You make some interesting points, but I should point out a couple of things.
If you are a human, eventually the things in front of you will be blueshifted out of the visible spectrum, and the back will be redshifted, so everything will go 'dark' (light non visible).
The direction of the shift will depend which way you are facing. Also, bear in mind that although the human-visible spectrum will be shifted out of the human-visible range, depending on your direction, one side of the human-invisible spectrum will be shifted in. So it may not go dark at all, it could even get brighter, depending on how bright the human-invisible component is.
There will never be a 'boom'
Regarding the boom, bear in mind that we really haven't gotten anywhere near lightspeed, so we don't know. At one time it was theorised that it was quite impossible to break the sound barrier. It is not only possible but quite likely that our understanding of what happens near lightspeed is inaccurate. What I've said is just my hunch, no doubt what you said, yours as well.
Blind you? The photons rate entering your eyes looking backward would be much less, so it'll be pretty dark. You wouldnt feel a thing if the velocity is constant.
Looking forward.. now thats a different story.
I was thinking at near but below light-speed, basically a very large number of sources in the distance having their light reach you all at roughly the same time. Like a sonic boom, but with light. In the last couple of minutes I've swung from agreeing with you to disagreeing, and retyped this comment quite a few times. Truth is I'm not an expert on the matter, not having traveled lightspeed, so it's all speculation on my part anyway.
Those curved buildings are kinda cool, but how long would those buildings even be in your field of vision if you were blasting past them at the speed of light? I don't think your brain would get a chance to process that kind of detail before it blurred into the image from the next microsecond, which would probably be completely different. I'd say it'd all be a messy blur.
Looking backwards would be kinda sweet though, if it didn't blind you immediately.
Okay, I've made some adjustments to a previous story to cope with this new technology. Just a few words.
Apple: iPod Dangerous When Wet
Posted by CowboyNeal on Friday May 13, @05:43AM from the potential-hazards dept.
somefutureslashdotter writes "What do you do when your mom washes your iPod? Fix it, of course. A teenager in Australia found out the hard way that messing with the insides of his iPod is dangerous and needed to be pieced together from basic components after it exploded, leveling several city blocks."
Holy crap, did I miss the announcement of mod-OverflowingBitBucket-into-the-stratosphere-day today?:)
*best Terminator voice* Your mod points... give them to me.
Seriously, I imagine a lot of electronic devices are quite dangerous when you fill them with water and then open them up and play with them. I had a modem transformer explode into flame when I plugged it in a few months after my house was flooded a few years back. Whilst I was tempted to post "Netcomm... the silent killer" to Slashdot, I'm pretty sure the problem was the fact that the transformer was used as an ineffective sponge when the roof broke open above my desk.
Have no doubt though, when an iPod explodes it glows bright white whilst anyone in its immediate vicinity is reduced to a shadow by the glare.
It is that simple. We have these great new cars (the Fox, Safari, Mozilla, etc.), but the roads need to be rebuilt to allow these cars to utilize their full power.
I think it is a little more like we have a whole bunch of general-purpose roads but a whole bunch of roads that can only be used by the IE-mobile. Just a matter of resurfacing those roads so that everyone can drive on them.;)
But there are also those of use who carry it on a usb key\cd\share\whatever and install it multiple times from a single download...
I can vouch for this. I download a single copy of the latest version from time to time for both Linux and Windows and burn it to CD. I then install in on my machines, for my family, friends, so forth. This will show up as one download (per OS), even though we're talking a dozen or more installs.
Also if you want some help, email me (guess). I need to keep in practice somehow...
I wouldn't say no to any tips or suggestions as to which tools are the best to use. My guess for your email would be slashdot username at your listed website? The website appears to be down at present so I can't get it from there.
I still distrust binaries, and the security of Linux.
I understand completely. The trust issue is a difficult problem to overcome.
Even though you seem really trustworthy.
Well, there's a first time for everything.;)
Have it sit around the Debian archives for 6 months and I'll be less wary.;-)
I'm not sure they'd go for that.;)
...preferring Windows though, alot of them just don't know the alternatives...
Very true, but in time people will become more aware of the alternatives.
Speaking of which, might want to have a few animgif screenshots on your site (and dull the navbuttons down a tad).
An interesting idea. I've never put together animated gifs before to be honest.
