I tried Google Desktop Search. I got rid of it because it didn't do a good job finding stuff in my code (even with proper plugins installed) - in general it was very hit or miss in returning stuff my gobs of plain text (yet worked great for e-mails for some reason), and had almost no user interface or obvious means of controlling the thing. But I tried it first, because I kind of assume they'd produce a great product.
The MS Desktop Search (which I tried on a whim) finished indexing faster, gives me slightly better control (but still hardly any) over what gets indexed, presents the results in a more usable fashion, and actually finds the things I search for in code - consistently.
So I'm just wondering: when you say MS has failed to deliver "Good Desktop Search", would you say the same about Google's product? Have you tried MS's search?
I'm not saying MS desktop search is great - why there are no "advanced search" options is a mystery - but it's not bad and it's quickly becoming a tool I use fairly often.
If anyone is smug, and may possibly start to rest on laurels - I'm worried it's "everyone else". MS has fought off a lot of competition in its history. It hasn't always played fair - but so far it's done a lot of winning. For the foreseeable future at least, the "non-MS" companies of the IT world are going to have to keep fighting tooth and nail to stay afloat. If they let things slack, no amount of geek goodwill will keep them going.
The last season of Enterprise has been fairly strong. I think a lot of people built up some irrational hatred over the first couple seasons.
I also think people have clouded memories of the quality of past shows. TNG was horrible for most of its run - just horrible. It redeemed itself now and again, but mostly it sucked (especially early seasons). Voyager was poor. DS9 was ridiculously bad. Remember the final episode? One of the worst things I've ever watched.
Are some themes played out? Of course, but so what? Sure the "let's clone Tucker" Enterprise episode was a rehash - but they did as good a job at it as Star Trek ever did.
As to "not addressing social themes" - I'd say they've tried. What do you think the "mind meld disease" was? Who do you think the Xindi represent? What is implied by the Tellarite/Andorion feud?
Is the social stuff ham-handed? Yes, of course. And it always was, from the original series on - it's just you were younger then.
Enterprise has all the stuff you once liked about Star Trek. Maybe you don't like that stuff anymore - but it's still a good show.
The fact that it does crash some browsers indicates that they probably are trying to run part of it as code
No, it doesn't. Not at all. For example, if I feed the program "i=i/x" the number "0" for x that program may crash. But that doesn't mean the 0 was executed as code or something.
There are many ways of crashing on bad data that don't point to this kind of security problem. In order for a malicious exploit, you need to get bad data in just the right place - in a place where the address of some legitimate code is stored, and where that address is going to be used. You then need another fairly certain location for the exploit code you can point to.
Sometimes a crash does point to a vulnerability like the above (usually do to stack return addresses). But often not. And suggesting that all crashes point to some execution of data is just wrong.
I used the clutch and brake to manage my speed while I fiddled with the cruise control (which was my first suspect). When I couldn't figure anything out, I pulled off the road and turned the key.
At worst, I could have just put it in neutral and let the engine spin out of control. A burnt car is better than a dead me.
In my case, it turned out the accelerator pedal was stuck under the lip of the floor mat (the little catch that holds the floor mat in place had popped out). I felt more than a little dumb.
MSFT has assets beyond cash. If they had a fire sale tomorrow, there would be buildings and pencils and all that that could be converted into money. They also have a tremendous amount of IP - software, patents, trademarks - all of it worth a substantial amount.
While your approach to valuating stock is refreshingly tied to reality, you're not really being fair by evaluating only cash assets. MSFT is worth much more than $60 billion.
It doesn't matter if you use the thing as a skateboard ramp, the fact is you bought a very high end computer. Unless you got an unrealistic deal on the FX53 (ie around $650), any reasonable business would have gone with a slightly lower end machine (say, a regular Athlon64 and a Radeon 9600) and upgrade every 2.5 years instead of every 5 to support medium-to-high-end applications. It just makes no sense to have an incredible pixel shader to do photography editing and AutoCAD - you get no value out of being ahead of the curve for this kind of application. A part half the price would give the same performance, and allow you to buy another much better part in two years.
