus. A drummer myself, I decided to get out the graph paper and follow Danny. I can't play like he can, but at least I can hear everything he's doing, and thus was able to construct the drum tabulature. Sure enough, Danny repeats a Fibonacci sequence through the number 13: 1,1,2,3,5,8,13. After 13, he starts again with 1. Bringing in my Algebra 2 knowledge of the Fibonacci sequence, when the equation for the Fibonacci sequence (which I don't actually know) is graphed, it forms a sprial whose vertex depends on the number at which the sequence begins. Coincidence? I began to think not. I had already known of Danny's obsession with sacred geometry and am familiar with Bob Frissell's book, Nothing in This Book Is True, But It's Exactly How Things Are , so the significance of what I had stumbled upon had actually begun to settle in. This is where I just had to play with Lateralus. I had doodled a few spirals in the corners of my graph paper, and in doing so made the first important connection to Lateralus. I knew that if the tracks were in fact intended to be heard in a different order, "Parabol" and "Parabola" would have to go together. In drawing my spirals, I had begun with a vertex and 'spiraled' outwards. After writing the numbers 1 through 13 linearly, I could immediately see that Parabol and Parabola would have to be the middle of my spiral (in that 13 / 2 = 6.5). I drew a simple arrow between 6 and 7 and then pondered the next pair. At first, I actually drew a spiral connecting pairs of numbers whose sum equaled 13 (the number of songs on the album). This, however, left the last track in the same position and without anything to connect to. At this time, I had used my copy of La
Here's hoping they have head-from-ass removal procedures.
You proved my point. When everyone started using DirectX, they didn't write to that hardware anymore. They used DirectX.
Before DirectX, everyone had to write to sound cards, network cards, mice, joysticks, and more. The only reason you're arguing is because you don't want to admit that a Microsoft technology has taken over because people liked it enough to switch.
Feel free to continue to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of bias and comprehension problems, though.
Huh? Explain how I am wrong.
The statement was that before DirectX, individual hardware was written to. This is absolutely true. Networking, sound, input, and other devices were written to via hardware. 99% of the time, so was video.
DirectX--since you apparently refuse to accept this--covers all those areas. 3D cards eventually came out, and OpenGL came out, but that only handled video. There was still hardware that was written to directly. DirectX came out, and a few versions later, people started using it for everything.
No, Civilization II was not written for DirectX, but Civ II came out when what, 1.0 was out?
You're mindless blinders are making you look insane. Take them off and admit you were wrong! I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. Are you saying developers DIDN'T write to individual hardware before DirectX? Did games not have sound, networking, input, and more before 1996?
Your entire post was over irrelevant issues like typos and moderation. Meanwhile, the point still stands--before DirectX took over, developers wrote to individual hardware components. Next.
You'd also realize that there is more than one person posting on Slashdot and differing opinions in different stories are rather to be expected.
If you don't apply, what's the problem? Obviously, it's implied that I'm referring to the majority mindset--and it is the majority mindset--and that of the mindset of the editors according to what gets posted as "tech news" to the front page. I'm fully aware that not everyone falls under that brush--my opinions have even gotten modded up.
Tell me--what is "abusive" about th RIAA suing copyright infringers? It's exactly what people were telling them to do four years ago.
My post referred to the double-standard that propagates around here--"Let's cry about companies infringing the copyright of the GPL! By the way, the RIAA is evil for going after infringers of its copyright."
Just to let you know, if you disagree, I respect your opinion--if it's based on facts.
It's an article about a guy getting arrested for filming a movie in a theater. That's already a dumb thing to do, but the submitter posts like it's a tragedy and even references the "War on Drugs."
Then, it gets posted by michael with a headline "Projectionists Using Night Vision Goggles in Theaters." Huh? So now it's supposed to be bad that the theater employees scan for the cameras to begin with.
There is case after case of michael posting troll articles. I remember his insane, all-caps ranting at Intel in the 64-bit article a while back. I wish he'd join JonKatz in...you know...not being here.:P
The grandparent post is a REPOST from anti-slash's db tool. Someone else wrote it in the past and it was modded up to +5, then their searchable db tool catalogued it for easy reposting when the topic comes up again.