And the nav buttons? I've toyed with the idea of turfing them as I change the sidebar so often. Still not 100% sure. I do want to draw attention to certain thinks like the order button, downloads, the forum etc etc.
I couldn't be arsed to run the DOOM 3 demo binary on my system (I came close though), I prolly won't for yours either, but it looks kind of interesting, motion would be nice to see.
Well, the Free Edition is self-contained and has no time limits nor intrusive nags. As we speak I'm creating some extra levels for the Free Edition for the next update. So if you get tempted some time, give it a whirl.:)
Yeah, some reviewers must live in a cave or something. I'm not giving up Linux for what little proprietary lock-in trinkets Windows has to offer.
Well, each person will have their own preferences. Some people will prefer Windows, some Linux, some OS X, so forth. Myself, yourself and others prefer Linux, and others yet prefer Windows. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.:)
I think I'd better disable the karma bonus on this post. This is getting pretty offtopic.;)
I guess you went through the exercise of..it will 'cost' me $x to create my lame silver version...would I be better off pricing the gold version at the silver price and maybe selling a whole lot more?..
I'm not sure if you're trolling or being serious with that choice of words, but I'll work on the assumption that you are honestly asking (no offense meant if I took it the wrong way), and either way, I'm sure some people are curious.
It didn't work like you state.
I originally planned to release a Free Edition and sell a Gold Edition. No mention of a Silver. I ran a market research week where I gave a whole bunch of people free pizza and drinks to come play the games. It turned out that roughly a third would pay good money but expected a lot, a third tended to enjoy one game and wouldn't pay a lot but didn't expect much, and a third expected heaps and wouldn't pay for it. My original plan would have cleaned up a third of the people, but I would be letting that middle third get away (the last third were far too hard to catch). Hence the Silver budget release.
It probably took a week to get all three Silver Editions working from the Gold, almost nothing compared to the eighteen months to get it to that stage. Basically worth it to capture a third of the market.
Selling at a cheaper price doesn't guarantee more sales, sometimes (strangely) it even reduces them (lower price can be perceived as being of lower worth). And the total revenue can of course be much less. Either way, I couldn't put together the Gold Edition for the cost of the Silver Edition anyway. The full-colour CDs and DVD slicks plus airmail postage cost me a lot more than the price of the Silver Edition anyway. Selling the Gold at Silver prices certainly didn't fit the market research and actual initial sales at all. The top third expected quality and were prepared to pay extra to ensure it. Selling them a cut-all-corners version for cheaper would have actually cost me some sales here. If anything, the Gold Edition may be underpriced, I have already had people tip me extra for it. And yes, that surprised me too.
Anyway, more detail here (scroll down to question 11) if you're curious.
Okay, I could never be talked into doing something like that myself. Nice resolve you showed, I think thats insane of you though...
Thanks.:) And I think most people would agree with you on the insane thing too.;) But if you feel strongly enough about something, it's amazing the measures you will go to...
Not to criticize your strategy, what I say doesn't work for everything, but... If you have betas out, and there are still important features to implement, you could call that a benefit for paying.
That does amount to someone taking eighteen months of work and saying "that's not enough, give me more". But I agree with your point. Eventually those beta users are going to see enough features to want to upgrade, with any luck.
My point revolved around needing to give people a visible benefit for contributing. If there is none, most people will be too busy, not get around to it, have other priorities, so forth.
I consider time limitations to be a form of crippling, and software that does that fits in my definition of crippleware. That is one reason I can encompass enough commercial wares into my crippleware category to partially blame crippleware for driving me to OSS.
Absolutely, and agreed.
(I really hate the idea of code on my system working against me, I in fact purely despise it)
One of the many reasons why I am primarily a Linux user and have been for years. Not ready for the desktop my butt, I've been using it exactly that way for many years.
I "bit", and followed the link to 'your software'. Judging by those screenshots, the game itself looks slick, but the webpage is not a triumph of marketing. It's dated and, well, ugly. Sorry if this offends, just an honest opinion:)
Ah, excellent. eyeballs++.;) Well, I'm definitely not an expert on website development, and I've gotten a very mixed response to it. Some people love it, some hate it. If you have any tips, my email address is plastered all over the site, and any suggestions are most appreciated.:)
That's a completely different story from software that just won't run under certain conditions - XP Starter's value depends on things other than its purchase price.
