Triggerlocks: I'm not sure exactly what the NRA position on this is. I'm not opposed to triggerlocks being included with new guns. I am generally opposed to any requirement that they be on the gun at all times when it's not in use. This would be dangerous to people who depend on guns for defense against home invasion.
SmartGuns: Smartguns are currently not ready for primetime. The technology is just not reliable enough at this point. And if there's one thing that is absolutely necessary about a gun, it needs to be reliable. Right now, it's not ready. And the idea of requiring that all guns sold be smartguns is, right now, equivalent to a ban on the sale of guns. Nobody makes smartguns because the tech isn't good enough yet. Beretta USA has a statement about smart guns on their web site (http://www.berettausa.com). Also, if it takes time to deactivate the lock (of find a ring, fumble with it, get it on), this is an actual danger to anybody trying to defend themselves against a crime in progress.
I don't have any problem with gun registration. As for background checks, they should be instant computer checks.
Gun Shows: Not so sure about these because I don't know what kind of exemptions they have now, but the impression I get is that they will pretty much cease to exist if the proposed laws are applied to them. I think this would constitute undue burden on quite a few businesses.
One thing that NRA certainly does object to is the passage of new gun laws when we aren't enforcing the ones we have. This seems like a fairly reasonable objection to me.
Basically, I don't mind documenting the hell out of gun purchases. I don't mind background checks as long as they're instant. What I do mind is somebody telling me which guns I can buy (okay, I can deal with a ban on fully automatic weapons), or when I can have my gun (and I could even deal with the waiting period to prevent crimes of passion if it was sensible and only counted for the first handgun purchase...why would I go out and buy a new gun for a crime of passion if I already own one???).
You clearly don't live in a big city if you believe that people don't need guns to protect themselves any more.
As for gun bans, they seem pretty attractive to the ignorant or the naive. Problem is that all they do is prevent the law abiding citizens from owning guns. Do you really think that the drug dealer on the street went into a gun store and picked out a gun, filled out the paperwork for the background check, and waited his Brady period before getting a handgun? Wake up!!! Banning the transfer of guns in the United States will hurt those of us who follow the law and want to own guns for protection or sport (including hunting and simple target shooting). If you take my gun away, you don't prevent any crime. You just increase my vulnerability to crimes being comitted against me.
"In America's recent history, how many times have people used guns to defend their "freedom". None, that's how many."
Incorrect. The American Revolution. The Civil War (most Confederate troops were non-slave-owners who were fighting against what they perceived as a tyranical central government). And what about the many documented cases every year when somebody uses a gun (whether through simple display or actual fire) to protect themselves against crime? I would call that defending their freedom too.
In an ideal world, maybe banning guns would be okay. But then, in an ideal world, we wouldn't need to. No government that cannot completely eliminate street crime and home invasion has a right to take away peoples ability to defend themselves against these crimes with guns.
Yes she did. And Churchill was an active part of an establishment that raped the Irish nation in ways that would do Hitler proud. We just don't hear much about it because Britain is "one of the good guys". The poster had a good point, he just chose some unfortunate examples. Cheers, Perrin.
I think it's a question of the lesser of evils. Most of the censorware software was created by companies that would probably make Ralph Reid (former head of the Christian Cohilition) drool. So that software is EXTREMELY biased toward the radical fundamentalist Christian viewpoint. Now, if you wanted to install such software on a computer in your home, while I think you are wrong to do so, it is your decision. On public machines it's a different issue. Sure, some libraries' childrens selections may be similarly biased, but I don't think it is quite so blatant or so wide spread.
But when it comes down to it, I personally don't think the selection of what sites should be blocked should be the issue. The issue should be honesty and openness. My parents were always very open about discussing sex with my brother and me (even when we were very young), and I think we're both much better people for it. I think that every parent has a responsibility to be as open as possible with their children about sex. That way perhaps their children will not have so many of the unfortunate hangups and fixations with sex that most Americans seem to have. I believe that a part of that openness is a discussion of pornography. Don't forbid your child to view pornography. That will just encourage him or her. Instead, explain it to them and explain why it is wrong and unhealthy. Then hopefully they will not really have much desire to see it. And if they do, so what? If you have a healthy relationship with your children and you have spoken openly with them about love and sex, then they will not likely be harmed by it.
Trust, honesty, and openness are always better than additional rules that just encourage infraction.
