There will always be a need for more speed, and for more space. Scientists will never be able to simulate the universe, since the computer would need to be greater than that which it represents. Certainly some parts, but not it all down to every detail. If computers were capable of movie quality real time rendering, then there is still going to be room for improving AI tremendously, along with complex physics engines, and much more. We will always find more ways to burn clock cycles for more realism. If you are stuck for ways to burn your CPU then just ask me. I'll give you a hint on something new you can add to your game to improve realism and run slower.
As for disk space, similar argument applies. The more space we have the more we will fill. We will have increasingly better quality films, higher framerates, etc, up until the point where we are recording details from many different angles with miniature cameras, and keeping the data nicely formatted and referenced for database use. Our needs will scale with the technology. We are always hoping for just a little more, and after that we see the next stone to hop to.
So that I'm not completely critical, the home user will find little reason to upgrade, as indeed they already do. But I'd say this has always been the case. Average Joe likes to get the fastest PC and the best DVD player, but he only wants to upgrade every so many years. Whereas scientists, gamers, hobbyists, etc, like to update regularly to take advantage of new advances that they can use immediately. So I'd say the cycle will continue much the same.
Just a few facts to kill the humor in your post (please forgive me!). We weren't locked in. There were only 400 or so of us. The walls weren't very bouncy (we tended to smack into them). And we also wanted to make off with the GeForce FX:) Posters turned out to be the most successful targets to make off with.
I think this is part of the idea behind nVidia's new Cg. It allows developers to easily scale their games to take advantage of the power of new cards not yet developed.
I could easily be mistaken though, my understanding of Cg is very, very rudimentry.
I was there and saw the demo, and the fairy model was very impressive for computer graphics. The Ogre also.
However, as for REAL scenes, they also ran the game Stalker with the geforce FX. It looked VERY nice, ran slightly jerky at some parts - something gamers would shudder at - but on the whole very impressive speed for the detail available. Of course, not as realistic as the fairy model, but still very nice.
So look at the screenshots for that game and imagine it running at perhaps 40-60 fps at a guess, and thats what we saw there. The nVidia guy there said he tried it with a Geforce 4 MX 200 and it ran at around 2-3 fps. Still, that's an MX so not much surprise there.
Yes, you are right. We need more inane advertisements of these Linux success stories!
Must go now, I have about 5 separate stories of different companies/organisations running Linux to be submitted.
I think we see too many of these server switches. When its a company switching to a desktop, that is big news...but every server switch is just one story in a swirling pool. I guess this one was posted though because it is the charity organisation Good Samaritans rather than some small unknown enterprise.
I don't remember reading a "you must believe in the philosophy of the GNU/Linux community to be considered a memeber of the Slashdot community" when I signed up. Even though I do believe in the philosophy, not everyone here does - nor do they have to.
Slashdot caters its news to the geek masses, typically people of our opinions - but I see no reason why this news should be prohibited. This is important news for some/many slashdot readers, including myself, for where the only option for now has been nVidia. Now we have more of a choice.
I agree that ATI should have released the drivers opensource, but that does not exclude it for being news that is important to many slashdot readers.
What cpu, nvidia card and motherboard do you have? There was some problem with certain athlon chips and motherboards of a certain type or something. There was an infamous lockup which is probably what you experienced.
It could be fixed by adding mem=nopentium to your kernel options when it boots (or put it in lilo.conf or grub/menu.lst).
This problem was also in Win2000 I think, but there was an official patch.
It helps businesses run by slashdot readers find information for showing to clients to remove their fears of using opensource.
It also firmly establishes in the minds of the slashdot readers that it is true that opensource is cheaper - and keeps showing us over time that this is still the case. Markets change, and it is good to see how the economics of opensource are (not) changing.
It also gives ammunition for workers trying to convince their boss to use an open source technology.
There are probably other advantages too that I have not considerd, but these are some of the reasons why I like reading them.
Bayesian filters base their rules on your own personal spam folder and normal folder. So the spammer's filter will react differently to everyone else's, meaning that they will find it impossible to stay one step ahead of everyone else.
Of course, it passing through their own filter will be a helpful guaruntee that it will pass through some filters - the problem is with a bayesian filter it is thought that spammers will only be able to say "Click here" - anything more will be detecting. See the slashdot article I linked to anyway for more details, I'm only repeating what I've read elsewhere.
When the new Mozilla spam filter matures, and other e-mail clients begin to implement efficient spam filters, I think this will become unimportant.
Previously bayesian spam filtering was demonstrated on slashdot to be very effective. Once this becomes commonplace, and seamless, no extra configuration required on the users behalf, hopefully we will see the end of spam.
However, combined with whitelists this could be quite useful. Bayesian filters to filter out spam, except for whitelisted spam. Eg mailing lists of advertisements you sign up to being whitelisted could be effectively. I suppose that when you sign up to a mailing list that would normally be recognised as spam, when it sends a confirmation e-mail your client could recognise it and ask if you want to add it to your whitelist.
Anyway, with the introduction of bayesian filters into an ordinary client means that the future of e-mail may not necessarily have to be so bleak.
It appears that Windows 2000 have mainstream support expired 31 March 2005, and finally extended support in 31 March 2007.
This seems to me longer than the time for which Windows 98 was allocated, but not for server releases. I heard or read somewhere that the lifecycle had been extended, but I could be mistaken. Either way, this gives it another 2-4 years of usage. I'm not sure whether thats useful or not.