I'd say it is quite similar. The basic idea that MS is pushing is that if you can afford one of those better chips, they want you to buy the more expensive version. I think they're going for a cut of the revenue from cheaper systems, and also to grab some of the pirate market back.
You might try using an "unlock code". Free feature set needs no code, silver feature set requires a silver unlock code, gold requires gold code. That way you always ship the same binary.
And submit myself to the tender mercies of a large group of people, many of whom are far more intelligent than I am, to not crack the executable and spread the unlock codes? I understand the basic principles of what you are saying, but I think for my software the separate builds work better. The work required is comparable. Of course, different solutions work for different situations, and the model you suggest is in widespread use.
Happens to be one of the reasons I don't use much commerical software, and kind of avoid it like the plague.
Indeed, that is an appropriate name for it too. But sometimes relying on human nature isn't enough. Humans can be such terribly selfish things.;)
For example, I developed my software full-time over eighteen months. This wiped out my savings and left me in a fair amount of debt. It is a bit unreasonable to expect a single person to shoulder the entire burden of the development when a number of people reap the benefits. Hence I sell the software. Maybe one day I will make enough back to try this whole crazy experiment again.;) But I can't just give away the uncrippled version and rely on kindness. One shining example of this related to one of the beta testers for the software. He loves the games, plays them all the time apparently. Submitted no feedback, and has no intention of pitching in for the final release because the beta was uncrippled. Whoops. And he's not the only one. People are very good at taking if there is no benefit to giving. Now if I could count on the generosity of enough people, who cares if most people benefit for nothing? But the problem is that I can't.
As for avoiding crippleware, I'd have to disagree. What I can't stand is when people sell something without giving you a chance to try it out beforehand. That really sucks. Time limitations are a pain too, I hate the presumption that I can dedicate 30 days to trying something out; my free time is limited and sporadic. But trial versions are a good thing. Certainly something to be encouraged. Much better than nothing at all.
TFA doesn't say it checks the system call, it checks the *instruction*. As in processor instruction.
To do what you're suggesting, you'd have to hack your CPU.
The CPUID instruction may be buried inside another call, the grandparent probably meant intercepting that call, which would work without CPU hackery. That is how I read the comment. I think you're being a touch harsh, even if technically correct.:} Of course, if it is literally the CPUID instruction followed by an immediate lockup then you might have to NOP out the check instead.
At this point we could go into all the countermeasures that may be present to stop either of these approaches.;)
At the risk of sounding new here, I am amazed at the mindset. Whatever happened to making the best product you can and trying to sell as much of it as you can? The idea at Microsoft appears to be to sell your product as much as you can by making it perform poorly compared to itself. Or something like that.
Imagine being the engineers tasked with writing the feature that disables the OS on "advanced" CPUs. What pride they must have in their work.
They are effectively competing against themselves with the cheaper product and have to make sure it isn't too good. I'm not sure it is a matter of shame, just trying to capture an additional market segment.
For example, with my software I have a number of different editions, effectively free, budget, and full (I call them the Free, Silver and Gold Edition). It took a decent amount of extra work to develop the Free and Silver Editions, and this was done by disabling features that would have been simpler to just leave in. Some people are simply not going to want to fork out for the Gold Edition, so if I can give most of what they want through one of the Silver Editions, at least I made a sale when otherwise I wouldn't have. But the danger is that the Silver Editions and the Gold Edition do compete with each other. If I leave too much in the Silver, everyone will buy that, and the Gold sales will suffer.
I think the general gist in both cases is to make a product that is good enough for people who don't want the full version, but not so good that it affects the sales of the full version.
Slashdot Mirror
You make some interesting points, but I should point out a couple of things.
If you are a human, eventually the things in front of you will be blueshifted out of the visible spectrum, and the back will be redshifted, so everything will go 'dark' (light non visible).
The direction of the shift will depend which way you are facing. Also, bear in mind that although the human-visible spectrum will be shifted out of the human-visible range, depending on your direction, one side of the human-invisible spectrum will be shifted in. So it may not go dark at all, it could even get brighter, depending on how bright the human-invisible component is.