But you didn't buy a mid-range computer, because you are a high-end computer buyer. There's no shame in that, and nothing wrong with it. It means you have a great computer right now - you just paid the gamer's premium for being a few months ahead of the curve.
And a current, maybe-slightly-higher-spending version of you is quite likely able to talk himself into buying a dual-video card monstrosity like this article talks about.
It seems to me the simplest solution would be to do as Alien does, and split the screen in half. In this way, all functions could be split. You'd have some effort duplicated at the border, but that's not a big deal as long as overall PCIe bandwidth isn't maxed out.
Under this config (and with proper drivers), each card is not only doing half the resolution - but could be working with a scene that has significantly fewer vertexes. Assuming this splitting can be made to work at all, this seems like the way to go.
Their target market is apparently "you" - you're just in the wrong place in your cycle. Right now, you're in the sour grapes phase, denying the possibility that anyone could want a better computer than yours (they already do). Soon you'll be in the lust phase, then you'll be in the "MUST BUY SHINEY THING! PLEASE TAKE CREDIT CARD!" phase.
I remember a time when it was unimaginable who might need a 386.
Scalpers wouldn't do very well if they sold tickets below the price they paid for them. In fact, I think it's legal in most places to sell the tickets you bought for less than their listed price - the problem is people who make money reselling them at higher prices.
If someone was buying up every copy of a book and then ransoming them on EBay for huge prices, that would be a different situation. It also wouldn't work, as if a book is scarce they just print more. They can't just print more seats in a stadium. Scalping did work (for some) with PS2's and other rare commodities.
The legal status of Jumpman is somewhat different than the other Epyx titles. The rights to the game are now in the hands of its creator, Randy Glover. I'm guessing he'd make a deal with these people if one was offered.
If you'd like to play Jumpman again, check out the Jumpman Lounge at ClassicGaming. You can play faithful remakes, expanded games with editors (like Jumpman: Under Construction), or you can get my own game "Jumpman Zero" (a prequel available for Windows or Palm).
Do you remember the previous 3D Prince of Persia for the PC? Neither does anyone else. You can probably still find it in a bargain bin somewhere, along with "Lemmings:Revolution part 39" and "The Incredible Machine: Less Enjoyable than Ever".
I too had fond memories of the original PoP, but I certainly wasn't going to pick up a game (like the previously mentioned, abominable PoP 3D) on the strength of the license. I guess I overstated the case a bit, but Sands of Time has certainly revitalized the brand.
They cannot re-render into 3D because all 3D movies are composites where many seperate renders were put together to create a final image
That's just wrong. Any conventional 3d movie requires just this: two regular sets of images shot or rendered from slightly different angles. Each eye is then presented with one of these, and the brain sees 3d. This is how eyes work.
I think game reviewing isn't quite as high-level as it should be - but it's something. DX:IW got decent reviews (4 stars-esque) - and I don't think it was unfairly overrated. Hardcore fans may not like some aspects - but its a solid game.
B&W certainly was overrated, but only just after its mega-hyped release. It's probably the best example I could come up with to highlight bad game reviewing. In some sense, though, I can't really blame the reviewers for this one - as I liked it too until I'd played for a while.
If Hall actually gets to put this into place - which I doubt he will - why wouldn't Developer X unofficially bring on Mr. EGM Reviewer as a "consultant,"
Royalty percentage is a big deal - but not nearly as big a deal as sales are, and those are already influenced by game reviews. Some game reviewers are already up for auction, and there's already plenty of bidders (either directly, or via threats to cut off advertising).
It's impossible to keep reviewers from being subject to this kind of problem - it just needs to be managed.
At one point, "The Matrix Online" was a game license that was very valuable - a marquee game. There was a lot of goodwill out there. "Enter the Matrix" exchanged a lot of that goodwill for money (as did the last two movies).
Now they could have got money out of that franchise with anything from any developer. But if the game was excellent, they would have retained a lot more goodwill - and possibly helped maintain the franchise in the face of the lackluster sequels. That could have been worth much, much more than these sales figures.
