Note that this was by choice. They host backups for consumers' data (a la Carbonite.) Therefore, most of the data will be write-once, read-possibly-never.
Most are not willing to lower their expectation below read-at-least-once data. Statistically speaking, you may be right, but read-possibly-never is not something to design backup systems around. The possibility of a full recovery over the Internet is what pushes me towards using local storage, though who says you shouldn't do both?
My Hitachi will provide me with 200,000 IOPS with 5 ms latency.
While that is just a TAD overkill for disk backup, these guy's $.11/GB is not something I'd trust my backups on.
HelloWorld.c is to the Linux kernel as this thing is to the Hitachi USP-V or EMC Symmetrix.
You nailed it.
Service Time/IOPS is less important here than trustworthy and proven controller hardware & software, and built in goodies like replication. That's why I would trust disk backups to Sun, NetApp, Hitachi, EMC, and not these people. Possibly home systems I guess, but bragging about homemade storage is a real turnoff.
You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that this company is in the storage array business. It is not. It is an online backup service.
Low-end hackjob My First SAN (TM) arrays, and backup service provided on My First SAN (TM) arrays are both equally concerning in my book. One just lets you hide that fact better, but these guys are out bragging about it. Not smart.
If an OSS advocate made this same argument as a reason to adopt Linux and OpenOffice, you'd have the OSS detractors screaming at him for not understanding business and productivity. I recall quite a flame fest over replacements for Adobe products a day or two ago.
Maybe operating system's "bloat" is more important than either of you think? Maybe it's only called bloat in the first place when someone else have it but you don't? Sort of like Accelerated desktop UI prior to Compiz. Guess who won the bloat award there...
Windows is popular despite that it is only good enough.
It's actually pretty damn good, for both businesses and home users. It's not for everyone, but it has grown quite a few organic advantages from having the largest install base. It's easy to say "If my OS was the most popular, I'd have those things too," but it's wishful thinking. Windows grew into it, and it shows. I don't think the Linux development practices lend well to the range of hardware support Windows has, even if it were as popular. Apple would have to change more than a few things as well, but they are better equipped to handle change than who/whatever represents Linux.
Plenty of better solutions have come and gone, but good enough solutions spread like wildfire because they are not actually optimized to be solutions. They are optimized for one thing: spreading.
Err.. I think I agree with you, but spreading here sounds like a bad word for 'useful to a wide audience'. I like to bash social networking crapware, but they got something right I guess.
that applies to cars too. The tata nano is essentailly that. No seat belts, most of the time people don't need those. Rear view mirrors, got by for 60 years without em. Airconditioning? Open a window. Air bags? If something goes wrong they can hurt you, even without an serious accident. Anti lock breaks, well with some practice a good driver can do better than ABS, and you aren't going fast most of the time anwyay. Radio, distracting. Cost: 2500 bucks US (or thereabouts).
The reason you can't sell them for that price in Europe/the US - the governments (including others such as Canada where I am), have decided if you want a car you must have all sorts of that stuff. Projected cost to bring them to 'western' markets ~10k. And even then they wouldn't go highway speeds.
Windows - for all of it's faults, does a lot of stuff you don't see, and don't know you use.
"Hooray for mediocrity" is not an excuse for doing crappy things the wrong way. Neither is "The Simpsons did it".
The Tata Nano car was not rejected because of consumerism or market protection, but because it is a low quality, highly dangerous piece of technology. Coupled with its cheapness and almost limitless availability, we all would've had a quagmire on the roads pretty quickly.
I think you missed his point, that first paragraph does not read like "Hooray for mediocrity" as you put it, but sarcasm. It's pretty clear he's 'for' the extra features in OS's, and probably cars too. *Sigh* This is why we have to put emoticons everywhere *Looks at floor*
To be fair to the GP, I had to stop after reading your first paragraph too.;)/sarcasm
There's 1 major reason to choose SVN over git: better GUI clients.
I think SVN Apache/DAV integration is much more polished than git's. Things like VisualSVN give you out the box Active Directory integration, with a management interface to boot.