Mods, visit Anti-Slash if you don't want to be duped--they do this almost every single day, and they list them on the front page and mock you.
Summary of what this means for those non-readers
on
GNOME for Grandma
·
· Score: 1
Linux actually has the ability to do such things as send and receive e-mail, in addition to letting you surf the web and even scan pictures.
These awe-inspiring abilities that no other desktop has been able to do for the past 20 years means Linux is somehow ready for the masses.
The Grandma Litmus Test(tm)--proving Linux can send/receive e-mail and download pictures since 1998. Woo-hoo!
Point: The average user is what counts if you want the movement to win, not grammie.
Binary installation/uninstallation API
on
GNOME for Grandma
·
· Score: 1
I'm absolutely convinced that until the Linux desktop experiments actually implement binary installation APIs, in which someone can have a CD, stick it in, and an installer runs, then we'll be seeing more commercial software for Linux.
Add in a unified, sane API for programming the damned thing--unlike this KDElibs/Gnomelibs/QT/GTK mess (in which you have to install TWO ENTIRE DESKTOP ENVIRONMENTS just to be able to run each other's apps)--and I'm talking something incredibly clean and innovative like.NET or Cocoa--and you'd have commercial vendors like Adobe ready and willing.
But, nope, we're too busy hacking in transparency (hello, 1999) and fighting over licensing issues as we bash "M$."
All your grandma does at most is surf the web and do some text processing, etc.
The grandma test is not a good litmus test for usability because it completely disregards the average user, who will go out and buy new software, upgrade a printer, buy a new sound card, buy a DVD drive, etc.
you almost never get the "Ohh shiny new software! Must have it!" Most users here are running whatever they got with the computer and the only software they buy is usually to fill the void that the computer had in it. and yes this is at home. Most linux distros now have no void for most users. it has an office suite, a cgheckbook application, email... everything that the regular user would want and use...
What a lie! People are always clamoring for new software, be it the latest antivirus, or maybe they saw someone running the new iTunes, or maybe someone wants to play the Sims, etc.
What happens when someone wants to upgrade their hardware under Linux? How do they get drivers for the new printer they got that comes with a Windows driver CD? Hell, what happens when a security advisory comes out for the kernel and they need to upgrade it? Do they run "apt-get"? What do they do? In Windows, update will automatically download it and give you an "Install" button and a reboot. I don't trust newbies with an RPM-like system and never will.
This is just the tip of the iceberg in the usability problems for the average user, but then I'd be going off-topic. Let's just say Linux desktops today are designed to provide pretty screenshots for the distro box art, but when you actually grab the mouse to use the thing for a day...
2.) Grandmas don't typically install/uninstall things, buy new hardware or software, upgrade their drivers, etc. etc. This means that of course Linux will seem easy to use, because they're not really doing anything much more than using it as a glorified web kiosk. Average users will do much more and expect things to actually work the first time through, like they're used to on Windows (and yes, the majority of the time it is a one-time thing on Windows).
The "Linux for Grandma" idea is flawed
on
GNOME for Grandma
·
· Score: 1
People love to chat up how their grandma "uses Linux." Barring extremely rare exceptions, this usually means some poor grandmother had her grandson go in, install Linux, set everything up in a particular way, then told her grandma to have at it.
The problem with this is that, at most, her grandma will send/receive e-mail and surf the web, maybe occasionally playing music. Or scanning something. The reason this is a problem is that many people try to use this as an example of the ease-of-use of Linux, but there are two issues:
1.) You had to set everything up for them in a particular way to hide the underlying system.
2.) Grandmas don't typically install/uninstall things, buy new hardware or software, upgrade their drivers, etc. etc.
Basically, when someone says Linux is easy enough that their grandma uses it, they mean that Linux desktops can send and receive e-mail and browse the web. Uh...congratulations? Grandmas are not a litmus test for usability. Average users are.