I can think of a number of good reasons to put your name on your code. First of all it gives it credibility. If I take responsibility for a program that I have written by putting my name on it, that indicates that I feel that the program is legitimate and has a fair and LEGAL reason for existance. If I chose not to put my name on it, that indicates that I do, in fact, have something to hide.
Another reason to take responsibility for your code (besides the obvious ethics of taking responsibility for your actions) has to do with the way the US legal system works. Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong about part of this. By putting their names on DeCSS people allow themselves to be named as defendants in the suit. Many of us feel that the actions of the MPAA are unethical, and not entirely legal. This gives those named a chance to challenge the MPAA on legal grounds.
I think this is a clear case of large companies exerting FAR too much influence on government at the expense of private citizens. It is also evidence of the inadequacy of current courts to deal with technological issues. Reading the opinion, it was blatantly obvious that the Judge knew almost nothing about what he was talking about.
Unfortunately, from the opinion, it also sounded to me like the defense attourneys were not overly competent either. I find the whole situation to be incredibly frustrating.
Maybe, but they're much more likely to get past DOS fdisk than they are to get past Linux fdisk. Now don't get me wrong, I'd take the linux version any day of the week and twice on Sundays, but unless you have some experience with it, it's pretty scary. And once they do get past the formatting of the drive, it's very easy to install windows. Between hardcopy docs and onscreen instructions, I suspect that most people could handle it. They finish and they're set with a decent GUI (I actually think it's pretty good). Not so for linux. Now again, don't get me wrong; I love linux, but it's anything but userfriendly for the non-technically inclined. People CAN learn (they learned dos too), but it's not particularly intuitive. Sure, once you set up X, you've got a GUI which is at least better than CLI for the uninitiated, but it's still not much until they've configured a decent window manager (the only one that I've used that I think the average person could really handle is Enlightenment with Gnome or kwm(?) with KDE). So once they've set up their window manager (and maybe gnome or kde), they're pretty much at the same place we left off after the windows install. Except that if they have actually made it this far (I highly doubt it), then they've had to learn enough that they aren't really average users anymore.
Ease of use (for average computer users) is still an area in which linux has a LONG way to go. It is getting better, though. After partitioning, Mandrake 7.0 begins to approach the ease of installing of Windows. Er...well...it will when they fix the show-stopping bugs. Still, we've got quite a ways to go.
I wouldn't count on that. Amid the ignorance, there were actually some insightful comments. I still haven't decided for sure whether or not I think it's a troll. In general I'm treating it like it's not.
True about the abstraction layer. As for the abysmall bit, I was referring to the current state of linux 3D support which IS abysmall. As for XiG, Daryll, and Carmack, I have high hopes. I don't really expect the 3D support to remain abysmall for much longer. I was simply referring to how it is at this moment. Believe me, I have high hopes for the near future. =)
Hmmm...I'm not really sure whether this was intended as a troll or not, but I'm going to pretend that it's not because it actually has some really insightful stuff to say.
I'll start by responding to the errors that make me wonder whether it's a troll. First of all the reference to OpenGL as proprietary while suggesting a Direct X port. OpenGL is not particularly proprietary any more (hence the "Open" part), and it available for most platforms currently in use. Furthermore, Direct X is absolutely proprietary. Second Correction: Linux is way more stable than MS OS's and much harder to use. It definately has the potential to be as easy to use as MS OS's.
Okay, now to respond to the stuff I liked: You are absolutely right about Linux being next to impossible for the common user. It has improved greatly in the last year or so, but we still have a VERY long way to go. I'm a senior Computer Science major at a well known university (which probably means aproximately dick), so I'm pretty technically inclined. I've been using Linux since my freshman year. Usually when I want to learn something new about Linux I go to the man page or the HOWTO. Sometimes this helps me. Sometimes it's like another language. When somebody as technically inclined as I am can't even understand the documentation, we definately have a problem.
OTOH, I'm pretty happy with the fact that linux documentation even exists. I love the man system. It's just that we still have quite a ways to go before Linux is ready for the common user's desktop.
As for a port of Direct X, I think that would be pretty cool. I also think that it's extremely unlikely (if it's even possible). I have a feeling that anybody who even tried would get their asses handed to them by MS's legal department. Too bad, though. I suspect that'd result in a huge number of linux game ports.
I suspect that a lot will depend on how well the original code is written. If it was written well in an object-oriented manner, then it'll be MUCH easier to port than it would be if it's written sloppily. But regardless, if it's 100% Direct X then it will probably be a fairly major undertaking to port it to any other OS. As a further complication, the state of 3D graphics in Linux, while it has improved drastically recently, is still pretty abyssmal. I suspect XFree86 4.0 will help out quite a bit with this, though.