Think I'm being over-dramatic? Not really, since at some point, nVidia will decide it's no longer worth their time and effort to maintain the driver for it, and the last driver they release will eventually suffer bitrot against the Linux kernel. Being closed source, eventually there's a chance that it cannot be easily patched because there are changes required in the binary blob parts.It's not their fault Linux isn't stable for more than a year or so. Other OSs deal just fine with older drivers when they want to. Open Source is not an excuse for unstable APIs.
Macs are expensive to operate. They cost a lot to purchase (at least $700) and a lot of maintain (annual OS upgrades). The forced tieins to Apple-made peripherals also increase ownership costs. You may disagree with that opinion,.
They've been released every _two_ years since 2003.
Fuck your opinion, name a forced Mac "tie in".
Yeah well I get tired of the Apple zealots trying to sell me on why Apple is better
When we went to Intel hardware, we would have needed a $250k Sun machine and $250k SAN storage to perform comparably to a $50k Intel machine including internal storage.
Thank you for posting some real facts about Sun hardware, performance, maintenance, and support. The Sun zealotry around here needs a balanced perspective.
Yah, fair and balanced, or it supports what you want to believe?
Then there's Java. Drains quite a bit of cash without making enough money and Oracle as a company has the wrong temperment to maintain and improve a programming language anyway. Start charging enough to make money on Java and Java dies. Nor does having Java particularly complement Oracle's product line.
This page is getting funnier by the minute. There are people who's last experience with either company is from ten years ago, people who think either company is 'not big enough for X', and people who are only familiar with one facet (if any) of the companies businesses.
Do you understand that devloping *in* Java is not the same as developing Java?
Whether Sun made a significant amount of money directly from Java or not it did not prevent them from improving it. I dare you to prove otherwise.
So what is your point, Sun was not improving Java, Oracle will not improve Java, or Oracle does not make money off improving Java? What does Sun not making money directly from Java have to do with Java development stagnating given the above?
Sun sucks. Their overpriced hardware got eclipsed by Pentium 4 PCs which could do the same work for 1/10th the price. In the end, the only advantage Sun platforms offer over PCs is the capability to use massive amounts of RAM (64G, 128G, and beyond). But make no mistake about it, Sun got eclipsed by Intel. Moore's law has a harsh penalty for those who don't keep up.
Coming from someone who couldn't tell you the difference between an Intel desktop processor and their Xeon line to save their life, much less know what RAS features SPARCs have over anything Intel has.
Don't forget massive amounts of CPU's, expansion cards, dynamic reconfiguration, partitioning, etc, etc.
Midrange computing is all a lie I guess, someone go tell IBM, HP and Fujistu.
Three, Java development stagnates. Does new Java development make any money at all for Sun right now? I don't think so. I think supporting the existing codebase is whats been bring money in.
Is this a joke? Of course Sun makes some money off Java related technologies, they sure as hell are constantly improving it, and Oracle made truckloads more money off Java long before the acquisition.
Sure, when you get to the point of scaling up the hardware that's going to make a difference. But again, I have to ask how many projects today will ever need to scale beyond trivial levels of space, power and cooling? After all, with modern computing power, you can run some pretty serious systems out of a small cupboard in the corner of your office, off a standard power supply, without so much as installing air-con.
Businesses grow (hopefully), and the amount of data, processing & reporting increases with that. You honestly don't have to be very large to outgrow closet computing. The next step is outgrowing your colo cage, and the next step, well, you've hopefully figured out the importance of space/heat/computing efficiency by then because it's all YOUR problem now.
No, it's not, and preserving this kind of access is network neutrality's raison d'être. The nightmare scenario is a provider using its clout to hamper access to a company that happens to compete with another line of the provider's business. It is completely unacceptable. Neither Apple nor AT&T has the moral or legal right to use control over one product line to subdue a competitor in another.
Yah, if they want to pull that kind of crap off, they should build their own app store.
*They* being the third party that assumes the risk of the port not covering licensing/porting costs. Who knows, maybe Internet distribution would have saved Loki? I'm thinking... the Linux market is still not there yet.