"The MPAA is evil for sending pirates to jail! Their attempts to go after copyright infringement is 'abusive' and just like the 'War on Drugs.' The RIAA is 'greedy' for legally pursuing people who are violating their copyright."
Two articles later...
"Here's another article about evil companies violating the copyright of the GPL. We must enforce the GPL and punish those who infringe its copyright. GPL violaters are evil, and the copyright of the GPL must be respected."
Indeed. Breaking CSS encryption to make a legal backup of your DVD or watch movies under Linux is "civil disobedience" that I can accept and understand.
Some moron going into a theater with a camcorder in order to put a movie online for others to download is just breaking the law, and is not "civil disobedience." I still don't understand how anybody could think they magically own the copyright to distribute someone else's works however they want. Why don't you spend a year or two making a movie or writing a major commercial software project, only to fire up eMule and see "your.Project.Sharereactor.rar" pop up with 357 sources? Let me know how you'd feel, and if it is "free advertising" for other people to decide to abuse your works however they want without asking you first.
Meanwhile, we complain when companies don't follow the copyright of the GPL...does anyone else see the hypocrisy in that?
This is just Slashdot wanting people to get up in arms over the fact that some guy is going to jail for a year, the theater was using night-vision goggles (which someone will probably have the audacity to argue is a privacy invasion--yuk yuk), and that for some reason this is supposed to be like the "War on Drugs," which I guess is the submitter's way of saying piracy should be legal just because it happens a lot.
Sometimes I get afraid this place is turning into a leftist hellhole like Kuro5hin...the anti-RIAA, anti-"M$", anti-capitalism spiel we hear all the time really gets on my nerves. Cool tech news, please? No more self-righteous movements and agendas.
Oh, I forgot, OSDN owns Slashdot so it's in their best interests to own a site claiming to be news,that posts articles derogatory toward competitors and such...
He didn't just say that Microsoft provided a platform for Windows, he said that before Microsoft provided their platform, developers had to write directly to the graphics drivers.
No, he didn't. Read it and learn to comprehend. It says before DirectX, developers had to write directly to "individual hardware components."
This is 100% true. We're not talking about Direct3D here, we're talking about DirectX. I guess you didn't know, but DirectX is more than just a graphics library, it's a multimedia library that encompasses sound, networking, input, and more. People had to write to these themselves back in the day--particularly sound, which was always a hassle.
And despite OpenGL, people still used normal SVGA writes and not OpenGL, because back then most people didn't have 3D cards. Was WarCraft II using OpenGL? What about Descent? Or the first version of Quake? Next.
You don't need to link to some Byte article--I was around when DirectX 1.0 came out (which sucked until a few versions later...in the meantime, people just kept making DOS games).
It's amusing to me that you're uninformed post suddenly meant that people modded mine down as "Overrated"--so that they couldn't be meta-modded back. Yawn. It's just a result of people being so desperate to bash Microsoft in any way possible that they won't even admit that most Windows developers use DirectX, and few use OpenGL. Regardless of which is the better technology (even Carmack has changed his mind about Direct3D since his infamous criticisms), nothing about what was said is incorrect--you just want to score bonus points with the anti-"M$" mods.
What exactly is wrong with the MPAA not wanting people to film movies? That is, after all, a crime and is also immoral to a degree. Slashdotters have yet to legally or morally justify pirating movies.
Is it okay to pirate games and software? You know, stuff that programmers made? Can I pirate the fuck out of Doom 3 when it comes out? OH, THAT'S RIGHT--the subject of software piracy is never mentioned because Slashdot is made up of a lot of programmers and developers. Since software piracy would affect them, it's bad, right? They'll stick up for their hero John Carmack and tell you to buy the game when it comes out.
And why all the sudden is there an equation to the War on Drugs? It's completely irrelevant. Does that mean that Slashdot editors also believe drugs should be legalized?
This article fits all the attributes required for being propaganda. Even the juvenile "Ass. Head" remark, which does nothing to intellectualize your argument.