There will never be a 'boom'
Regarding the boom, bear in mind that we really haven't gotten anywhere near lightspeed, so we don't know. At one time it was theorised that it was quite impossible to break the sound barrier. It is not only possible but quite likely that our understanding of what happens near lightspeed is inaccurate. What I've said is just my hunch, no doubt what you said, yours as well.
Blind you? The photons rate entering your eyes looking backward would be much less, so it'll be pretty dark. You wouldnt feel a thing if the velocity is constant.
Looking forward.. now thats a different story.
I was thinking at near but below light-speed, basically a very large number of sources in the distance having their light reach you all at roughly the same time. Like a sonic boom, but with light. In the last couple of minutes I've swung from agreeing with you to disagreeing, and retyped this comment quite a few times. Truth is I'm not an expert on the matter, not having traveled lightspeed, so it's all speculation on my part anyway.
Those curved buildings are kinda cool, but how long would those buildings even be in your field of vision if you were blasting past them at the speed of light? I don't think your brain would get a chance to process that kind of detail before it blurred into the image from the next microsecond, which would probably be completely different. I'd say it'd all be a messy blur.
Looking backwards would be kinda sweet though, if it didn't blind you immediately.
If I'm not mistaken, tritium is, pound for pound, the most expensive material on the planet.
;)
No problems, this technology could still be used in the manufacture of Intel processors.
Okay, I've made some adjustments to a previous story to cope with this new technology. Just a few words.
Apple: iPod Dangerous When Wet
Posted by CowboyNeal on Friday May 13, @05:43AM
from the potential-hazards dept.
somefutureslashdotter writes "What do you do when your mom washes your iPod? Fix it, of course. A teenager in Australia found out the hard way that messing with the insides of his iPod is dangerous and needed to be pieced together from basic components after it exploded, leveling several city blocks."
It's taking them too long to write these cool programs?
;)
Well, they have been carefully creating the market for them over the last ten years or so.
Besides, don't want to raise the heat on the water too fast.
Well, I guess it stands for Virtual Public Network now. ;)
Yes. You didn't list anything for 2009.
:) Thanks for the chuckle.
Cute.
Next-up:
Microsoft Crash Protect 2006
Microsoft File Restorer 2007
Microsoft Wormguard 2008
Can we see the problem?
Note to self: don't joke about mod points. Brutal mod. The joke at the end was a reference to the iPod commercials, for those who missed it.
Holy crap, did I miss the announcement of mod-OverflowingBitBucket-into-the-stratosphere-day today? :)
*best Terminator voice* Your mod points... give them to me.
Seriously, I imagine a lot of electronic devices are quite dangerous when you fill them with water and then open them up and play with them. I had a modem transformer explode into flame when I plugged it in a few months after my house was flooded a few years back. Whilst I was tempted to post "Netcomm... the silent killer" to Slashdot, I'm pretty sure the problem was the fact that the transformer was used as an ineffective sponge when the roof broke open above my desk.
Have no doubt though, when an iPod explodes it glows bright white whilst anyone in its immediate vicinity is reduced to a shadow by the glare.
*pelted with rotten fruit*
.. that the iPod is also a choking hazard if you attempt to swallow it.
News for zealots - to generate ad revenue, Stuff that doesn't matter.
Yes, this is an obvious paid story designed to generate sales for Apple. Hey, hang on...
It is that simple. We have these great new cars (the Fox, Safari, Mozilla, etc.), but the roads need to be rebuilt to allow these cars to utilize their full power.
;)
I think it is a little more like we have a whole bunch of general-purpose roads but a whole bunch of roads that can only be used by the IE-mobile. Just a matter of resurfacing those roads so that everyone can drive on them.
But there are also those of use who carry it on a usb key\cd\share\whatever and install it multiple times from a single download...
I can vouch for this. I download a single copy of the latest version from time to time for both Linux and Windows and burn it to CD. I then install in on my machines, for my family, friends, so forth. This will show up as one download (per OS), even though we're talking a dozen or more installs.
Also if you want some help, email me (guess). I need to keep in practice somehow...
;)
;-)
;)
...preferring Windows though, alot of them just don't know the alternatives...
;)
I wouldn't say no to any tips or suggestions as to which tools are the best to use. My guess for your email would be slashdot username at your listed website? The website appears to be down at present so I can't get it from there.
I still distrust binaries, and the security of Linux.
I understand completely. The trust issue is a difficult problem to overcome.