The mouse is a superior controller for anything that involves aiming (FPS) or pointing (RTS)
I disagree with the FPS part. A joystick is superior for driving and flying, while rifles (and guns in most games) with pinpoint accuracy and instant 360's are GD ridiculous for casual online play. How long did it take for online console gaming to supplant online PC gaming? Blink of the eye. There are of course console games that inherit the ridiculous aiming mechanics from console, *ahem* CoD... In the long run, I think strategy and depth will win out over "twitchiness," but there is some room for that. Problem is that hyper accurate pointing has too heavily influenced PC gameplay mechanics, even the RTS genre where I generally do agree with you.
If one of the major game publishers (EA or Valve?) were to start selling Bluetooth-enabled motion sensor style controllers, and supporting them on multiple titles, we really could see PC gaming become superior to console gaming in all categories (except price, of course).
PC's had an awesome range of common gaming peripherals, not very long ago, and tons of good games that used them. Alien flight sims with twisty joysticks, wheels and sticks with feedback control (like arcade cabinets!), foot pedals, throttles, vibrating gamepads with a bazillion programmable buttons, etc. What happened? 3D McDeathmatch 7.0 and Alien McRTS 4.0 happened.
BTW - absolutely hilarious that you would look to EA and Valve for salvation. Good or bad, thank them for what you have today. PC gaming really did die. I don't mean it's horrible, just that.. if you knew it well the last couple decades *sob*, you'd cry too.
How is percentage of GDP the relevant measure here?
We have more to defend, and a larger stake in global politics/stability?
Bigger stick == better?
Just guessing.
I don't see how spending FOO * Scary Nation Defense Budget BAR makes any sense. What if there are several Scary Nations and Bad Countries? I think military spending should be greater than the combination of all 'OTHER' country's military spending, but within your means. OTHER being anyone we don't trust right now. Are we spending within our means? ~5%, I guess so. Who is OTHER now? Do you trust them enough to cut back?
Further than I would want to throw myself if we're talking about into a room with a lot of angry men with guns. Also, I'm not in the same shape a marine would be, I'd expect a marine would be able to throw a 10lb weight further. The article specifically mentions "can see around corners inside buildings, sewers, drainpipes, caves, courtyards" so corners, not distances, and it sounds kind of like they're looking into remote controlled after being thrown.
Yet another rash judgement from someone didn't even RTFA, let alone knows the full story. But lets not let trivial details like facts we don't know stand in the way of our statement that fully half our military budget is completely dispensable.
(For the record, I'm a liberal and also dislike the amount we spend on the military. It's not that I'm biased in favor of dumping all our money on the military, you're just making us look dumb.)
Mmmmm-kay. Yeah, you sound like a combat veteran who knows what he's talking about. NOT!!
What you actually sound like, is a middle aged has-been who watches to much television and assumes that Hollywood knows combat.
Challenge: Define "shelter" and "cover". Watch a dozen or even a gross of Hollywood productions. Watch carefully for every instance in which the concepts are accurately conveyed, and realistically used.
BTW - you might have RTFA. It's the MARINES who want this 10-poung-or-less-robot, not the National Guard. No one who has ever worn a uniform can possibly confuse the two.
If you can't figure out the moderations going up and down on your post, it's because this is what Slashdoters see with default settings. You sound insane. I've figured out the real thread, but the average moderator probably didn't:\
I mostly agree, however I believe much of the initial push to move processing out to the 'cloud' was because clients likely had limited hardware. Now days client hardware is rather beefy and could handle some more of the load that the server doesn't need. That said, I think a web browser that opens ports and is listening for connections on my computer would make me more than slightly wary.
I disagree. The re-centralization of computing did not happen because of a lack of client horsepower. If anything, the aggregate client power to server power ratio has skyrocketed, and never stopped since decentralizing in the first place. I really do not understand the intent of the last decade or so of re-centralization. It makes zero sense to me. The only reason I have come up with is the browser is a mostly cross platform platform. Still, the number of webapps that run on a single browser on a single platform is dumbfounding. All the good reasons I can think of for centralization, ie collaboration, data protection, etc. hardly seem to be the focus of any webapp. It's as if the reason is "because everyone else is doing it."