Try all you want, but making a desperate connection to the War on Drugs, calling him an Ass. Head, and pretending it's some sort of bad thing that they used night vision goggles to spot a camera (the pirates are using high-tech gadgets, so what is wrong with the theater doing the same damn thing? I don't expect any answer to this...) in order to arrest him for doing something illegal, is not going to change the fact that you're wrong if you think movie piracy is okay and that everyone should just "accept" it. I'm sure people will bring out the tired old "the MPAA needs to find a 'new business model'", which is something Slashdotters love to say. Except that these business majors never mention what the new model is supposed to be other than giving away shit for free. Yeah--that'll work.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone know what Microsoft uses to develop Internet Explorer and Office for OS X?
If you're still using something less than Windows 2000, you should spend the $100 (not $207 that you lie about) to upgrade to at least 2000. It's been four years now--you don't still use a Linux kernel from four years ago, do you?
.NET Framework SDK is free.
Sometimes I wonder why there are so many stupid "BSOD" jokes (I haven't seen a BSOD in five years), then I see that a lot of people here still haven't gotten off the 9x line like most everyone else has. Which explains it.
The
How about the IDE's debugger? Quite simply, nothing else beats it.
Not to mention the faster code generation that others have already mentioned here. Yes, believe it or not, Microsoft employs some incredibly smart people who know how to write a really good compiler.
This is not intended as flamebait. But I just fine it funny that someone would consult with Slashdot about how to make science and math friendly, when we're still dealing with trying to make our operating system friendly.
I mean, in all seriousness, Slashdot and the OSS community in general would be the last place I would turn to for advice making math and science "kid friendly." We're too tech-minded and used to being geeks. Some kids may find science fun, some will find cars fun. It's just how life goes.
This, ladies and gentleman, is an example of what happens when ignorance is given a voice.
You can't run Windows apps from 10 years ago b/c XP will complain that they aren't 32 bit apps; they are 16 bit.
100% wrong. Windows XP won't "complain;" it will run them just fine. Your post, however, doesn't even make sense.
Windows 3.1 apps were 16-bit but ran just fine in Windows 95. Win32 was built with a compatibility layer. Consequently, XP runs Windows 95 apps just fine, as NT4 used the Win32 library developed in 95.
You can even run the MS-DOS Executive from Windows 1.0 under Windows XP.
Not to mention the fact that Windows XP has a Compabitility tab in application properties that lets you emulate the quirks of older Windows versions if apps start complaining. Why would XP have that if it has no ability to run older Windows applications? Moron.
I had to go buy all new versions of games that I had for DOS in order to play them through Windows 95/98 because of the architectural changes in the OS.
1.) Windows 95/98 was built on top of DOS. You would have been able to run your DOS programs just fine. There were no "architectural changes" in Windows 95/98.
2.) This has absolutely nothing with what I was talking about, because those are DOS programs. I said Windows programs. Again, moron.
The Star Wars flight sim games called Xwing and Tie Fighter are the games I had to repurchase.
Then you wasted your money because they ran just fine under Windows 98. How do I know? I PLAYED THEM. Windows 98 is built on top of MS-DOS.
Some games that I used in DOS don't work at all anymore.
Again, has nothing to do with anything because I said Windows programs from 10 years ago. I said nothing about DOS. DOS was thankfully disposed of in the NT line of Windows and brought to the masses via XP.
A lib change in Linux is different than a kernel change in Windows that prevents games from running at all.
Haha, thanks for the "info." I love that you're trying to inform me when you're completely uninformed...
As far as Linux goes, fire up an RPM you got in 1997 and see if it runs fine. Let me know how it goes. Next.
Upgrade a lib and you are done...or to help the customer just statically link the libs anyway,which is what should be done for commercial apps. Don't alienate users by making them worry about the libs.
Still doesn't change the fact that older RPMs expect things in certain places, expect a certain kernel behavior, expect certain prerequisites that might not be met because they've been replace dor changed names, etc. etc.
Windows does not have this problem. The solutions I described would help Linux get over this major hassle. Next time, however, I suggest reading up on what you're talking about before you reply about something and make yourself look completely uninformed.
People stay on Windows because:
.NET or Cocoa), and so forth. Personally, I'm looking forward to the 1.0 release of Y-Windows.
