Oh for crying out loud. Read the rest of the thread. Again, you're hung up on the whole biological nature of the discussion. Computers continue to exist because they reproduce.
Granted, humans are reproducing them, but they do reproduce. They change and evolve based on the conditions under which they exist. We want faster cpus, so the next generation has faster cpus. Apple used USB, worked well there, so PC's starting equipping USB. Intel had MMX, so AMD was inclined to copy, etc.
I never said this was based on biology. The concept of natural selection and its ties into evolution do apply here.
Caveat. If you have consultants available that are skilled with open source, get a firewall from them so you don't have to deal with Watchguard licensing. A FreeBSD based firewall (m0n0wall or pfsense?) with solid rulesets, and even throw in intrusion detection and stateful inspection...you can get those free of even the Wachguard restrictions. m0n0wall and it's fork, pfsense, have nice web interfaces and I believe you may even be able to use something like fwbuilder to manage them, but the web interface is pretty robust for most uses. I think the only time it would get messy is if you needed mangling rules, but if you needed that, you WOULDN'T be asking about server 2006 and norton mcafee pseudo-wannabe security suite.:P
Or rather, 1/10 that price on hardware, and the rest on skilled maintenance and installation.
Watchguard Fireboxes are good, based on linux (unfortunately requiring windows to manage, or wine perhaps?), and will run $1500. Use the rest to pay someone will a clue to keep it up to date with good rules and security policies.
Just thought I'd point one last thing out before leaving/. for the day.
The above statement I just made, "unless God himself reveals himself to us", the uniquivacal end of the argument so to speak, which we would immediately refute...
The very basis of Christianity is that God himself DID reveal himself, and came to us as the form of man (presuming that God is NOT man, we have no idea what God is...), and we, as predicted, refuted the proof.
God, real or not, would never be accepted as proof and truth. This argument is as pointless as pointless gets. You can prove evolution, man will never be abl to prove intelligent design, regarless of the blatentness of hte evidence. Sad part is, men have died horrible deaths for centuries trying to prove one side of that argument.:(
I agree with you. I'm a christian, and the ID argument is about whether or not there's someone up the foodchain from us that created biological life as we know it. Be it God as we read and "understand" it, or something else entirely. This is something that unless God himself reveals himself to us (which, btw we would all refute immediately as fake...amazing that), will never be answered. As you say, flame on.
ID fills a gap of logic to me right now, aside from faith issues.
Going back to my computer example (it's not biological, I know, but work with me...)
Okay, we mutate, evolve, change, as our environment and general living coniditions demand it. Fine.
We have proof that this is occuring, but what we lack proof of is how it began. Did it start as a bunch of ooze with living cells? How did those cells come into being. Was there an intelligent maker of those cells, or just dumb luck? Also, I know we have a text-book definition of life, but if the major equations of our existence, the laws of conservation of matter/energy, where does the ability to be alive fall into it.
There's no proof of ID, but from where I stand, there's one VERY large proof of ID. Life. Take life out of the equation, and you're right, but until we hit a point where life can be defined, quantified, added, subtracted, etc, and not really sure I can agree with you. My gut on the matter is that life required intelligence. The sad part of it is, if I'm right on that count, the the origination argument starts all over. If it took intelligent design to create life itself, then how did the creator of life come into being?
methinks we all tear this apart a bit too much. We're all made up of something, action, reaction, etc. Life, objects, surroundings, react, adapt, adjust and change based on what it is subjected to. Nitpicking my wording doesnt change the point.
The desktop computer I have today has evolved over the last 30+ years. Heck, we could go back decades or even centuries beyond that depending upon what you call a "computer". What one might consider a computer 100 years ago most certainly bears no resembelence to what we have today. This process of evolving was more or less self-contained.
Now, I could go either way in the argument from here that Charles Babbage didn't create the computer knowing that things would evolve and change and grow, and didn't write a big elaborate story explaining how things would change and grow, but at the same time those evolutions required intelligent design.
I believe the point that the gp was trying to make was that we're teaching science, or rather the fact that things HAVE changed, discuss why they have changed, and perhaps even what dictated those changes. When we tech computer science, we may go into a brief history lesson, but we generally wouldn't dwell on the life and times of Charles Babbage. We also wouldn't start rambling on about how Mr. Babbage is still watching today and shaping the computer industry. A seperation of church and state here is appropriate. That still doesn't mean that intelligent design and evolution are mutually exclusive, but rather it's the wrong material in the wrong classroom.
Oh, and Mr. Troll, indoctrination is not so. Once you hit 18, you should begin to think for yourself. Long before that in fact. The fact that society as a whole tends to be one large flock of sheep that is herded around as such does not mean that your or I should be so. Sure, I was raised christian. I strayed away. I learned to think for myself, had the very foundations of what I believed torn apart due to the fact that science contradicts the story-book biblical teaching of my childhood.