I'm quietly waiting for the day silly things like save, undo, or reset become mandatory interface elements again. The main theme of centralized computing, manipulating a set of data, and submitting it.. the browser can't do right. Instead of all this AJAX bull crap, why aren't we making it easier just to fill out a GD form, save it, change, print, resubmit, cancel, etc. Instead, the only common browser interface we have, back, forward, bookmark, etc, doesn't work. You have an arbitrary amount of time to fill out a form before silent failure and complete re-entry. Printing is inconsistent. There is no logging or auditing for data submission, other than someone else's server.
does a 4 map pack, *really* need to be priced for $10?
Does the next life in an arcade game REALLY need to cost $.50? Apparently so, because enough people pay it. When^H^H^H^HIf people stop buying it, it will drop to $4.99, then $2.99, watch.
Next up: I don't want to pay a premium for lakeside view, because I hate water.
Followed by: I demand my $.95 back because this soda only cost Coca Cola $.00X to produce.
, they tend to know that $10 is way overpriced for 3 maps
What should a map cost? Do you know how long it takes to make a good one? One sunny afternoon I bet, right? Jesus.
The reason they are free on PC's is because preventing piracy would be nearly impossible. This is why for the most part, you only have free third party content, done by hobbyists.
For all they know, it takes a team of 50 people a month to make a map.
WOW, that is what it would take for you to pay $10? 50 people working for a month, and you'd pay a measly $10. So what, you get to decide where the publisher's break even point is now? You decide how many units must be shipped before someone is allowed to make a profit? What the fuck makes you feel so privileged?
We pay a dollar for a few cents worth of soda, but paying $10 for something that took a handful of designers a few months is outrageous, it should be free?
. They might not have ever even played a game on a computer other than solitaire,
So you belittle people who use consoles, and feel entitled to free content for PC games.. just because.
Console players tend not to be as well versed as PC gamers in anything relating to electronics.
You know jack shit about designing game content. Mind explaining how that's related to electronics? No, don't, you're fucking retarded and you don't have an explanation.
Where do people like you come from? Have you had a lobotomy?
Slashdot Mirror
Note that this was by choice. They host backups for consumers' data (a la Carbonite.) Therefore, most of the data will be write-once, read-possibly-never.
Most are not willing to lower their expectation below read-at-least-once data. Statistically speaking, you may be right, but read-possibly-never is not something to design backup systems around. The possibility of a full recovery over the Internet is what pushes me towards using local storage, though who says you shouldn't do both?
There are various ways to accomplish that, ranging from exporting the whole node-as-a-disk over iSCSI and use RAID on the importing system
Software RAIDed iSCSI, no thanks, I'd rather have a fork in my nuts.
My Hitachi will provide me with 200,000 IOPS with 5 ms latency.
While that is just a TAD overkill for disk backup, these guy's $.11/GB is not something I'd trust my backups on.
HelloWorld.c is to the Linux kernel as this thing is to the Hitachi USP-V or EMC Symmetrix.
You nailed it.
Service Time/IOPS is less important here than trustworthy and proven controller hardware & software, and built in goodies like replication. That's why I would trust disk backups to Sun, NetApp, Hitachi, EMC, and not these people. Possibly home systems I guess, but bragging about homemade storage is a real turnoff.
You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that this company is in the storage array business. It is not. It is an online backup service.
Low-end hackjob My First SAN (TM) arrays, and backup service provided on My First SAN (TM) arrays are both equally concerning in my book. One just lets you hide that fact better, but these guys are out bragging about it. Not smart.
If an OSS advocate made this same argument as a reason to adopt Linux and OpenOffice, you'd have the OSS detractors screaming at him for not understanding business and productivity. I recall quite a flame fest over replacements for Adobe products a day or two ago.
Maybe operating system's "bloat" is more important than either of you think? Maybe it's only called bloat in the first place when someone else have it but you don't? Sort of like Accelerated desktop UI prior to Compiz. Guess who won the bloat award there...
Windows is popular despite that it is only good enough.
It's actually pretty damn good, for both businesses and home users. It's not for everyone, but it has grown quite a few organic advantages from having the largest install base. It's easy to say "If my OS was the most popular, I'd have those things too," but it's wishful thinking. Windows grew into it, and it shows. I don't think the Linux development practices lend well to the range of hardware support Windows has, even if it were as popular. Apple would have to change more than a few things as well, but they are better equipped to handle change than who/whatever represents Linux.
