I believe my family actually had paid over $3k for a IIGS when it first came out.
However if we looked at how much a IIGS would cost nowadays, free? I know I had thrown away that old IIGS about 3/4 years ago, not even worth the space it took up for me.
Free computers would be a great thing for people who cannot afford a computer nowadays, if nothing else, than to get them acclimated to using computers.
My IIGS in the 80's ran paint software, card making software, word processor and never needed an update.
The software infrequently crashed, and hasn't had any changes in the past 20 years (same apple commands work, no learning curve).
Doesn't that sound nice?
OR - you can pay (lets be optimistic) $500 for a relatively nice Dell computer nowadays that requires hours of setup time (just entering in personal information), most likely months to get as used to the original software, and the issue of having to update windows on a regular basis.
I'm not advocating old computers (trust me, when my computer is over a year old, I rebuild it), but there has to be a segment of end users who would think it's the perfect computing environment.
The only way that I've gotten to a level where I could almost "report" a bug would be after dealing with tech support (@ $250 / incident) for a few days.
We shouldn't be looking at how current implementations of.Net would slow current methodologies in game development.
I remember back in the 80s receiving an apple magazine with printed basic code for games. It was great, you could always reference the code line by line, very simple.
How could we get information out if we're using this new "object oriented" design? Modify class X with method Y and add the following code?
It's a bad example.
With the new Gigabit ethernet going straight past the PCI bus on new motherboards (875?) we are being given a unique chance to utilize remote computing abilities and storage.
CLR is in it's early incarnation as v1.1. When did we all start respecting DirectX (some of us still may not) over openGL as a graphics standard? For me it was probably around DirectX5-7.
Optimizations to the CLR don't have to be done in each language that compiles into it, but in the CLR itself.
In response to some comments about XML usage in.Net, there is definitely going to be a use for XML.
When building BSPs for games, character models, maps, assets, and other game information, we will eventually be able to bring models over from one game to another thanks to a common language (XML) and possibly common framework (.Net).
I'm not a big proponent of.Net currently, it seems to be more of a developing mindset than a language for commercial use right now (as a developer, I infrequently recommend.Net unless there are specific reasons to go with it). Think though how these tools can apply to tomorrows development (both game, application, and networking) methodologies.
In development I've never placed hidden back doors from the client.
If a client doesn't pay, there are legal means of getting payment. However the smartest thing to do is credit checks prior to signing up with a client.
Additionally, don't deliver the final release, or pieces of code until you receive full payment.
Otherwise you are asking for trouble.
In the many web applications I've built, there have been no "backdoors". However I also develop a level of trust with a client, and respect that trust. They are willing to give me admin / root on their machines, meanwhile I respect that, and tell them when I'm doing things, and why.
If there's no legitimate way to upkeep your software, it's built wrong.
I have clients who have mail tools built for them. These mail tools have small opt-in lists of about 10k - 50k email addresses.
All of these addresses are gathered in legitimate ways (otherwise the lists would be in the millions).
Every recipient typed their email in and subscribed to the mailing lists directly. I do not get involved in other efforts (involuntary mailings).
How can we (as developers) take steps to stop our mailings from being blocked inadvertantly from the spam filters?
With smaller mailing lists I know that this really isn't an issue, but we are just starting to see larger blocks from yahoo and hotmail since we probably are sending 2k - 5k emails within those domains.
Microsoft products definitely have a large number of bugs. But when people here are saying that there are a large number of obvious reproducible bugs making the software hard to use, I find that quite hard to believe.
Microsoft software is held under such a microscope that I feel they would be criticized if there really were no bugs. It would be MS fault for not reporting bugs in that case.
All together the point was that people feel they are always correct (people in the sense of the end user). When an individual "just wants to" do something, they feel the application's inability to do it, is a bug.
What Gates said (it's cool...) is more in terms of the popular way to assess a situation in which what you want to happen in software doesn't happen that way. People do not want to admit their own inability to do something, and would much rather lay blame.