Look at the value Ubi Soft has created in the "Prince of Persia" franchise. PoP was dead, no value. Now it has lots, even if Sands of Time didn't sell as well as it should have. Sega is still milking Sonic the Hedgehog on the basis of a couple good games a decade ago.
These things have tremendous, very real value. It makes sense to protect this value via contract - and pegging things to game reviews is as good of an idea as I can think of.
I think most upscale places use polarized (often "circular polarized" whose operation I don't grok) glasses. They're fairly clear - well, kind of darkish but colors are preserved - and work well. But they also require two projectors, glasses for everyone, and a certain head orientation (a minor point for movies). They're certainly better than anaglyph (red/blue type glasses) or whatever you call the dark/light "parade-on-TV" glasses.
A lot of these problems have been solved naturally with:
1. Using CGI for special effects rather than physical entities who's actual characteristics need to be hidden. 2. More use of on-location shooting (rather than sets designed to be filmed from one angle)
3d gives more information. As long as this information is there, this isn't a problem. You're definitely correct in noting the potential problem - but I think it's very solvable.
If 3d was impressive enough to sell lots of units, they'd still be making lots of 3d movies. They aren't, because the technology for displaying 3d is still not impressive enough nor widely spread. Once there is truly impressive 3d displays that can be widely deployed, the content will come naturally.
As an aside, I'd love to see Pixar render out a version of Finding Nemo for IMAX 3D - I think it'd be amazing, and would be a relatively small cost. If it was a success, they could do their whole catalog.
I'm currently sitting in my home theatre typing this on my MS wireless keyboard (PS2). I have the receiver placed near the screen, with wires reaching to the computer in the next room. I use a standard wireless mouse on the wooden arm of the couch (purchased with this in mind).
It works great - well enough to play FPS games in here.
"a game of strategy that's like a combination of high-speed chess and Risk."
That's actually a very, very good description of StarCraft. It's comprehensible to the target audience and it's actually a pretty good summary. I couldn't write as good a description in as few words without invoking a lot of language that their audience wouldn't understand.
But maybe you're way smarter than me - you give it a try?
Bah, you're completely unrealistic
on
Alternatives to Cars?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Finally one that appears to actually be available. But at $12,000 it's a little steep for me, especially seating only one and only getting up to 45mph, with a 45 mile range.
You want it to seat more than one, but you don't want a "giant steel box"? You want it to go more than 45 mph, but you don't want it to have "too many moving parts".
And 12,000 is too steep?
I guess that's why nobody is trying to make these cars. People like you may profess to want them - but aren't willing to compromise anything or pay a reasonable amount.
The only evil parts of I and II were Darth Maul, Count Dooku, and the Fetts.
Meh? How was Maul evil? He had horns? All of these guys are evil only because they're on the wrong side, not because they really establish their respective characters at all.
Darth Vader used the force to choke a guy to death - because he got a little back-talk. Darth was a bad, bad man - and got lots of great scenes to establish his character. So did the emperor. Heck, they blew up a whole planet.
The weird thing is that file searches worked pretty well under Windows 2000. Under XP, the stupid dog just doesn't work. Even if I'm pretty much rubbing his nose in the file I'm looking for, he's either humorously slow or fails to find a file I know is there (and later find manually).
It's not like the search is doing something that amazing, crying, or crazy - I have no idea why it doesn't just work and work quickly.
Your cheapest, easiest solution is likely a used Palm with a fold-out keyboard. This shouldn't end up costing more than $50 or $60. The fact that so many people want to be rid of their "obsolete" Palms ends up subsidizing your cost.
Just hide all of the other icons on the menu. Ooh, and get a sticker that says "NoteTaker 2000" to put over the Palm logo. That way you won't have a PDA with you.