Plenty of better solutions have come and gone, but good enough solutions spread like wildfire because they are not actually optimized to be solutions. They are optimized for one thing: spreading.
Err.. I think I agree with you, but spreading here sounds like a bad word for 'useful to a wide audience'. I like to bash social networking crapware, but they got something right I guess.
that applies to cars too. The tata nano is essentailly that. No seat belts, most of the time people don't need those. Rear view mirrors, got by for 60 years without em. Airconditioning? Open a window. Air bags? If something goes wrong they can hurt you, even without an serious accident. Anti lock breaks, well with some practice a good driver can do better than ABS, and you aren't going fast most of the time anwyay. Radio, distracting. Cost: 2500 bucks US (or thereabouts).
The reason you can't sell them for that price in Europe/the US - the governments (including others such as Canada where I am), have decided if you want a car you must have all sorts of that stuff. Projected cost to bring them to 'western' markets ~10k. And even then they wouldn't go highway speeds.
Windows - for all of it's faults, does a lot of stuff you don't see, and don't know you use.
"Hooray for mediocrity" is not an excuse for doing crappy things the wrong way. Neither is "The Simpsons did it".
The Tata Nano car was not rejected because of consumerism or market protection, but because it is a low quality, highly dangerous piece of technology. Coupled with its cheapness and almost limitless availability, we all would've had a quagmire on the roads pretty quickly.
I think you missed his point, that first paragraph does not read like "Hooray for mediocrity" as you put it, but sarcasm. It's pretty clear he's 'for' the extra features in OS's, and probably cars too. *Sigh* This is why we have to put emoticons everywhere *Looks at floor*
To be fair to the GP, I had to stop after reading your first paragraph too. ;) /sarcasm
There's 1 major reason to choose SVN over git: better GUI clients.
I think SVN Apache/DAV integration is much more polished than git's. Things like VisualSVN give you out the box Active Directory integration, with a management interface to boot.
Think I'm being over-dramatic? Not really, since at some point, nVidia will decide it's no longer worth their time and effort to maintain the driver for it, and the last driver they release will eventually suffer bitrot against the Linux kernel. Being closed source, eventually there's a chance that it cannot be easily patched because there are changes required in the binary blob parts.It's not their fault Linux isn't stable for more than a year or so. Other OSs deal just fine with older drivers when they want to. Open Source is not an excuse for unstable APIs.
Macs are expensive to operate. They cost a lot to purchase (at least $700) and a lot of maintain (annual OS upgrades). The forced tieins to Apple-made peripherals also increase ownership costs. You may disagree with that opinion,.
They've been released every _two_ years since 2003.
Fuck your opinion, name a forced Mac "tie in".
Yeah well I get tired of the Apple zealots trying to sell me on why Apple is better
Trolls attract
When we went to Intel hardware, we would have needed a $250k Sun machine and $250k SAN storage to perform comparably to a $50k Intel machine including internal storage.
Thank you for posting some real facts about Sun hardware, performance, maintenance, and support. The Sun zealotry around here needs a balanced perspective.
Yah, fair and balanced, or it supports what you want to believe?
Then there's Java. Drains quite a bit of cash without making enough money and Oracle as a company has the wrong temperment to maintain and improve a programming language anyway. Start charging enough to make money on Java and Java dies. Nor does having Java particularly complement Oracle's product line.
http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/jrockit/index.html
This page is getting funnier by the minute. There are people who's last experience with either company is from ten years ago, people who think either company is 'not big enough for X', and people who are only familiar with one facet (if any) of the companies businesses.
Do you understand that devloping *in* Java is not the same as developing Java?
Whether Sun made a significant amount of money directly from Java or not it did not prevent them from improving it. I dare you to prove otherwise.
So what is your point, Sun was not improving Java, Oracle will not improve Java, or Oracle does not make money off improving Java?
What does Sun not making money directly from Java have to do with Java development stagnating given the above?
Nice try.
Sun sucks. Their overpriced hardware got eclipsed by Pentium 4 PCs which could do the same work for 1/10th the price. In the end, the only advantage Sun platforms offer over PCs is the capability to use massive amounts of RAM (64G, 128G, and beyond). But make no mistake about it, Sun got eclipsed by Intel. Moore's law has a harsh penalty for those who don't keep up.