- It's easy to use (before someone chimes in with their anecdotal "this happened to me once" situation, yes, for the majority of people Windows is very easy to use)
- Easy to download and install drivers.
- As a result, easy to go down to Wal-mart and buy a new printer and have it work in less than a minute.
- Endless software, including lots of freeware. There's more software for Windows because Windows is easier to develop for, with no endless list of competing, inconsistent toolkits that exist simply to reinvent the wheel yet again and introduce another "choice"
- Old software still works. I can run my Windows 3.1 programs in XP if I wanted to. Linux distros are still a bit of a moving target. I can't guarantee an RPM I got five years ago will still work, can I? Meanwhile, I can run a Windows app from 10 years ago with no problems.
If you honestly think the reason that 95% of the marketshare is using Windows is simply because of Photoshop, you're deluded. OS X has Photoshop as well, but look at its share compared to Windows.
Note that despite all this, Linux can catch up and defeat Windows. But it has to abandon XFree86, implement things like binary installation/uninstallation APIs, one sane toolkit that is a joy to program for (i.e., like
Sounds like Microsoft's competitors initiating the antitrust trial, or Linux users who bitch and moan about "M$".
Just another perspective to think about.
I'm using it in the Slashdot sense, in which any company that seeks to make money gets a dollar sign in their name and is declared "evil."
Yes, the fact that IBM and Novell support Linux is an example of hypocrisy, especially considering how evil IBM has been in the past. You always get Slashdotters telling me "I can't trust Microsoft because of their past behavior," but they'll curl up in IBM's lap simply because IBM supports their favorite hobby OS.
Yes, Slashdot is anti-capitalism. It's not even a question. Next.
This site is owned by a Linux company. Didn't you know that?
It's kind of an amusing joke--all the anti-capitalism spiel you read daily here, all done on a corporate-owned website...OSDN's "tech news" site which just so happens to post a lot of articles that are derogatory toward competitors.
Just saying. I find it funny is all.
Lateralus apparently has the most clever track listing I've ever heard. If you're not aware, there are a lot of references to parabolas, cycles, and so forth throughout the songs.
Halfway through the album are two tracks, back-to-back called Parabol/Parabola. Apparently, doing things like splitting the track listing there generates some interesting results. But the most interesting is as follows.
Someone on the Internet posted about an alternate tracklisting for the songs that seems to have been intentional, and throws a whole new tone to the entire record.
I'll quote it below:
To me, Tool's Lateralus is the most amazing piece of music ever
composed. I think Tool deliberately wanted to give their fans something
truly amazing, but wanted them to find it on their own. "Recognize this
as a holy gift..." At first, I thought that the song Lateralus was
about tripping acid - discovering true color by seperating the body
from the mind. At first listen, I imagined the bending envelope as an
intense visual. After becoming more familiar with the track, however, I
had reformed my interpretation to something broader: think deeper.
Lateralus, perhaps because it is the album's "title track", serves as
the central clue for a puzzle that a friend of mine had read about
somewhere on the internet. "All I know is that there is a different
order for the songs - something about two spirals. Oh yeah, and
thirteen is in the middle." After scavenging through endless google
search results, I gave up on finding more about this 'alternate order'.