I came back to it as a personal choice and a matter of faith. If you are insinuating that we as adults are not capable of making choices beyond what we have force-fed to us as children, well I would suggest you're posting on the wrong boards.
Yeah, I'm aware of the GP2X, however there's no SDK for it. There's a presumption that you already know how to code for the linux OS.
I'm thinking more of a situation where you develeop an sdk and a hardware platform, and license each out, but not to one vendor but multiple, thus there's not need to lock everything down. Make a commodity gaming platform so to speak.
Just a thought anyway. Marketing does become an issue. So you would need investment capital just for that.
I'd love to see the Dreamcast make a comeback. Sure, the hardware is last-gen (or soon to be anyway), but there was still some excellent work done for the system.
This also bring up a side-note I've been wondering about for a few weeks now. Microsoft got away with bundling a pc as a game console, sold at a loss, and provided an sdk (which I've never seen) to developers, and developers had to pay for the rights to publish for the console. Seriously speaking, what kinds of barriers are there to entry for an open source sdk, and license out manufacturing rights, ie, instead of a single console manufacturer and huge licensing entity, develop a hardware platform design, license out the design, and leave the sdk open? Is it really impossible to compete? If you're giving away the SDK to developers, do they have any motivation to NOT do a port to your platform?
I was able to scrounge a little information last time lumenlabs made/.
That said, I wanted to wait a bit because the hiccups in trying to do this project with an LCD that could support 720p or 1080i were large enough for me to pass on it (not to mention I didn't know where to play the thing in the room I'd use it...plus heat generated by it was a concern)
Has any progress been made in this department? Last I knew was that there were problems with the picture getting blurry around the edges, hot spots, and general clarity issues.
I'm serious. I've been doing this day in and day out for months now. The whole thing comes out costing about 1/4 of what a commercial solution is, the quality is better, and you can do insanely cool things with it.:)
It's just more typing than I'm willing to do right this second. The name of my company is oss|solutions.
I didn't see that one, but did they use peanut butter? I'm not just being semantical here either. I think it is fair to say that peanut butter has a higher density and higher weight by volume, ergo toast with peanut butter may very well always fall "buttered side down".;D
Will a cat with peanut butter spread across its back REALLY hover due to the laws governing that a cat will always land on its feet and peanut butter will always hit the floor?
Laugh if you want, but I've found that the quality of X-Play's reviews has been pretty solid. They're tied to a lousy TV network, but they post all of their reviews at the website. Good stuff.
But the only way you could get that kind of power is with a bolt of lightning! Unfortunately, one never knows where or when a bolt of lightning might strike.:\
Given that the current system could be described as a "bubble sort".
That is, the cheaters and glitchers bubble to the top, the people looking for a fair and fun game drop to the bottom and eventually give up and stop playing.:\
You forgot something. While most free as in speech, OSX is not free as in beer. Add that to your tally. It matters. True, you could use Linux, but for a fair comparison you have to include the OS. So far as I'm aware you don't get a price break for buying a Mac without OSX.
Actually, Sony does have an online system, it's just bare-bones by comparison to XBox Live. It's called DNAS (not to be confused with DNS). Every game that goes online on the PS2 goes through a set of basic DNAS tests, then you're allowed online.
I preferred this over the Live method because your online play time was free, and it gave more freedom to the developers. What I've found now, however, is that the developers really don't WANT that freedom, because now they have to develop network game backends, whereas in a Live-type environment you plug into an existing API and just worry about coding the game.
The end result however is that the end user gets screwed into paying $x/mo in order to play online. I play VERY sporatically, so I'd wind up paying $15/1 game session of football online if I only get to play once per month. Far too expensive for my tastes.:\
This little tidbit is my favorite in that article:
"Xbox.com: Tell me another cool thing about the guts.
JR: Well, we want to discourage hackers, so this time around we didn't put any screws on the outside of the box and have multiple tamper evident labels. So with Xbox 360 we'll be able to tell if they've cracked the case.
Xbox.com: And of course, just like the original Xbox, cracking the case immediately voids your warranty.
The current orbit is 340km. It is decaying at a rate of ~1km/day. If it drops below 300km, it is going to come down much faster, a matter of days.
So they have 40 days + a few days to get this straight, however I suspect that the raising of the orbit above 300km if it drops below that will get to be very difficult.
That said, if everything fails, it'll come down just after of December 1, 2005. Early holiday season fireworks.:\
Slashdot Mirror
By chance is it made of black snakeskin, cover your head, and keep you cool despite looking really, well hot?
Oh for crying out loud. Read the rest of the thread. Again, you're hung up on the whole biological nature of the discussion. Computers continue to exist because they reproduce.