Okay, I just went back ane read the article. They've already at least started (if not finished) an OpenGL renderer for the Mac version. That means that most of the work needed for the linux port is already done. Also, based on the comments in the article about renderers, it sounds like the game is VERY modularly written which means that ports should be relatively easy.
Good job, Monolith! It's good to hear that at least some companies are still writing good, clean code.
"I hereby state, under penalty of perjury under the laws of New York and under the laws of the United States, that the information in this notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that this law firm is authorized to act on behalf of the owners of an exclusive rights which are being infringed as set out in this notification."
This is a quote from the actual letter sent by the MPAA's lawyers. I'm not sure how legit this is, but it sounds pretty clear. So, it sounds like he is guilty of perjury. I think we should set the bastard up to fry. It'd make a damned fine example!
I thought about getting one of these things for my Athlon 700, but the idea of taking the plastic casing off the cartridge always scared me off. I'm not generally all that squeamish, but we're talking about a pretty expensive CPU here. It'd really suck to screw it up. I wish AMD would provide some sort of safe access to the pins for overclocking.
Mmmm...ignorance at its best. I'm very conservative in some ways and very liberal in others. I could meet somebody who was exactly my opposite, and I certainly wouldn't say I hated them. I would have to base that on their personality and the way they treated other people.
"Any man who judges by the group is a peawit. You take men one at a time." -Michael Shaara
You can call me naive if you want, but the US does not currently, and most likely never will, develop biological (or bio-genetic) weapons. We signed a treaty with the Soviets to that effect, and unilke them, we signed it in good faith. Biological weapons are too dangerous to everyone involved (including the side using them).
"3) They could invade Alaska, if they got the Russians to go along with it, by crossing the Bering Straight. Personally, I wouldn't want to travel over a thousand miles of tundra and mountains with no roads. I doubt the Chinese army would either. HUGE logistical problems."
Not a chance in Hell. The Russians and the Chinese don't like eachother very much. (See my post earlier in this thread.)
Wow, that is a really well thought out strategy. I hope you never fall into Chinese hands. One problem. You'd want to avoid nukes, chem, and biological weapons at all cost. Use of any one of these on the US WOULD result in nuclear retaliation. And the fact is that you CANNOT completely disable US nuclear forces. Even if you could stop all the ICBM's, B-52's, B-1's, and B-2's, you wouldn't have a prayer of disabling our Trident submarines. And those are the most useful part of our nuclear arsenal anyway. If China tried to nuke (or chem or bio) us there's a pretty good chance that the country would be paved and the nukes would come from a few miles off their coast.
"Assuming China still has good relations with Russia..."
Ahhhahahahahahahaha!!! ROFL. Those people hate each other. Durring the cold war the US had nukes targeted on the Soviet forces on the Chinese border because we knew that having those troops destroyed would scare the piss out of the Soviets. They thought that if their troops were no longer guarding that border then the Chinese would come swarming across and take their whold country.
I apologize if I sound mocking, but this really did give me a good laugh. Just the idea of the Chinese and the Russians working together really is pretty funny.
Just in response to the bit about making them waste SAM's on drones:
It is a really cool idea, and it made me laugh out loud, but I think there's a fairly significant problem. They'll presumably be using radar too. Now radar will be able to identify the thing in the same ways that it can with current tech and tactics. It won't really look like a real plane on radar. Of course, you could use stealth technology to make your drones, but something tells me that would end up being a good bit more expensive than a SAM.
I don't know all the technical details, so this is mostly speculation, but it does seem to make sense.
This was a perfectly reasonable post. Why did it get moderated down? It is NOT flamebait.
Moderator: If you don't like Microsoft, than reply to Fuhrer's post in a reasonable manner. He did not post flamebait, he posted a message saying that Microsoft occasionally does good things. Would you moderate me down for posting flamebait if I said that I think Redhat does good things sometimes? I seriously doubt it.
I sincerely hope that somebody comes along and moderates that post back up at least to 1 where it started.
Because this is still a good thing. Not everything that Microsoft does is bad. Their OS monopoly sucks, but all prejudice aside, they have some really nice products. I have quite a few pieces of Microsoft hardware, and they are all excelent. Powerpoint is a fairly good product. Though I'm somewhat afraid of the flames I'll get for saying it, Internet Explorer (4 or later) is pretty good. Running in windows, it's fast and way more stable than Netscape.