Intent to figure the album out, and very curious about the spirals - I
put on the proverbial 'thinking cap'. I understood how the spirals
could have a lot of significance, in that the album's title track
offers the inspiring, "swing on the spiral of our divinity and still be
a human..........And following our will and wind we may just go where
no one's been. We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where
no one's been." In my internet scavenging, I had read one review,
written by a drummer, who mentioned that Danny Carey's drum beat formed
a fibonacci sequence during the song Lateralus. A drummer myself, I
decided to get out the graph paper and follow Danny. I can't play like
he can, but at least I can hear everything he's doing, and thus was
able to construct the drum tabulature. Sure enough, Danny repeats a
Fibonacci sequence through the number 13: 1,1,2,3,5,8,13. After 13, he
starts again with 1. Bringing in my Algebra 2 knowledge of the
Fibonacci sequence, when the equation for the Fibonacci sequence (which
I don't actually know) is graphed, it forms a sprial whose vertex
depends on the number at which the sequence begins. Coincidence? I
began to think not. I had already known of Danny's obsession with
sacred geometry and am familiar with Bob Frissell's book, Nothing in
This Book Is True, But It's Exactly How Things Are , so the
significance of what I had stumbled upon had actually begun to settle
in. This is where I just had to play with Lateralus. I had doodled a
few spirals in the corners of my graph paper, and in doing so made the
first important connection to Lateralus. I knew that if the tracks were
in fact intended to be heard in a different order, "Parabol" and
"Parabola" would have to go together. In drawing my spirals, I had
begun with a vertex and 'spiraled' outwards. After writing the numbers
1 through 13 linearly, I could immediately see that Parabol and
Parabola would have to be the middle of my spiral (in that 13 / 2 =
6.5). I drew a simple arrow between 6 and 7 and then pondered the next
pair. At first, I actually drew a spiral connecting pairs of numbers
whose sum equaled 13 (the number of songs on the album). This, however,
left the last track in the same position and without anything to
connect to. At this time, I had used my copy of La
Isn't that...I dunno...redundant? Seems weird. Reaction is by definition a response to something.
Here's hoping they have head-from-ass removal procedures.
You proved my point. When everyone started using DirectX, they didn't write to that hardware anymore. They used DirectX.
Before DirectX, everyone had to write to sound cards, network cards, mice, joysticks, and more. The only reason you're arguing is because you don't want to admit that a Microsoft technology has taken over because people liked it enough to switch.
Feel free to continue to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of bias and comprehension problems, though.
Huh? Explain how I am wrong.
The statement was that before DirectX, individual hardware was written to. This is absolutely true. Networking, sound, input, and other devices were written to via hardware. 99% of the time, so was video.
DirectX--since you apparently refuse to accept this--covers all those areas. 3D cards eventually came out, and OpenGL came out, but that only handled video. There was still hardware that was written to directly. DirectX came out, and a few versions later, people started using it for everything.
No, Civilization II was not written for DirectX, but Civ II came out when what, 1.0 was out?
You're mindless blinders are making you look insane. Take them off and admit you were wrong! I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. Are you saying developers DIDN'T write to individual hardware before DirectX? Did games not have sound, networking, input, and more before 1996?
Your entire post was over irrelevant issues like typos and moderation. Meanwhile, the point still stands--before DirectX took over, developers wrote to individual hardware components. Next.
You'd also realize that there is more than one person posting on Slashdot and differing opinions in different stories are rather to be expected.
If you don't apply, what's the problem? Obviously, it's implied that I'm referring to the majority mindset--and it is the majority mindset--and that of the mindset of the editors according to what gets posted as "tech news" to the front page. I'm fully aware that not everyone falls under that brush--my opinions have even gotten modded up.
Tell me--what is "abusive" about th RIAA suing copyright infringers? It's exactly what people were telling them to do four years ago.
My post referred to the double-standard that propagates around here--"Let's cry about companies infringing the copyright of the GPL! By the way, the RIAA is evil for going after infringers of its copyright."
Just to let you know, if you disagree, I respect your opinion--if it's based on facts.
It's an article about a guy getting arrested for filming a movie in a theater. That's already a dumb thing to do, but the submitter posts like it's a tragedy and even references the "War on Drugs."
:P
Then, it gets posted by michael with a headline "Projectionists Using Night Vision Goggles in Theaters." Huh? So now it's supposed to be bad that the theater employees scan for the cameras to begin with.
There is case after case of michael posting troll articles. I remember his insane, all-caps ranting at Intel in the 64-bit article a while back. I wish he'd join JonKatz in...you know...not being here.
The grandparent post is a REPOST from anti-slash's db tool. Someone else wrote it in the past and it was modded up to +5, then their searchable db tool catalogued it for easy reposting when the topic comes up again.
Mods, visit Anti-Slash if you don't want to be duped--they do this almost every single day, and they list them on the front page and mock you.