Slashdot Mirror
I tried Google Desktop Search. I got rid of it because it didn't do a good job finding stuff in my code (even with proper plugins installed) - in general it was very hit or miss in returning stuff my gobs of plain text (yet worked great for e-mails for some reason), and had almost no user interface or obvious means of controlling the thing. But I tried it first, because I kind of assume they'd produce a great product.
The MS Desktop Search (which I tried on a whim) finished indexing faster, gives me slightly better control (but still hardly any) over what gets indexed, presents the results in a more usable fashion, and actually finds the things I search for in code - consistently.
So I'm just wondering: when you say MS has failed to deliver "Good Desktop Search", would you say the same about Google's product? Have you tried MS's search?
I'm not saying MS desktop search is great - why there are no "advanced search" options is a mystery - but it's not bad and it's quickly becoming a tool I use fairly often.
If anyone is smug, and may possibly start to rest on laurels - I'm worried it's "everyone else". MS has fought off a lot of competition in its history. It hasn't always played fair - but so far it's done a lot of winning. For the foreseeable future at least, the "non-MS" companies of the IT world are going to have to keep fighting tooth and nail to stay afloat. If they let things slack, no amount of geek goodwill will keep them going.
The last season of Enterprise has been fairly strong. I think a lot of people built up some irrational hatred over the first couple seasons.
I also think people have clouded memories of the quality of past shows. TNG was horrible for most of its run - just horrible. It redeemed itself now and again, but mostly it sucked (especially early seasons). Voyager was poor. DS9 was ridiculously bad. Remember the final episode? One of the worst things I've ever watched.
Are some themes played out? Of course, but so what? Sure the "let's clone Tucker" Enterprise episode was a rehash - but they did as good a job at it as Star Trek ever did.
As to "not addressing social themes" - I'd say they've tried. What do you think the "mind meld disease" was? Who do you think the Xindi represent? What is implied by the Tellarite/Andorion feud?
Is the social stuff ham-handed? Yes, of course. And it always was, from the original series on - it's just you were younger then.
Enterprise has all the stuff you once liked about Star Trek. Maybe you don't like that stuff anymore - but it's still a good show.
The fact that it does crash some browsers indicates that they probably are trying to run part of it as code
No, it doesn't. Not at all. For example, if I feed the program "i=i/x" the number "0" for x that program may crash. But that doesn't mean the 0 was executed as code or something.
There are many ways of crashing on bad data that don't point to this kind of security problem. In order for a malicious exploit, you need to get bad data in just the right place - in a place where the address of some legitimate code is stored, and where that address is going to be used. You then need another fairly certain location for the exploit code you can point to.
Sometimes a crash does point to a vulnerability like the above (usually do to stack return addresses). But often not. And suggesting that all crashes point to some execution of data is just wrong.
I used the clutch and brake to manage my speed while I fiddled with the cruise control (which was my first suspect). When I couldn't figure anything out, I pulled off the road and turned the key.
At worst, I could have just put it in neutral and let the engine spin out of control. A burnt car is better than a dead me.
In my case, it turned out the accelerator pedal was stuck under the lip of the floor mat (the little catch that holds the floor mat in place had popped out). I felt more than a little dumb.
MSFT has assets beyond cash. If they had a fire sale tomorrow, there would be buildings and pencils and all that that could be converted into money. They also have a tremendous amount of IP - software, patents, trademarks - all of it worth a substantial amount.
While your approach to valuating stock is refreshingly tied to reality, you're not really being fair by evaluating only cash assets. MSFT is worth much more than $60 billion.
It doesn't matter if you use the thing as a skateboard ramp, the fact is you bought a very high end computer. Unless you got an unrealistic deal on the FX53 (ie around $650), any reasonable business would have gone with a slightly lower end machine (say, a regular Athlon64 and a Radeon 9600) and upgrade every 2.5 years instead of every 5 to support medium-to-high-end applications. It just makes no sense to have an incredible pixel shader to do photography editing and AutoCAD - you get no value out of being ahead of the curve for this kind of application. A part half the price would give the same performance, and allow you to buy another much better part in two years.