I think it's unfortunate that many people seem to lose sight of many of the main objections to Microsoft and just slam the company as a whole. I think Windows leaves lots of room for improvement. However, that doesn't bar them from releasing other quality products. We don't like Microsoft because of some of their business practices, but how much better are we if we just automatically say "It sucks because it's from Microsoft," without even investigating what "it" is.
A spam filter on hotmail is a good thing. I'm not above saying, "Way to go, Microsoft!" when they do something good.
I'm starting to get really tired of the press paying the most attention to the hotheads and ignoring reasonable voices. I'm also getting fairly tired of hotheads on/. shooting themselves (and all of us) in the foot. The fact is that the judge did know what he was talking about. At THIS TIME and from the normal user's perspective linux and BeOS and *BSD and the others are, in fact, fringe OS's. I love my linux server, but even I still use Windoze for most of my day-to-day computer use. The OS may be more prone to crashing, but it is much more stream-lined from a user perspective. As far as user-interface is concerned unix just can't compete with Windoze. The apps I use are faster and, by and large, more stable in Windoze. IE5 almost never crashes, and usually appears pretty much instantly when I launch it. I can't even come close to saying either of these things for Netscape in Linux. At this point, the software available makes Win by far the best choice for normal computer users. This is the case because Microsoft DOES have a monopoly on the consumer operating system market. That has made it impractical for most software developers to release unix versions of their software. This is slowly changing, but in the context of this day and age, the finding of facts is absolutely accurate. (Note: the fof (at least the parts I've read quoted) does not really say anything about the comparative quality of the OS's.)
Anybody ever wonder why Jean-Louis Gasse of Be, Inc. made a conscious and public decision NOT to try to compete with Microsoft? Why would somebody choose to accept a niche market with a versatile product?
Current treaties prohibit the US from deploying any Anti-Ballistic Missile technology because ABM's are considered a destabilising weapon. If we can shoot down incoming nukes then that seriously undermines the deterence that (we hope) would prevent us from launching a first strike. Current treaties DO allow Russia to deploy ABM's, but only around Moscow. I'm not sure why the lack of parity, but it doesn't matter all that much. Durring the cold war we had enough warheads targeted on Moscow (really on soviet Command, Control, Communication targets in moscow) that it didn't really matter how many ABM's they had there.
Now the US is trying to convince Russia to agree to nullify the ABM treaty. At the same time we are trying to convince them to accept drastic reductions in their strategic nuclear force (Start treaties). Obviously Russia is none too eager to comply. It will be very interesting to see how this issue pans out.
Okay, I had this done so here's the deal with LASIK. The way it works is that the doctor treats your eyes with numbing drops and then uses a small device to slice a flap in your cornea (the outer layer of your eye). They peel back the slice and hit the under-layers of the cornea with an excimer (sp?) laser. The laser removes some of the tissue to reshape your cornea. The ammount of time they use the laser depends on your perscription before the procedure. They then replace the cornea flap and you're done. The entire procedure takes about 15 minutes for both eyes. It is somewhat uncomfortable while they are creating the flap, but it isn't too bad. You won't be able to see very well right after the procedure, and the worst part of the whole thing is that your eyes burn quite a bit starting about an hour after the procedure. They give you drops that help with that. When I woke up the next morning, I could see quite well. I believe that the flap in the cornea actually heals almost completely withing about the first 48 hours after the procedure. At my followup appointment the day after I had at least 20/20 in one eye and about 20/25 in the other. I'm now at least 20/20 in both eyes.
If you use a good doctor, he should offer a life-tine guarantee so that if your perscription changes later you can have it done again at no charge. I had it done at the Laser Center in Baltimore, MD. I know that one is a nationwide chain. They also do PRK (directly hit the outer layer of the cornea with the laser; I think it takes longer to heal and has a higher risk). I know that LASIK can cure myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism. The chance of success (reaching 20/40 or better) varries from person to person.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, I'll attempt to respond to this.
Triggerlocks: I'm not sure exactly what the NRA position on this is. I'm not opposed to triggerlocks being included with new guns. I am generally opposed to any requirement that they be on the gun at all times when it's not in use. This would be dangerous to people who depend on guns for defense against home invasion.