In the article it mentions that this concept could further be extended to bringing people to the moon via these "elevators".
According to my previous understanding of the concept, the force of earth's rotation would "swing" the carbon ribbon out into space. Otherwise the ribbon would be unstable. The ribbon would be anchored to a geosynchronous orbiting satellite.
We might be able to build the same type of device onto the moon and shorten planetary-moon travel, but I don't think we could build an elevator all the way to the moon like the article hints at (at least not with direct application of the technology as is).
Please correct me if I'm wrong on the basic principles of the elevator.
If no one wants to read the "large handbooks" then here you go, learn the following commands:
ADD JMP NOP MOV
Ok, that should get you started, 12 characters, with definitions, it would take up at least a whole paragraph.
The main reason instruction books get so complicated is people get dumber and more reliant on "user friendly" interfaces.
If some people would just take the chance to "experiment" perhaps they wouldn't need to specify in the instruction manual how to "exit the application".
The whole problem behind these networks (Kazaa, Napster, Audiogalaxy, etc.) is that everyone wants money for what they do.
Freenet is a great idea, decentralized system, anonymous access, etc. Why not capitalize on that concept (in the sense of make value of, not money from)?
I realize everyone wants money, but if you argue we are just sharing information, and someone is making a profit off of it, then there is a problem with the whole system.
C'mon, I know that the readers of slashdot alone, could probably organize such an initiative and have a beta release in at least a few months.
Hate to break it to you, this stuff isn't hard to do with the technologies now out there.
If I wanted to disillusion myself that this information will never exist, I'd be more afraid of my newly purchased GPS enabled cell phone. Talk about scary.
Not only can my location be tracked, but linked to my SSN, my Credit Card, and additionally a listing of who I talk to.
The same issues arose with bar codes. Remember all those sci-fi shows with characters who have bar codes on them?
All these RFIDs are is small bar codes that don't require the cashier to look for it.
My point is that emphasizing how dangerous this could be is futile, since it's a minor step in a series of steps that have already begun long ago.
One of the requirements of the RFID technology is that you logically need a receiver within X distance of it, to determine within an area at least 2piX^2 where you are.
If we are worried "they" will know where we are, "they" will need a sensor wherever we are. A very unrealistic concept.
More likely will be sensors on toll booths on interstates, and things of that sort. Whereas using license plates from those cameras that are everywhere would still suffice to do that type of tracking.
In the article it said that the code has spread to 95% of all hosts. I am assuming that this is by infecting all the other mp3's on a P2P host machine, then, when they are transferred, they do the same.
What if an independent artist (not a member of the RIAA) had their music on P2P networks. There isn't a way (a feasible way for a worm) to verify the owner of distributed media.
Then RIAA is doing worse than what the P2P network was originally doing. P2P networks distribute media, while the RIAA's possible (it hasn't been proven) new attempt would be affecting the media of other organizations via illegal means.
We should all publish short mp3s on these networks, look for checksum changes in a few weeks, and start a class action suit against those agents responsible for ALTERING our content.
Slashdot Mirror
is more. (two rails, one rail :) )
I believe my family actually had paid over $3k for a IIGS when it first came out.
However if we looked at how much a IIGS would cost nowadays, free? I know I had thrown away that old IIGS about 3/4 years ago, not even worth the space it took up for me.
Free computers would be a great thing for people who cannot afford a computer nowadays, if nothing else, than to get them acclimated to using computers.
It does what people need it to do.
My IIGS in the 80's ran paint software, card making software, word processor and never needed an update.
The software infrequently crashed, and hasn't had any changes in the past 20 years (same apple commands work, no learning curve).
Doesn't that sound nice?
OR - you can pay (lets be optimistic) $500 for a relatively nice Dell computer nowadays that requires hours of setup time (just entering in personal information), most likely months to get as used to the original software, and the issue of having to update windows on a regular basis.
I'm not advocating old computers (trust me, when my computer is over a year old, I rebuild it), but there has to be a segment of end users who would think it's the perfect computing environment.