Even though you seem really trustworthy.
Well, there's a first time for everything.
Have it sit around the Debian archives for 6 months and I'll be less wary.
I'm not sure they'd go for that.
Very true, but in time people will become more aware of the alternatives.
Now all we need is more cross-platform games.
Speaking of which, might want to have a few animgif screenshots on your site (and dull the navbuttons down a tad).
:)
:)
;)
An interesting idea. I've never put together animated gifs before to be honest.
And the nav buttons? I've toyed with the idea of turfing them as I change the sidebar so often. Still not 100% sure. I do want to draw attention to certain thinks like the order button, downloads, the forum etc etc.
I couldn't be arsed to run the DOOM 3 demo binary on my system (I came close though), I prolly won't for yours either, but it looks kind of interesting, motion would be nice to see.
Well, the Free Edition is self-contained and has no time limits nor intrusive nags. As we speak I'm creating some extra levels for the Free Edition for the next update. So if you get tempted some time, give it a whirl.
Yeah, some reviewers must live in a cave or something. I'm not giving up Linux for what little proprietary lock-in trinkets Windows has to offer.
Well, each person will have their own preferences. Some people will prefer Windows, some Linux, some OS X, so forth. Myself, yourself and others prefer Linux, and others yet prefer Windows. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I think I'd better disable the karma bonus on this post. This is getting pretty offtopic.
I guess you went through the exercise of ..it will 'cost' me $x to create my lame silver version...would I be better off pricing the gold version at the silver price and maybe selling a whole lot more?..
I'm not sure if you're trolling or being serious with that choice of words, but I'll work on the assumption that you are honestly asking (no offense meant if I took it the wrong way), and either way, I'm sure some people are curious.
It didn't work like you state.
I originally planned to release a Free Edition and sell a Gold Edition. No mention of a Silver. I ran a market research week where I gave a whole bunch of people free pizza and drinks to come play the games. It turned out that roughly a third would pay good money but expected a lot, a third tended to enjoy one game and wouldn't pay a lot but didn't expect much, and a third expected heaps and wouldn't pay for it. My original plan would have cleaned up a third of the people, but I would be letting that middle third get away (the last third were far too hard to catch). Hence the Silver budget release.
It probably took a week to get all three Silver Editions working from the Gold, almost nothing compared to the eighteen months to get it to that stage. Basically worth it to capture a third of the market.
Selling at a cheaper price doesn't guarantee more sales, sometimes (strangely) it even reduces them (lower price can be perceived as being of lower worth). And the total revenue can of course be much less. Either way, I couldn't put together the Gold Edition for the cost of the Silver Edition anyway. The full-colour CDs and DVD slicks plus airmail postage cost me a lot more than the price of the Silver Edition anyway. Selling the Gold at Silver prices certainly didn't fit the market research and actual initial sales at all. The top third expected quality and were prepared to pay extra to ensure it. Selling them a cut-all-corners version for cheaper would have actually cost me some sales here. If anything, the Gold Edition may be underpriced, I have already had people tip me extra for it. And yes, that surprised me too.
Anyway, more detail here (scroll down to question 11) if you're curious.
Okay, I could never be talked into doing something like that myself. Nice resolve you showed, I think thats insane of you though...
:) And I think most people would agree with you on the insane thing too. ;) But if you feel strongly enough about something, it's amazing the measures you will go to...
Thanks.
Not to criticize your strategy, what I say doesn't work for everything, but... If you have betas out, and there are still important features to implement, you could call that a benefit for paying.
That does amount to someone taking eighteen months of work and saying "that's not enough, give me more". But I agree with your point. Eventually those beta users are going to see enough features to want to upgrade, with any luck.
My point revolved around needing to give people a visible benefit for contributing. If there is none, most people will be too busy, not get around to it, have other priorities, so forth.
I consider time limitations to be a form of crippling, and software that does that fits in my definition of crippleware. That is one reason I can encompass enough commercial wares into my crippleware category to partially blame crippleware for driving me to OSS.
Absolutely, and agreed.
(I really hate the idea of code on my system working against me, I in fact purely despise it)
One of the many reasons why I am primarily a Linux user and have been for years. Not ready for the desktop my butt, I've been using it exactly that way for many years.