SmartGuns: Smartguns are currently not ready for primetime. The technology is just not reliable enough at this point. And if there's one thing that is absolutely necessary about a gun, it needs to be reliable. Right now, it's not ready. And the idea of requiring that all guns sold be smartguns is, right now, equivalent to a ban on the sale of guns. Nobody makes smartguns because the tech isn't good enough yet. Beretta USA has a statement about smart guns on their web site (http://www.berettausa.com). Also, if it takes time to deactivate the lock (of find a ring, fumble with it, get it on), this is an actual danger to anybody trying to defend themselves against a crime in progress.
I don't have any problem with gun registration. As for background checks, they should be instant computer checks.
Gun Shows: Not so sure about these because I don't know what kind of exemptions they have now, but the impression I get is that they will pretty much cease to exist if the proposed laws are applied to them. I think this would constitute undue burden on quite a few businesses.
One thing that NRA certainly does object to is the passage of new gun laws when we aren't enforcing the ones we have. This seems like a fairly reasonable objection to me.
Basically, I don't mind documenting the hell out of gun purchases. I don't mind background checks as long as they're instant. What I do mind is somebody telling me which guns I can buy (okay, I can deal with a ban on fully automatic weapons), or when I can have my gun (and I could even deal with the waiting period to prevent crimes of passion if it was sensible and only counted for the first handgun purchase...why would I go out and buy a new gun for a crime of passion if I already own one???).
Cheers,
Perrin.
You clearly don't live in a big city if you believe that people don't need guns to protect themselves any more.
As for gun bans, they seem pretty attractive to the ignorant or the naive. Problem is that all they do is prevent the law abiding citizens from owning guns. Do you really think that the drug dealer on the street went into a gun store and picked out a gun, filled out the paperwork for the background check, and waited his Brady period before getting a handgun? Wake up!!! Banning the transfer of guns in the United States will hurt those of us who follow the law and want to own guns for protection or sport (including hunting and simple target shooting). If you take my gun away, you don't prevent any crime. You just increase my vulnerability to crimes being comitted against me.
"In America's recent history, how many times have people used guns to defend their "freedom". None, that's how many."
Incorrect. The American Revolution. The Civil War (most Confederate troops were non-slave-owners who were fighting against what they perceived as a tyranical central government). And what about the many documented cases every year when somebody uses a gun (whether through simple display or actual fire) to protect themselves against crime? I would call that defending their freedom too.
In an ideal world, maybe banning guns would be okay. But then, in an ideal world, we wouldn't need to. No government that cannot completely eliminate street crime and home invasion has a right to take away peoples ability to defend themselves against these crimes with guns.
Cheers,
Perrin.
Yes she did. And Churchill was an active part of an establishment that raped the Irish nation in ways that would do Hitler proud. We just don't hear much about it because Britain is "one of the good guys". The poster had a good point, he just chose some unfortunate examples.
Cheers,
Perrin.
You REALLY don't want to see that!!!
Cheers,
Perrin.
Esprit de Corps in UT would be good. 2 Cathedrals.
Cheers,
Perrin.
I think it's a question of the lesser of evils. Most of the censorware software was created by companies that would probably make Ralph Reid (former head of the Christian Cohilition) drool. So that software is EXTREMELY biased toward the radical fundamentalist Christian viewpoint. Now, if you wanted to install such software on a computer in your home, while I think you are wrong to do so, it is your decision. On public machines it's a different issue. Sure, some libraries' childrens selections may be similarly biased, but I don't think it is quite so blatant or so wide spread.
But when it comes down to it, I personally don't think the selection of what sites should be blocked should be the issue. The issue should be honesty and openness. My parents were always very open about discussing sex with my brother and me (even when we were very young), and I think we're both much better people for it. I think that every parent has a responsibility to be as open as possible with their children about sex. That way perhaps their children will not have so many of the unfortunate hangups and fixations with sex that most Americans seem to have. I believe that a part of that openness is a discussion of pornography. Don't forbid your child to view pornography. That will just encourage him or her. Instead, explain it to them and explain why it is wrong and unhealthy. Then hopefully they will not really have much desire to see it. And if they do, so what? If you have a healthy relationship with your children and you have spoken openly with them about love and sex, then they will not likely be harmed by it.
Trust, honesty, and openness are always better than additional rules that just encourage infraction.
Cheers,
Perrin.
I can think of a number of good reasons to put your name on your code. First of all it gives it credibility. If I take responsibility for a program that I have written by putting my name on it, that indicates that I feel that the program is legitimate and has a fair and LEGAL reason for existance. If I chose not to put my name on it, that indicates that I do, in fact, have something to hide.