Linux actually has the ability to do such things as send and receive e-mail, in addition to letting you surf the web and even scan pictures.
These awe-inspiring abilities that no other desktop has been able to do for the past 20 years means Linux is somehow ready for the masses.
The Grandma Litmus Test(tm)--proving Linux can send/receive e-mail and download pictures since 1998. Woo-hoo!
Point: The average user is what counts if you want the movement to win, not grammie.
I'm absolutely convinced that until the Linux desktop experiments actually implement binary installation APIs, in which someone can have a CD, stick it in, and an installer runs, then we'll be seeing more commercial software for Linux.
.NET or Cocoa--and you'd have commercial vendors like Adobe ready and willing.
Add in a unified, sane API for programming the damned thing--unlike this KDElibs/Gnomelibs/QT/GTK mess (in which you have to install TWO ENTIRE DESKTOP ENVIRONMENTS just to be able to run each other's apps)--and I'm talking something incredibly clean and innovative like
But, nope, we're too busy hacking in transparency (hello, 1999) and fighting over licensing issues as we bash "M$."
All your grandma does at most is surf the web and do some text processing, etc.
The grandma test is not a good litmus test for usability because it completely disregards the average user, who will go out and buy new software, upgrade a printer, buy a new sound card, buy a DVD drive, etc.
you almost never get the "Ohh shiny new software! Must have it!" Most users here are running whatever they got with the computer and the only software they buy is usually to fill the void that the computer had in it. and yes this is at home. Most linux distros now have no void for most users. it has an office suite, a cgheckbook application, email... everything that the regular user would want and use...
What a lie! People are always clamoring for new software, be it the latest antivirus, or maybe they saw someone running the new iTunes, or maybe someone wants to play the Sims, etc.
What happens when someone wants to upgrade their hardware under Linux? How do they get drivers for the new printer they got that comes with a Windows driver CD? Hell, what happens when a security advisory comes out for the kernel and they need to upgrade it? Do they run "apt-get"? What do they do? In Windows, update will automatically download it and give you an "Install" button and a reboot. I don't trust newbies with an RPM-like system and never will.
This is just the tip of the iceberg in the usability problems for the average user, but then I'd be going off-topic. Let's just say Linux desktops today are designed to provide pretty screenshots for the distro box art, but when you actually grab the mouse to use the thing for a day...
Should read:
2.) Grandmas don't typically install/uninstall things, buy new hardware or software, upgrade their drivers, etc. etc. This means that of course Linux will seem easy to use, because they're not really doing anything much more than using it as a glorified web kiosk. Average users will do much more and expect things to actually work the first time through, like they're used to on Windows (and yes, the majority of the time it is a one-time thing on Windows).
People love to chat up how their grandma "uses Linux." Barring extremely rare exceptions, this usually means some poor grandmother had her grandson go in, install Linux, set everything up in a particular way, then told her grandma to have at it.
The problem with this is that, at most, her grandma will send/receive e-mail and surf the web, maybe occasionally playing music. Or scanning something. The reason this is a problem is that many people try to use this as an example of the ease-of-use of Linux, but there are two issues:
1.) You had to set everything up for them in a particular way to hide the underlying system.
2.) Grandmas don't typically install/uninstall things, buy new hardware or software, upgrade their drivers, etc. etc.
Basically, when someone says Linux is easy enough that their grandma uses it, they mean that Linux desktops can send and receive e-mail and browse the web. Uh...congratulations? Grandmas are not a litmus test for usability. Average users are.
Slashdot:
"The MPAA is evil for sending pirates to jail! Their attempts to go after copyright infringement is 'abusive' and just like the 'War on Drugs.' The RIAA is 'greedy' for legally pursuing people who are violating their copyright."
Two articles later...
"Here's another article about evil companies violating the copyright of the GPL. We must enforce the GPL and punish those who infringe its copyright. GPL violaters are evil, and the copyright of the GPL must be respected."
Indeed. Breaking CSS encryption to make a legal backup of your DVD or watch movies under Linux is "civil disobedience" that I can accept and understand.