But you didn't buy a mid-range computer, because you are a high-end computer buyer. There's no shame in that, and nothing wrong with it. It means you have a great computer right now - you just paid the gamer's premium for being a few months ahead of the curve.
And a current, maybe-slightly-higher-spending version of you is quite likely able to talk himself into buying a dual-video card monstrosity like this article talks about.
It seems to me the simplest solution would be to do as Alien does, and split the screen in half. In this way, all functions could be split. You'd have some effort duplicated at the border, but that's not a big deal as long as overall PCIe bandwidth isn't maxed out.
Under this config (and with proper drivers), each card is not only doing half the resolution - but could be working with a scene that has significantly fewer vertexes. Assuming this splitting can be made to work at all, this seems like the way to go.
my Boxx FX53 + X800
Their target market is apparently "you" - you're just in the wrong place in your cycle. Right now, you're in the sour grapes phase, denying the possibility that anyone could want a better computer than yours (they already do). Soon you'll be in the lust phase, then you'll be in the "MUST BUY SHINEY THING! PLEASE TAKE CREDIT CARD!" phase.
I remember a time when it was unimaginable who might need a 386.
Scalpers wouldn't do very well if they sold tickets below the price they paid for them. In fact, I think it's legal in most places to sell the tickets you bought for less than their listed price - the problem is people who make money reselling them at higher prices.
If someone was buying up every copy of a book and then ransoming them on EBay for huge prices, that would be a different situation. It also wouldn't work, as if a book is scarce they just print more. They can't just print more seats in a stadium. Scalping did work (for some) with PS2's and other rare commodities.
I'm not so good with names.
I don't think you can beat the C=64 version on a TV with an old-skool joystick though
True, in two ways: You can't do better than that, and I can't beat the original game (on a TV, an emulator, or any other way).
The legal status of Jumpman is somewhat different than the other Epyx titles. The rights to the game are now in the hands of its creator, Randy Glover. I'm guessing he'd make a deal with these people if one was offered.
If you'd like to play Jumpman again, check out the Jumpman Lounge at ClassicGaming. You can play faithful remakes, expanded games with editors (like Jumpman: Under Construction), or you can get my own game "Jumpman Zero" (a prequel available for Windows or Palm).
Jumpman is just as fun as you remember it...
I tried the demonstration, and Norton popped up and prevented the thing from running. Apparently someone's on the ball somewhere.
Do you remember the previous 3D Prince of Persia for the PC? Neither does anyone else. You can probably still find it in a bargain bin somewhere, along with "Lemmings:Revolution part 39" and "The Incredible Machine: Less Enjoyable than Ever".
I too had fond memories of the original PoP, but I certainly wasn't going to pick up a game (like the previously mentioned, abominable PoP 3D) on the strength of the license. I guess I overstated the case a bit, but Sands of Time has certainly revitalized the brand.
They cannot re-render into 3D because all 3D movies are composites where many seperate renders were put together to create a final image
That's just wrong. Any conventional 3d movie requires just this: two regular sets of images shot or rendered from slightly different angles. Each eye is then presented with one of these, and the brain sees 3d. This is how eyes work.
I think game reviewing isn't quite as high-level as it should be - but it's something. DX:IW got decent reviews (4 stars-esque) - and I don't think it was unfairly overrated. Hardcore fans may not like some aspects - but its a solid game.
B&W certainly was overrated, but only just after its mega-hyped release. It's probably the best example I could come up with to highlight bad game reviewing. In some sense, though, I can't really blame the reviewers for this one - as I liked it too until I'd played for a while.
If Hall actually gets to put this into place - which I doubt he will - why wouldn't Developer X unofficially bring on Mr. EGM Reviewer as a "consultant,"
Royalty percentage is a big deal - but not nearly as big a deal as sales are, and those are already influenced by game reviews. Some game reviewers are already up for auction, and there's already plenty of bidders (either directly, or via threats to cut off advertising).
It's impossible to keep reviewers from being subject to this kind of problem - it just needs to be managed.