The only way that I've gotten to a level where I could almost "report" a bug would be after dealing with tech support (@ $250 / incident) for a few days.
What difference does $100000 mean to the artist compared to the consumer?
An artist can now actually produce the record they have wanted to.
After a record is produced and sold even only 100,000 (I use ONLY hesitantly) records, that comes out to $1 cheaper per cd to produce.
Our real advantage is the ability for the independent musician to make music that is the same quality as those albums coming from the "Big 5".
We shouldn't be looking at how current implementations of .Net would slow current methodologies in game development.
.Net, there is definitely going to be a use for XML.
.Net currently, it seems to be more of a developing mindset than a language for commercial use right now (as a developer, I infrequently recommend .Net unless there are specific reasons to go with it). Think though how these tools can apply to tomorrows development (both game, application, and networking) methodologies.
I remember back in the 80s receiving an apple magazine with printed basic code for games. It was great, you could always reference the code line by line, very simple.
How could we get information out if we're using this new "object oriented" design? Modify class X with method Y and add the following code?
It's a bad example.
With the new Gigabit ethernet going straight past the PCI bus on new motherboards (875?) we are being given a unique chance to utilize remote computing abilities and storage.
CLR is in it's early incarnation as v1.1. When did we all start respecting DirectX (some of us still may not) over openGL as a graphics standard? For me it was probably around DirectX5-7.
Optimizations to the CLR don't have to be done in each language that compiles into it, but in the CLR itself.
In response to some comments about XML usage in
When building BSPs for games, character models, maps, assets, and other game information, we will eventually be able to bring models over from one game to another thanks to a common language (XML) and possibly common framework (.Net).
I'm not a big proponent of
It means:
GPL software itself is no fee.
you can sell services and/or GPL'd software.
the guarantee then falls on the party that sold/serviced the software, because they charged for the software, and become the vendor of the software.
We all just need to change our corporate spam filters, to forward all unwanted spam to the FTC. I'm sure that will get the ball moving...
MS is just trying to provide this software to students so they can use it, try it, recommend it, ... for free.
Can't we take a good gesture as a good gesture (not that I don't think MS has an alterior motive other than "distribute their software")?
The guy (Sasha) didn't do anything wrong. He shouldn't have to be held under this much of a microscope for what he had said in emails.
I was looking to see if anyone else saw this movie. It's an excellent (albeit disturbing) movie.
In development I've never placed hidden back doors from the client.
If a client doesn't pay, there are legal means of getting payment. However the smartest thing to do is credit checks prior to signing up with a client.
Additionally, don't deliver the final release, or pieces of code until you receive full payment.
Otherwise you are asking for trouble.
In the many web applications I've built, there have been no "backdoors". However I also develop a level of trust with a client, and respect that trust. They are willing to give me admin / root on their machines, meanwhile I respect that, and tell them when I'm doing things, and why.
If there's no legitimate way to upkeep your software, it's built wrong.
-Sean
Look at most of the "top 40" music.
We don't have songs necessarily that have amazing lyrics (some songs have quite dumb lyrics). A lot of what music is is mathematical.
If an artist cannot play mathematically (out of rhythm) then a computer could easily weed him/her out.
I'm not saying that computers should approve what is popular, but saying there could be more than we think behind this technology.
In this process, waht is the "message notifying the recipient that a message is ready for pickup"?
Could it be email?
This is dumb.
I have clients who have mail tools built for them. These mail tools have small opt-in lists of about 10k - 50k email addresses.
All of these addresses are gathered in legitimate ways (otherwise the lists would be in the millions).
Every recipient typed their email in and subscribed to the mailing lists directly. I do not get involved in other efforts (involuntary mailings).
How can we (as developers) take steps to stop our mailings from being blocked inadvertantly from the spam filters?
With smaller mailing lists I know that this really isn't an issue, but we are just starting to see larger blocks from yahoo and hotmail since we probably are sending 2k - 5k emails within those domains.