Another reason to take responsibility for your code (besides the obvious ethics of taking responsibility for your actions) has to do with the way the US legal system works. Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong about part of this. By putting their names on DeCSS people allow themselves to be named as defendants in the suit. Many of us feel that the actions of the MPAA are unethical, and not entirely legal. This gives those named a chance to challenge the MPAA on legal grounds.
I think this is a clear case of large companies exerting FAR too much influence on government at the expense of private citizens. It is also evidence of the inadequacy of current courts to deal with technological issues. Reading the opinion, it was blatantly obvious that the Judge knew almost nothing about what he was talking about.
Unfortunately, from the opinion, it also sounded to me like the defense attourneys were not overly competent either. I find the whole situation to be incredibly frustrating.
Cheers,
Perrin.
Maybe, but they're much more likely to get past DOS fdisk than they are to get past Linux fdisk. Now don't get me wrong, I'd take the linux version any day of the week and twice on Sundays, but unless you have some experience with it, it's pretty scary. And once they do get past the formatting of the drive, it's very easy to install windows. Between hardcopy docs and onscreen instructions, I suspect that most people could handle it. They finish and they're set with a decent GUI (I actually think it's pretty good). Not so for linux. Now again, don't get me wrong; I love linux, but it's anything but userfriendly for the non-technically inclined. People CAN learn (they learned dos too), but it's not particularly intuitive. Sure, once you set up X, you've got a GUI which is at least better than CLI for the uninitiated, but it's still not much until they've configured a decent window manager (the only one that I've used that I think the average person could really handle is Enlightenment with Gnome or kwm(?) with KDE). So once they've set up their window manager (and maybe gnome or kde), they're pretty much at the same place we left off after the windows install. Except that if they have actually made it this far (I highly doubt it), then they've had to learn enough that they aren't really average users anymore.
Ease of use (for average computer users) is still an area in which linux has a LONG way to go. It is getting better, though. After partitioning, Mandrake 7.0 begins to approach the ease of installing of Windows. Er...well...it will when they fix the show-stopping bugs. Still, we've got quite a ways to go.
Cheers,
Perrin.
I wouldn't count on that. Amid the ignorance, there were actually some insightful comments. I still haven't decided for sure whether or not I think it's a troll. In general I'm treating it like it's not.
Cheers,
Perrin.
True about the abstraction layer. As for the abysmall bit, I was referring to the current state of linux 3D support which IS abysmall. As for XiG, Daryll, and Carmack, I have high hopes. I don't really expect the 3D support to remain abysmall for much longer. I was simply referring to how it is at this moment. Believe me, I have high hopes for the near future. =)
Cheers,
Perrin.
Hmmm...I'm not really sure whether this was intended as a troll or not, but I'm going to pretend that it's not because it actually has some really insightful stuff to say.
I'll start by responding to the errors that make me wonder whether it's a troll. First of all the reference to OpenGL as proprietary while suggesting a Direct X port. OpenGL is not particularly proprietary any more (hence the "Open" part), and it available for most platforms currently in use. Furthermore, Direct X is absolutely proprietary. Second Correction: Linux is way more stable than MS OS's and much harder to use. It definately has the potential to be as easy to use as MS OS's.
Okay, now to respond to the stuff I liked: You are absolutely right about Linux being next to impossible for the common user. It has improved greatly in the last year or so, but we still have a VERY long way to go. I'm a senior Computer Science major at a well known university (which probably means aproximately dick), so I'm pretty technically inclined. I've been using Linux since my freshman year. Usually when I want to learn something new about Linux I go to the man page or the HOWTO. Sometimes this helps me. Sometimes it's like another language. When somebody as technically inclined as I am can't even understand the documentation, we definately have a problem.
OTOH, I'm pretty happy with the fact that linux documentation even exists. I love the man system. It's just that we still have quite a ways to go before Linux is ready for the common user's desktop.
As for a port of Direct X, I think that would be pretty cool. I also think that it's extremely unlikely (if it's even possible). I have a feeling that anybody who even tried would get their asses handed to them by MS's legal department. Too bad, though. I suspect that'd result in a huge number of linux game ports.
Cheers,
Perrin.
I suspect that a lot will depend on how well the original code is written. If it was written well in an object-oriented manner, then it'll be MUCH easier to port than it would be if it's written sloppily. But regardless, if it's 100% Direct X then it will probably be a fairly major undertaking to port it to any other OS. As a further complication, the state of 3D graphics in Linux, while it has improved drastically recently, is still pretty abyssmal. I suspect XFree86 4.0 will help out quite a bit with this, though.