At one point, "The Matrix Online" was a game license that was very valuable - a marquee game. There was a lot of goodwill out there. "Enter the Matrix" exchanged a lot of that goodwill for money (as did the last two movies).
Now they could have got money out of that franchise with anything from any developer. But if the game was excellent, they would have retained a lot more goodwill - and possibly helped maintain the franchise in the face of the lackluster sequels. That could have been worth much, much more than these sales figures.
Look at the value Ubi Soft has created in the "Prince of Persia" franchise. PoP was dead, no value. Now it has lots, even if Sands of Time didn't sell as well as it should have. Sega is still milking Sonic the Hedgehog on the basis of a couple good games a decade ago.
These things have tremendous, very real value. It makes sense to protect this value via contract - and pegging things to game reviews is as good of an idea as I can think of.
I think most upscale places use polarized (often "circular polarized" whose operation I don't grok) glasses. They're fairly clear - well, kind of darkish but colors are preserved - and work well. But they also require two projectors, glasses for everyone, and a certain head orientation (a minor point for movies). They're certainly better than anaglyph (red/blue type glasses) or whatever you call the dark/light "parade-on-TV" glasses.
A lot of these problems have been solved naturally with:
1. Using CGI for special effects rather than physical entities who's actual characteristics need to be hidden.
2. More use of on-location shooting (rather than sets designed to be filmed from one angle)
3d gives more information. As long as this information is there, this isn't a problem. You're definitely correct in noting the potential problem - but I think it's very solvable.
If 3d was impressive enough to sell lots of units, they'd still be making lots of 3d movies. They aren't, because the technology for displaying 3d is still not impressive enough nor widely spread. Once there is truly impressive 3d displays that can be widely deployed, the content will come naturally.
As an aside, I'd love to see Pixar render out a version of Finding Nemo for IMAX 3D - I think it'd be amazing, and would be a relatively small cost. If it was a success, they could do their whole catalog.
I'm currently sitting in my home theatre typing this on my MS wireless keyboard (PS2). I have the receiver placed near the screen, with wires reaching to the computer in the next room. I use a standard wireless mouse on the wooden arm of the couch (purchased with this in mind).
It works great - well enough to play FPS games in here.
"a game of strategy that's like a combination of high-speed chess and Risk."
That's actually a very, very good description of StarCraft. It's comprehensible to the target audience and it's actually a pretty good summary. I couldn't write as good a description in as few words without invoking a lot of language that their audience wouldn't understand.
But maybe you're way smarter than me - you give it a try?
Finally one that appears to actually be available. But at $12,000 it's a little steep for me, especially seating only one and only getting up to 45mph, with a 45 mile range.
You want it to seat more than one, but you don't want a "giant steel box"? You want it to go more than 45 mph, but you don't want it to have "too many moving parts".
And 12,000 is too steep?
I guess that's why nobody is trying to make these cars. People like you may profess to want them - but aren't willing to compromise anything or pay a reasonable amount.
The only evil parts of I and II were Darth Maul, Count Dooku, and the Fetts.
Meh? How was Maul evil? He had horns? All of these guys are evil only because they're on the wrong side, not because they really establish their respective characters at all.
Darth Vader used the force to choke a guy to death - because he got a little back-talk. Darth was a bad, bad man - and got lots of great scenes to establish his character. So did the emperor. Heck, they blew up a whole planet.
The weird thing is that file searches worked pretty well under Windows 2000. Under XP, the stupid dog just doesn't work. Even if I'm pretty much rubbing his nose in the file I'm looking for, he's either humorously slow or fails to find a file I know is there (and later find manually).
It's not like the search is doing something that amazing, crying, or crazy - I have no idea why it doesn't just work and work quickly.
Your cheapest, easiest solution is likely a used Palm with a fold-out keyboard. This shouldn't end up costing more than $50 or $60. The fact that so many people want to be rid of their "obsolete" Palms ends up subsidizing your cost.
Just hide all of the other icons on the menu. Ooh, and get a sticker that says "NoteTaker 2000" to put over the Palm logo. That way you won't have a PDA with you.