O/T, but:
:)
;) Well, I'm definitely not an expert on website development, and I've gotten a very mixed response to it. Some people love it, some hate it. If you have any tips, my email address is plastered all over the site, and any suggestions are most appreciated. :)
I "bit", and followed the link to 'your software'. Judging by those screenshots, the game itself looks slick, but the webpage is not a triumph of marketing. It's dated and, well, ugly. Sorry if this offends, just an honest opinion
Ah, excellent. eyeballs++.
That's a completely different story from software that just won't run under certain conditions - XP Starter's value depends on things other than its purchase price.
I'd say it is quite similar. The basic idea that MS is pushing is that if you can afford one of those better chips, they want you to buy the more expensive version. I think they're going for a cut of the revenue from cheaper systems, and also to grab some of the pirate market back.
You might try using an "unlock code". Free feature set needs no code, silver feature set requires a silver unlock code, gold requires gold code. That way you always ship the same binary.
And submit myself to the tender mercies of a large group of people, many of whom are far more intelligent than I am, to not crack the executable and spread the unlock codes? I understand the basic principles of what you are saying, but I think for my software the separate builds work better. The work required is comparable. Of course, different solutions work for different situations, and the model you suggest is in widespread use.
Crippleware is what I call it.
;)
;) But I can't just give away the uncrippled version and rely on kindness. One shining example of this related to one of the beta testers for the software. He loves the games, plays them all the time apparently. Submitted no feedback, and has no intention of pitching in for the final release because the beta was uncrippled. Whoops. And he's not the only one. People are very good at taking if there is no benefit to giving. Now if I could count on the generosity of enough people, who cares if most people benefit for nothing? But the problem is that I can't.
Happens to be one of the reasons I don't use much commerical software, and kind of avoid it like the plague.
Indeed, that is an appropriate name for it too. But sometimes relying on human nature isn't enough. Humans can be such terribly selfish things.
For example, I developed my software full-time over eighteen months. This wiped out my savings and left me in a fair amount of debt. It is a bit unreasonable to expect a single person to shoulder the entire burden of the development when a number of people reap the benefits. Hence I sell the software. Maybe one day I will make enough back to try this whole crazy experiment again.
As for avoiding crippleware, I'd have to disagree. What I can't stand is when people sell something without giving you a chance to try it out beforehand. That really sucks. Time limitations are a pain too, I hate the presumption that I can dedicate 30 days to trying something out; my free time is limited and sporadic. But trial versions are a good thing. Certainly something to be encouraged. Much better than nothing at all.
TFA doesn't say it checks the system call, it checks the *instruction*. As in processor instruction.
:} Of course, if it is literally the CPUID instruction followed by an immediate lockup then you might have to NOP out the check instead.
;)
To do what you're suggesting, you'd have to hack your CPU.
The CPUID instruction may be buried inside another call, the grandparent probably meant intercepting that call, which would work without CPU hackery. That is how I read the comment. I think you're being a touch harsh, even if technically correct.
At this point we could go into all the countermeasures that may be present to stop either of these approaches.
At the risk of sounding new here, I am amazed at the mindset. Whatever happened to making the best product you can and trying to sell as much of it as you can? The idea at Microsoft appears to be to sell your product as much as you can by making it perform poorly compared to itself. Or something like that.
Imagine being the engineers tasked with writing the feature that disables the OS on "advanced" CPUs. What pride they must have in their work.
They are effectively competing against themselves with the cheaper product and have to make sure it isn't too good. I'm not sure it is a matter of shame, just trying to capture an additional market segment.
For example, with my software I have a number of different editions, effectively free, budget, and full (I call them the Free, Silver and Gold Edition). It took a decent amount of extra work to develop the Free and Silver Editions, and this was done by disabling features that would have been simpler to just leave in. Some people are simply not going to want to fork out for the Gold Edition, so if I can give most of what they want through one of the Silver Editions, at least I made a sale when otherwise I wouldn't have. But the danger is that the Silver Editions and the Gold Edition do compete with each other. If I leave too much in the Silver, everyone will buy that, and the Gold sales will suffer.
I think the general gist in both cases is to make a product that is good enough for people who don't want the full version, but not so good that it affects the sales of the full version.
I imagine that most people who would use a cracked version of the Starter Edition would just choose to use a cracked Pro Edition anyway.