Some moron going into a theater with a camcorder in order to put a movie online for others to download is just breaking the law, and is not "civil disobedience." I still don't understand how anybody could think they magically own the copyright to distribute someone else's works however they want. Why don't you spend a year or two making a movie or writing a major commercial software project, only to fire up eMule and see "your.Project.Sharereactor.rar" pop up with 357 sources? Let me know how you'd feel, and if it is "free advertising" for other people to decide to abuse your works however they want without asking you first.
Meanwhile, we complain when companies don't follow the copyright of the GPL...does anyone else see the hypocrisy in that?
This is just Slashdot wanting people to get up in arms over the fact that some guy is going to jail for a year, the theater was using night-vision goggles (which someone will probably have the audacity to argue is a privacy invasion--yuk yuk), and that for some reason this is supposed to be like the "War on Drugs," which I guess is the submitter's way of saying piracy should be legal just because it happens a lot.
Sometimes I get afraid this place is turning into a leftist hellhole like Kuro5hin...the anti-RIAA, anti-"M$", anti-capitalism spiel we hear all the time really gets on my nerves. Cool tech news, please? No more self-righteous movements and agendas.
Oh, I forgot, OSDN owns Slashdot so it's in their best interests to own a site claiming to be news,that posts articles derogatory toward competitors and such...
He didn't just say that Microsoft provided a platform for Windows, he said that before Microsoft provided their platform, developers had to write directly to the graphics drivers.
No, he didn't. Read it and learn to comprehend. It says before DirectX, developers had to write directly to "individual hardware components."
This is 100% true. We're not talking about Direct3D here, we're talking about DirectX. I guess you didn't know, but DirectX is more than just a graphics library, it's a multimedia library that encompasses sound, networking, input, and more. People had to write to these themselves back in the day--particularly sound, which was always a hassle.
And despite OpenGL, people still used normal SVGA writes and not OpenGL, because back then most people didn't have 3D cards. Was WarCraft II using OpenGL? What about Descent? Or the first version of Quake? Next.
You don't need to link to some Byte article--I was around when DirectX 1.0 came out (which sucked until a few versions later...in the meantime, people just kept making DOS games).
It's amusing to me that you're uninformed post suddenly meant that people modded mine down as "Overrated"--so that they couldn't be meta-modded back. Yawn. It's just a result of people being so desperate to bash Microsoft in any way possible that they won't even admit that most Windows developers use DirectX, and few use OpenGL. Regardless of which is the better technology (even Carmack has changed his mind about Direct3D since his infamous criticisms), nothing about what was said is incorrect--you just want to score bonus points with the anti-"M$" mods.
What exactly is wrong with the MPAA not wanting people to film movies? That is, after all, a crime and is also immoral to a degree. Slashdotters have yet to legally or morally justify pirating movies.
Is it okay to pirate games and software? You know, stuff that programmers made? Can I pirate the fuck out of Doom 3 when it comes out? OH, THAT'S RIGHT--the subject of software piracy is never mentioned because Slashdot is made up of a lot of programmers and developers. Since software piracy would affect them, it's bad, right? They'll stick up for their hero John Carmack and tell you to buy the game when it comes out.
And why all the sudden is there an equation to the War on Drugs? It's completely irrelevant. Does that mean that Slashdot editors also believe drugs should be legalized?
This article fits all the attributes required for being propaganda. Even the juvenile "Ass. Head" remark, which does nothing to intellectualize your argument.
Try all you want, but making a desperate connection to the War on Drugs, calling him an Ass. Head, and pretending it's some sort of bad thing that they used night vision goggles to spot a camera (the pirates are using high-tech gadgets, so what is wrong with the theater doing the same damn thing? I don't expect any answer to this...) in order to arrest him for doing something illegal, is not going to change the fact that you're wrong if you think movie piracy is okay and that everyone should just "accept" it. I'm sure people will bring out the tired old "the MPAA needs to find a 'new business model'", which is something Slashdotters love to say. Except that these business majors never mention what the new model is supposed to be other than giving away shit for free. Yeah--that'll work.