THanks,
Sean
Microsoft products definitely have a large number of bugs. But when people here are saying that there are a large number of obvious reproducible bugs making the software hard to use, I find that quite hard to believe.
Microsoft software is held under such a microscope that I feel they would be criticized if there really were no bugs. It would be MS fault for not reporting bugs in that case.
All together the point was that people feel they are always correct (people in the sense of the end user). When an individual "just wants to" do something, they feel the application's inability to do it, is a bug.
What Gates said (it's cool...) is more in terms of the popular way to assess a situation in which what you want to happen in software doesn't happen that way. People do not want to admit their own inability to do something, and would much rather lay blame.
In the article it mentions that this concept could further be extended to bringing people to the moon via these "elevators".
According to my previous understanding of the concept, the force of earth's rotation would "swing" the carbon ribbon out into space. Otherwise the ribbon would be unstable. The ribbon would be anchored to a geosynchronous orbiting satellite.
We might be able to build the same type of device onto the moon and shorten planetary-moon travel, but I don't think we could build an elevator all the way to the moon like the article hints at (at least not with direct application of the technology as is).
Please correct me if I'm wrong on the basic principles of the elevator.
If no one wants to read the "large handbooks" then here you go, learn the following commands:
ADD
JMP
NOP
MOV
Ok, that should get you started, 12 characters, with definitions, it would take up at least a whole paragraph.
The main reason instruction books get so complicated is people get dumber and more reliant on "user friendly" interfaces.
If some people would just take the chance to "experiment" perhaps they wouldn't need to specify in the instruction manual how to "exit the application".
C'mon. It's virtually always, File->Quit.
Sorry bout the diatribe, but people are dumb.
The whole problem behind these networks (Kazaa, Napster, Audiogalaxy, etc.) is that everyone wants money for what they do.
Freenet is a great idea, decentralized system, anonymous access, etc. Why not capitalize on that concept (in the sense of make value of, not money from)?
I realize everyone wants money, but if you argue we are just sharing information, and someone is making a profit off of it, then there is a problem with the whole system.
C'mon, I know that the readers of slashdot alone, could probably organize such an initiative and have a beta release in at least a few months.
He could tape all the frames of one show, and distribute the show, while 3 other people can do the same with the other shows?
Hate to break it to you, this stuff isn't hard to do with the technologies now out there.
If I wanted to disillusion myself that this information will never exist, I'd be more afraid of my newly purchased GPS enabled cell phone. Talk about scary.
Not only can my location be tracked, but linked to my SSN, my Credit Card, and additionally a listing of who I talk to.
The same issues arose with bar codes. Remember all those sci-fi shows with characters who have bar codes on them?
All these RFIDs are is small bar codes that don't require the cashier to look for it.
My point is that emphasizing how dangerous this could be is futile, since it's a minor step in a series of steps that have already begun long ago.
One of the requirements of the RFID technology is that you logically need a receiver within X distance of it, to determine within an area at least 2piX^2 where you are.
If we are worried "they" will know where we are, "they" will need a sensor wherever we are. A very unrealistic concept.
More likely will be sensors on toll booths on interstates, and things of that sort. Whereas using license plates from those cameras that are everywhere would still suffice to do that type of tracking.
My monitor had a virus last week . . . it spread to my coffee, and I got sick. I need a screen filter to stop this.
In the article it said that the code has spread to 95% of all hosts. I am assuming that this is by infecting all the other mp3's on a P2P host machine, then, when they are transferred, they do the same.
What if an independent artist (not a member of the RIAA) had their music on P2P networks. There isn't a way (a feasible way for a worm) to verify the owner of distributed media.
Then RIAA is doing worse than what the P2P network was originally doing. P2P networks distribute media, while the RIAA's possible (it hasn't been proven) new attempt would be affecting the media of other organizations via illegal means.
We should all publish short mp3s on these networks, look for checksum changes in a few weeks, and start a class action suit against those agents responsible for ALTERING our content.
160,001.
I like when employers ask for "10 years experience in C#" when the language hasn't been around that long.