Coming from someone who couldn't tell you the difference between an Intel desktop processor and their Xeon line to save their life, much less know what RAS features SPARCs have over anything Intel has.
Don't forget massive amounts of CPU's, expansion cards, dynamic reconfiguration, partitioning, etc, etc.
Midrange computing is all a lie I guess, someone go tell IBM, HP and Fujistu.
Three, Java development stagnates. Does new Java development make any money at all for Sun right now? I don't think so. I think supporting the existing codebase is whats been bring money in.
Is this a joke? Of course Sun makes some money off Java related technologies, they sure as hell are constantly improving it, and Oracle made truckloads more money off Java long before the acquisition.
Sure, when you get to the point of scaling up the hardware that's going to make a difference. But again, I have to ask how many projects today will ever need to scale beyond trivial levels of space, power and cooling? After all, with modern computing power, you can run some pretty serious systems out of a small cupboard in the corner of your office, off a standard power supply, without so much as installing air-con.
Businesses grow (hopefully), and the amount of data, processing & reporting increases with that. You honestly don't have to be very large to outgrow closet computing. The next step is outgrowing your colo cage, and the next step, well, you've hopefully figured out the importance of space/heat/computing efficiency by then because it's all YOUR problem now.
No, it's not, and preserving this kind of access is network neutrality's raison d'être. The nightmare scenario is a provider using its clout to hamper access to a company that happens to compete with another line of the provider's business. It is completely unacceptable. Neither Apple nor AT&T has the moral or legal right to use control over one product line to subdue a competitor in another.
Yah, if they want to pull that kind of crap off, they should build their own app store.
They already are porting to Linux.
*They* being the third party that assumes the risk of the port not covering licensing/porting costs. Who knows, maybe Internet distribution would have saved Loki? I'm thinking... the Linux market is still not there yet.
The mouse is a superior controller for anything that involves aiming (FPS) or pointing (RTS)
I disagree with the FPS part. A joystick is superior for driving and flying, while rifles (and guns in most games) with pinpoint accuracy and instant 360's are GD ridiculous for casual online play. How long did it take for online console gaming to supplant online PC gaming? Blink of the eye. There are of course console games that inherit the ridiculous aiming mechanics from console, *ahem* CoD... In the long run, I think strategy and depth will win out over "twitchiness," but there is some room for that.
Problem is that hyper accurate pointing has too heavily influenced PC gameplay mechanics, even the RTS genre where I generally do agree with you.
If one of the major game publishers (EA or Valve?) were to start selling Bluetooth-enabled motion sensor style controllers, and supporting them on multiple titles, we really could see PC gaming become superior to console gaming in all categories (except price, of course).
PC's had an awesome range of common gaming peripherals, not very long ago, and tons of good games that used them. Alien flight sims with twisty joysticks, wheels and sticks with feedback control (like arcade cabinets!), foot pedals, throttles, vibrating gamepads with a bazillion programmable buttons, etc. What happened? 3D McDeathmatch 7.0 and Alien McRTS 4.0 happened.
BTW - absolutely hilarious that you would look to EA and Valve for salvation. Good or bad, thank them for what you have today. PC gaming really did die. I don't mean it's horrible, just that.. if you knew it well the last couple decades *sob*, you'd cry too.
How is percentage of GDP the relevant measure here?
We have more to defend, and a larger stake in global politics/stability?
Bigger stick == better?
Just guessing.
I don't see how spending FOO * Scary Nation Defense Budget BAR makes any sense. What if there are several Scary Nations and Bad Countries?
I think military spending should be greater than the combination of all 'OTHER' country's military spending, but within your means. OTHER being anyone we don't trust right now. Are we spending within our means? ~5%, I guess so. Who is OTHER now? Do you trust them enough to cut back?
Sounds good, who are the unlucky fucks we're landing on?
Further than I would want to throw myself if we're talking about into a room with a lot of angry men with guns. Also, I'm not in the same shape a marine would be, I'd expect a marine would be able to throw a 10lb weight further. The article specifically mentions "can see around corners inside buildings, sewers, drainpipes, caves, courtyards" so corners, not distances, and it sounds kind of like they're looking into remote controlled after being thrown.