Okay, I just went back ane read the article. They've already at least started (if not finished) an OpenGL renderer for the Mac version. That means that most of the work needed for the linux port is already done. Also, based on the comments in the article about renderers, it sounds like the game is VERY modularly written which means that ports should be relatively easy.
Good job, Monolith! It's good to hear that at least some companies are still writing good, clean code.
Cheers,
Perrin.
"I hereby state, under penalty of perjury under the laws of New York and under the laws of the United States, that the information in this notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that this law firm is authorized to act on behalf of the owners of an exclusive rights which are being infringed as set out in this notification."
This is a quote from the actual letter sent by the MPAA's lawyers. I'm not sure how legit this is, but it sounds pretty clear. So, it sounds like he is guilty of perjury. I think we should set the bastard up to fry. It'd make a damned fine example!
Cheers,
Perrin.
I thought about getting one of these things for my Athlon 700, but the idea of taking the plastic casing off the cartridge always scared me off. I'm not generally all that squeamish, but we're talking about a pretty expensive CPU here. It'd really suck to screw it up. I wish AMD would provide some sort of safe access to the pins for overclocking.
Cheers,
Perrin.
Mmmm...ignorance at its best. I'm very conservative in some ways and very liberal in others. I could meet somebody who was exactly my opposite, and I certainly wouldn't say I hated them. I would have to base that on their personality and the way they treated other people.
"Any man who judges by the group is a peawit. You take men one at a time." -Michael Shaara
Cheers,
Perrin.
You can call me naive if you want, but the US does not currently, and most likely never will, develop biological (or bio-genetic) weapons. We signed a treaty with the Soviets to that effect, and unilke them, we signed it in good faith. Biological weapons are too dangerous to everyone involved (including the side using them).
Cheers,
Perrin.
"3) They could invade Alaska, if they got the Russians to go along with it, by crossing the Bering Straight. Personally, I wouldn't want to travel over a thousand miles of tundra and mountains with no roads. I doubt the Chinese army would either. HUGE logistical problems."
Not a chance in Hell. The Russians and the Chinese don't like eachother very much. (See my post earlier in this thread.)
Cheers,
Perrin.
Wow, that is a really well thought out strategy. I hope you never fall into Chinese hands. One problem. You'd want to avoid nukes, chem, and biological weapons at all cost. Use of any one of these on the US WOULD result in nuclear retaliation. And the fact is that you CANNOT completely disable US nuclear forces. Even if you could stop all the ICBM's, B-52's, B-1's, and B-2's, you wouldn't have a prayer of disabling our Trident submarines. And those are the most useful part of our nuclear arsenal anyway. If China tried to nuke (or chem or bio) us there's a pretty good chance that the country would be paved and the nukes would come from a few miles off their coast.
Cheers,
Perrin.
"Assuming China still has good relations with Russia..."
Ahhhahahahahahahaha!!! ROFL. Those people hate each other. Durring the cold war the US had nukes targeted on the Soviet forces on the Chinese border because we knew that having those troops destroyed would scare the piss out of the Soviets. They thought that if their troops were no longer guarding that border then the Chinese would come swarming across and take their whold country.
I apologize if I sound mocking, but this really did give me a good laugh. Just the idea of the Chinese and the Russians working together really is pretty funny.
Cheers,
Perrin.
Just in response to the bit about making them waste SAM's on drones:
It is a really cool idea, and it made me laugh out loud, but I think there's a fairly significant problem. They'll presumably be using radar too. Now radar will be able to identify the thing in the same ways that it can with current tech and tactics. It won't really look like a real plane on radar. Of course, you could use stealth technology to make your drones, but something tells me that would end up being a good bit more expensive than a SAM.
I don't know all the technical details, so this is mostly speculation, but it does seem to make sense.
Cheers,
Perrin.
This was a perfectly reasonable post. Why did it get moderated down? It is NOT flamebait.
Moderator: If you don't like Microsoft, than reply to Fuhrer's post in a reasonable manner. He did not post flamebait, he posted a message saying that Microsoft occasionally does good things. Would you moderate me down for posting flamebait if I said that I think Redhat does good things sometimes? I seriously doubt it.
I sincerely hope that somebody comes along and moderates that post back up at least to 1 where it started.
Cheers,
Perrin.