Granted, humans are reproducing them, but they do reproduce. They change and evolve based on the conditions under which they exist. We want faster cpus, so the next generation has faster cpus. Apple used USB, worked well there, so PC's starting equipping USB. Intel had MMX, so AMD was inclined to copy, etc.
I never said this was based on biology. The concept of natural selection and its ties into evolution do apply here.
Caveat. If you have consultants available that are skilled with open source, get a firewall from them so you don't have to deal with Watchguard licensing. A FreeBSD based firewall (m0n0wall or pfsense?) with solid rulesets, and even throw in intrusion detection and stateful inspection...you can get those free of even the Wachguard restrictions. m0n0wall and it's fork, pfsense, have nice web interfaces and I believe you may even be able to use something like fwbuilder to manage them, but the web interface is pretty robust for most uses. I think the only time it would get messy is if you needed mangling rules, but if you needed that, you WOULDN'T be asking about server 2006 and norton mcafee pseudo-wannabe security suite. :P
Or rather, 1/10 that price on hardware, and the rest on skilled maintenance and installation.
Watchguard Fireboxes are good, based on linux (unfortunately requiring windows to manage, or wine perhaps?), and will run $1500. Use the rest to pay someone will a clue to keep it up to date with good rules and security policies.
Just thought I'd point one last thing out before leaving /. for the day.
:(
The above statement I just made, "unless God himself reveals himself to us", the uniquivacal end of the argument so to speak, which we would immediately refute...
The very basis of Christianity is that God himself DID reveal himself, and came to us as the form of man (presuming that God is NOT man, we have no idea what God is...), and we, as predicted, refuted the proof.
God, real or not, would never be accepted as proof and truth. This argument is as pointless as pointless gets. You can prove evolution, man will never be abl to prove intelligent design, regarless of the blatentness of hte evidence. Sad part is, men have died horrible deaths for centuries trying to prove one side of that argument.
I agree with you. I'm a christian, and the ID argument is about whether or not there's someone up the foodchain from us that created biological life as we know it. Be it God as we read and "understand" it, or something else entirely. This is something that unless God himself reveals himself to us (which, btw we would all refute immediately as fake...amazing that), will never be answered. As you say, flame on.
ID fills a gap of logic to me right now, aside from faith issues.
Going back to my computer example (it's not biological, I know, but work with me...)
Okay, we mutate, evolve, change, as our environment and general living coniditions demand it. Fine.
We have proof that this is occuring, but what we lack proof of is how it began. Did it start as a bunch of ooze with living cells? How did those cells come into being. Was there an intelligent maker of those cells, or just dumb luck? Also, I know we have a text-book definition of life, but if the major equations of our existence, the laws of conservation of matter/energy, where does the ability to be alive fall into it.
There's no proof of ID, but from where I stand, there's one VERY large proof of ID. Life. Take life out of the equation, and you're right, but until we hit a point where life can be defined, quantified, added, subtracted, etc, and not really sure I can agree with you. My gut on the matter is that life required intelligence. The sad part of it is, if I'm right on that count, the the origination argument starts all over. If it took intelligent design to create life itself, then how did the creator of life come into being?
Now where did I put that bottle of absynthe?
asexual, sexual, biological, binary....
methinks we all tear this apart a bit too much. We're all made up of something, action, reaction, etc. Life, objects, surroundings, react, adapt, adjust and change based on what it is subjected to. Nitpicking my wording doesnt change the point.
Just so we're clear here....
:\
The desktop computer I have today has evolved over the last 30+ years. Heck, we could go back decades or even centuries beyond that depending upon what you call a "computer". What one might consider a computer 100 years ago most certainly bears no resembelence to what we have today. This process of evolving was more or less self-contained.
Now, I could go either way in the argument from here that Charles Babbage didn't create the computer knowing that things would evolve and change and grow, and didn't write a big elaborate story explaining how things would change and grow, but at the same time those evolutions required intelligent design.
I believe the point that the gp was trying to make was that we're teaching science, or rather the fact that things HAVE changed, discuss why they have changed, and perhaps even what dictated those changes. When we tech computer science, we may go into a brief history lesson, but we generally wouldn't dwell on the life and times of Charles Babbage. We also wouldn't start rambling on about how Mr. Babbage is still watching today and shaping the computer industry. A seperation of church and state here is appropriate. That still doesn't mean that intelligent design and evolution are mutually exclusive, but rather it's the wrong material in the wrong classroom.
Oh, and Mr. Troll, indoctrination is not so. Once you hit 18, you should begin to think for yourself. Long before that in fact. The fact that society as a whole tends to be one large flock of sheep that is herded around as such does not mean that your or I should be so. Sure, I was raised christian. I strayed away. I learned to think for myself, had the very foundations of what I believed torn apart due to the fact that science contradicts the story-book biblical teaching of my childhood.