Yet another rash judgement from someone didn't even RTFA, let alone knows the full story. But lets not let trivial details like facts we don't know stand in the way of our statement that fully half our military budget is completely dispensable.
(For the record, I'm a liberal and also dislike the amount we spend on the military. It's not that I'm biased in favor of dumping all our money on the military, you're just making us look dumb.)
Mmmmm-kay. Yeah, you sound like a combat veteran who knows what he's talking about. NOT!!
What you actually sound like, is a middle aged has-been who watches to much television and assumes that Hollywood knows combat.
Challenge: Define "shelter" and "cover". Watch a dozen or even a gross of Hollywood productions. Watch carefully for every instance in which the concepts are accurately conveyed, and realistically used.
BTW - you might have RTFA. It's the MARINES who want this 10-poung-or-less-robot, not the National Guard. No one who has ever worn a uniform can possibly confuse the two.
If you can't figure out the moderations going up and down on your post, it's because this is what Slashdoters see with default settings. You sound insane. :\
I've figured out the real thread, but the average moderator probably didn't
Slashdot, wtf.
I mostly agree, however I believe much of the initial push to move processing out to the 'cloud' was because clients likely had limited hardware. Now days client hardware is rather beefy and could handle some more of the load that the server doesn't need. That said, I think a web browser that opens ports and is listening for connections on my computer would make me more than slightly wary.
I disagree. The re-centralization of computing did not happen because of a lack of client horsepower. If anything, the aggregate client power to server power ratio has skyrocketed, and never stopped since decentralizing in the first place. I really do not understand the intent of the last decade or so of re-centralization. It makes zero sense to me. The only reason I have come up with is the browser is a mostly cross platform platform. Still, the number of webapps that run on a single browser on a single platform is dumbfounding. All the good reasons I can think of for centralization, ie collaboration, data protection, etc. hardly seem to be the focus of any webapp. It's as if the reason is "because everyone else is doing it."
I'm quietly waiting for the day silly things like save, undo, or reset become mandatory interface elements again. The main theme of centralized computing, manipulating a set of data, and submitting it.. the browser can't do right. Instead of all this AJAX bull crap, why aren't we making it easier just to fill out a GD form, save it, change, print, resubmit, cancel, etc. Instead, the only common browser interface we have, back, forward, bookmark, etc, doesn't work. You have an arbitrary amount of time to fill out a form before silent failure and complete re-entry. Printing is inconsistent. There is no logging or auditing for data submission, other than someone else's server.
Browsers are toys :\
Wait, there were computers before the Internet??!1
does a 4 map pack, *really* need to be priced for $10?
Does the next life in an arcade game REALLY need to cost $.50?
Apparently so, because enough people pay it.
When^H^H^H^HIf people stop buying it, it will drop to $4.99, then $2.99, watch.
Next up:
I don't want to pay a premium for lakeside view, because I hate water.
Followed by:
I demand my $.95 back because this soda only cost Coca Cola $.00X to produce.
, they tend to know that $10 is way overpriced for 3 maps
What should a map cost? Do you know how long it takes to make a good one? One sunny afternoon I bet, right? Jesus.
The reason they are free on PC's is because preventing piracy would be nearly impossible. This is why for the most part, you only have free third party content, done by hobbyists.
For all they know, it takes a team of 50 people a month to make a map.
WOW, that is what it would take for you to pay $10? 50 people working for a month, and you'd pay a measly $10. So what, you get to decide where the publisher's break even point is now? You decide how many units must be shipped before someone is allowed to make a profit? What the fuck makes you feel so privileged?
We pay a dollar for a few cents worth of soda, but paying $10 for something that took a handful of designers a few months is outrageous, it should be free?
. They might not have ever even played a game on a computer other than solitaire,
So you belittle people who use consoles, and feel entitled to free content for PC games.. just because.
Console players tend not to be as well versed as PC gamers in anything relating to electronics.
You know jack shit about designing game content. Mind explaining how that's related to electronics? No, don't, you're fucking retarded and you don't have an explanation.
Where do people like you come from? Have you had a lobotomy?