Because this is still a good thing. Not everything that Microsoft does is bad. Their OS monopoly sucks, but all prejudice aside, they have some really nice products. I have quite a few pieces of Microsoft hardware, and they are all excelent. Powerpoint is a fairly good product. Though I'm somewhat afraid of the flames I'll get for saying it, Internet Explorer (4 or later) is pretty good. Running in windows, it's fast and way more stable than Netscape.
I think it's unfortunate that many people seem to lose sight of many of the main objections to Microsoft and just slam the company as a whole. I think Windows leaves lots of room for improvement. However, that doesn't bar them from releasing other quality products. We don't like Microsoft because of some of their business practices, but how much better are we if we just automatically say "It sucks because it's from Microsoft," without even investigating what "it" is.
A spam filter on hotmail is a good thing. I'm not above saying, "Way to go, Microsoft!" when they do something good.
Way to go, Microsoft!
Cheers,
Perrin.
I'm starting to get really tired of the press paying the most attention to the hotheads and ignoring reasonable voices. I'm also getting fairly tired of hotheads on /. shooting themselves (and all of us) in the foot. The fact is that the judge did know what he was talking about. At THIS TIME and from the normal user's perspective linux and BeOS and *BSD and the others are, in fact, fringe OS's. I love my linux server, but even I still use Windoze for most of my day-to-day computer use. The OS may be more prone to crashing, but it is much more stream-lined from a user perspective. As far as user-interface is concerned unix just can't compete with Windoze. The apps I use are faster and, by and large, more stable in Windoze. IE5 almost never crashes, and usually appears pretty much instantly when I launch it. I can't even come close to saying either of these things for Netscape in Linux. At this point, the software available makes Win by far the best choice for normal computer users. This is the case because Microsoft DOES have a monopoly on the consumer operating system market. That has made it impractical for most software developers to release unix versions of their software. This is slowly changing, but in the context of this day and age, the finding of facts is absolutely accurate. (Note: the fof (at least the parts I've read quoted) does not really say anything about the comparative quality of the OS's.)
Anybody ever wonder why Jean-Louis Gasse of Be, Inc. made a conscious and public decision NOT to try to compete with Microsoft? Why would somebody choose to accept a niche market with a versatile product?
Cheers,
Perrin.
Current treaties prohibit the US from deploying any Anti-Ballistic Missile technology because ABM's are considered a destabilising weapon. If we can shoot down incoming nukes then that seriously undermines the deterence that (we hope) would prevent us from launching a first strike. Current treaties DO allow Russia to deploy ABM's, but only around Moscow. I'm not sure why the lack of parity, but it doesn't matter all that much. Durring the cold war we had enough warheads targeted on Moscow (really on soviet Command, Control, Communication targets in moscow) that it didn't really matter how many ABM's they had there.
Now the US is trying to convince Russia to agree to nullify the ABM treaty. At the same time we are trying to convince them to accept drastic reductions in their strategic nuclear force (Start treaties). Obviously Russia is none too eager to comply. It will be very interesting to see how this issue pans out.
Cheers,
Perrin.
Okay, I had this done so here's the deal with LASIK. The way it works is that the doctor treats your eyes with numbing drops and then uses a small device to slice a flap in your cornea (the outer layer of your eye). They peel back the slice and hit the under-layers of the cornea with an excimer (sp?) laser. The laser removes some of the tissue to reshape your cornea. The ammount of time they use the laser depends on your perscription before the procedure. They then replace the cornea flap and you're done. The entire procedure takes about 15 minutes for both eyes. It is somewhat uncomfortable while they are creating the flap, but it isn't too bad. You won't be able to see very well right after the procedure, and the worst part of the whole thing is that your eyes burn quite a bit starting about an hour after the procedure. They give you drops that help with that. When I woke up the next morning, I could see quite well. I believe that the flap in the cornea actually heals almost completely withing about the first 48 hours after the procedure. At my followup appointment the day after I had at least 20/20 in one eye and about 20/25 in the other. I'm now at least 20/20 in both eyes.
If you use a good doctor, he should offer a life-tine guarantee so that if your perscription changes later you can have it done again at no charge. I had it done at the Laser Center in Baltimore, MD. I know that one is a nationwide chain. They also do PRK (directly hit the outer layer of the cornea with the laser; I think it takes longer to heal and has a higher risk). I know that LASIK can cure myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism. The chance of success (reaching 20/40 or better) varries from person to person.
I hope this helps.
Cheers,
Perrin.