I came back to it as a personal choice and a matter of faith. If you are insinuating that we as adults are not capable of making choices beyond what we have force-fed to us as children, well I would suggest you're posting on the wrong boards.
Or maybe not, this IS slashdot after all.
King Kong is flopping like a pancake
:)
What he means to say is that it's well done on both sides, and is turning nicely (as in profit).
Yeah, I'm aware of the GP2X, however there's no SDK for it. There's a presumption that you already know how to code for the linux OS.
I'm thinking more of a situation where you develeop an sdk and a hardware platform, and license each out, but not to one vendor but multiple, thus there's not need to lock everything down. Make a commodity gaming platform so to speak.
Just a thought anyway. Marketing does become an issue. So you would need investment capital just for that.
I'd love to see the Dreamcast make a comeback. Sure, the hardware is last-gen (or soon to be anyway), but there was still some excellent work done for the system.
This also bring up a side-note I've been wondering about for a few weeks now. Microsoft got away with bundling a pc as a game console, sold at a loss, and provided an sdk (which I've never seen) to developers, and developers had to pay for the rights to publish for the console. Seriously speaking, what kinds of barriers are there to entry for an open source sdk, and license out manufacturing rights, ie, instead of a single console manufacturer and huge licensing entity, develop a hardware platform design, license out the design, and leave the sdk open? Is it really impossible to compete? If you're giving away the SDK to developers, do they have any motivation to NOT do a port to your platform?
I was able to scrounge a little information last time lumenlabs made /.
That said, I wanted to wait a bit because the hiccups in trying to do this project with an LCD that could support 720p or 1080i were large enough for me to pass on it (not to mention I didn't know where to play the thing in the room I'd use it...plus heat generated by it was a concern)
Has any progress been made in this department? Last I knew was that there were problems with the picture getting blurry around the edges, hot spots, and general clarity issues.
I'm serious. I've been doing this day in and day out for months now. The whole thing comes out costing about 1/4 of what a commercial solution is, the quality is better, and you can do insanely cool things with it. :)
It's just more typing than I'm willing to do right this second. The name of my company is oss|solutions.
I didn't see that one, but did they use peanut butter? I'm not just being semantical here either. I think it is fair to say that peanut butter has a higher density and higher weight by volume, ergo toast with peanut butter may very well always fall "buttered side down". ;D
Will a cat with peanut butter spread across its back REALLY hover due to the laws governing that a cat will always land on its feet and peanut butter will always hit the floor?
How marketable would flying cats be?
Laugh if you want, but I've found that the quality of X-Play's reviews has been pretty solid. They're tied to a lousy TV network, but they post all of their reviews at the website. Good stuff.
But the only way you could get that kind of power is with a bolt of lightning! Unfortunately, one never knows where or when a bolt of lightning might strike. :\
Given that the current system could be described as a "bubble sort".
:\
That is, the cheaters and glitchers bubble to the top, the people looking for a fair and fun game drop to the bottom and eventually give up and stop playing.
You forgot something. While most free as in speech, OSX is not free as in beer. Add that to your tally. It matters. True, you could use Linux, but for a fair comparison you have to include the OS. So far as I'm aware you don't get a price break for buying a Mac without OSX.
Actually, Sony does have an online system, it's just bare-bones by comparison to XBox Live. It's called DNAS (not to be confused with DNS). Every game that goes online on the PS2 goes through a set of basic DNAS tests, then you're allowed online.
:\
I preferred this over the Live method because your online play time was free, and it gave more freedom to the developers. What I've found now, however, is that the developers really don't WANT that freedom, because now they have to develop network game backends, whereas in a Live-type environment you plug into an existing API and just worry about coding the game.
The end result however is that the end user gets screwed into paying $x/mo in order to play online. I play VERY sporatically, so I'd wind up paying $15/1 game session of football online if I only get to play once per month. Far too expensive for my tastes.
This little tidbit is my favorite in that article:
"Xbox.com: Tell me another cool thing about the guts.
JR: Well, we want to discourage hackers, so this time around we didn't put any screws on the outside of the box and have multiple tamper evident labels. So with Xbox 360 we'll be able to tell if they've cracked the case.
Xbox.com: And of course, just like the original Xbox, cracking the case immediately voids your warranty.
JR: Of course."
It's called iPhoto.
Affect the things you can, John. --Scorpy
Correction. 340km was 6 days ago, so it would come down almost exactly on December 1.
No...
:\
The current orbit is 340km. It is decaying at a rate of ~1km/day. If it drops below 300km, it is going to come down much faster, a matter of days.
So they have 40 days + a few days to get this straight, however I suspect that the raising of the orbit above 300km if it drops below that will get to be very difficult.
That said, if everything fails, it'll come down just after of December 1, 2005. Early holiday season fireworks.