Product Lifecycles
This was written about on newsforge a few weeks ago. It was a link to the thoughts of Joe Wagner who wrote a rather agitating article about how Windows must be more secure than Linux, because Linux had not obtained this certification, and potentially could not possibly attain it.
It was followed by a short lived, but lengthy discussion with regular readers of worldtechtribune (including the editor-in-chief apparently) and some other newsforge readers.
You may or may not find some interesting thoughts, or just more (mis)information.
I'd like to respond, but I really don't have the heart for it. I really have been in so many of these conversations that I've lost the zeal I used to have. People aren't going to change their minds, and I certainly won't until something new is presented, why should I? I understand evolution (as much as a lay person can), so I know what I need to see to change my mind.
I do agree with your analogy of truth - that is much like our journey in life. Or for some of us anyway, we pursue truth as a great treasure, getting closer but knowing that it will never be fully realised. One of the beauties of life really, that the joy of learning never ends.
Around 400 years ago I used to believe in a flat earth. But then, around my 513th birthday (I can't remember exactly, the years tend to blur after a while) I met a delightful man named Galileo. He was very smart, and funny too.
He was kind enough to show me all his research into the planetary orbits. He had some very convincing arguments and undeniable evidence. After spending a week or so with him (not trying to overstay my welcome though - but he just loved to explain his ideas to others) I had no choice to agree with him but that I'd been wrong - and the earth was a sphere - and that the earth revolved around the sun.
Then another man around 350 years later (I was about 870 at that time) another man named Charles Darwin invited me over. He was another smart man, but his mind seemed a bit clouded. He showed me his theory, that life had arisen through change passed on to children over millions of years. I had trouble taking him seriously, because he didn't have any evidence. I even read his book, which sounded like an interesting idea, but also acknowledged that there was no evidence. However, he remained hopeful that the evidence would show in good time. I decided that the wisest course of action was to wait and see.
Unfortunately, all the children of the Short Lived found his ideas quite desireable, as it removed responsibility from them. Being a short lived race, they loved the freedom and lack of moral responsibility. So his ideas spread like wildfire before there was any evidence. Unfortunately, now, around 150 years later there is still no evidence, but his ideas are being taught everywhere.
It matters little. I have lived around a 1000 years, and I know that the ideas of the Short Lived are fickle and change like the wind. What is popular today will be despised tomorrow. The Short Lived never learn from their mistakes, and in this case it will be a blessing for them to turn from these fairy tales that Charles Darwin could not prove to something with some evidence.
--
Try not to throw insults into your arguments. I do not believe evolution is the best fit (why do you group it as darwinianism vs creationism rather than evolution vs creationism?). I don't think it requires fewer assumptions, that is something that would have to be argued for and demonstrated - but I simply don't have the time, esp. considering all other discussions I've had about the subject. Always a waste of time. Unless there's a few lurkers I've helped to understand the issue properly.
Could we be serious for a moment... you don't know how many times I have engaged in a discussion and beat my head against a wall because they don't understand creationism. And I'm being deadly serious with what I say. There are certain concepts that they consider true, and so they try and understand the creatinist argument within that context - and fail because of that to see what I'm saying.
When I argue against evolution I can imagine what replies I would give to my arguments if I believed there were no God, and that all life arose through chance mutations. It is probably easier for the creationist to do this, since they had the advantage of being brought up in an evolutionist society - so that view is saturated everywhere. Creationism is a foreign view to our society at large, and therefore little understood.
I don't know if you are going to be any different. There is more to learn than just a link can provide, or a message I write. I have learned this from discussions online. For you to understand, you actually have to open your mind and say for a moment "what if there was a God? (or if you already believe there is) What if the earth is really only 6,000 years old? How then would I explain ?" Then perhaps you will begin to understand what arguments are futile circles, and what issues are the crux of the debate.
I know if I provide a link (or am pretty certain anyway) that you will read, and your mind will begin to come up with a thousand and one reasons why the thing you just read is irrelevant, false, or poor logic. Then you will post excerpts here, and I will have to explain to you step by step why the point they were making was actually relevant, and wasn't as idiotic as you first thought.
However, if you think you are a different breed to those I have encountered before, then I would be willing to send you some links - but my time is more precious than it once was, and I have no interest in running around in circles again. I could provide you with some links on the basis that you read them for your own knowledge, so that you can better understand our argument - but not so that I can begin a lengthy debate with you. I would be happy to clarify any points of confusion and help you understand our position, but not debate for hours via slashdot or e-mail.
And please don't refer to it as "[my] kind of creationism" - my views are the same as the prominent creation scientists, and where I differ in opinion from them I redirect you to their superior knowledge, because I am no authority.
You more than adequately proved my point. And you have even further embedded in my mind the fact that everyone I have argued with so far does not understand the creationist argument.
Come back when you at least understand our position.
Though we must not forget that natural selection does occur.
Though I imagine most evolutionists will have trouble understanding how natural selection can be true while evolution (change from species to species) cannot be.
Let them wonder. I have spent too long explaining it. They should take some time to understand the creationist view before I talk to them again.
I have always expected and known this to be the case. It's the same with operating systems. Kde and Windows XP have a professional, clean, consistent look. Even if they both crashed frequently (not saying they do or not), users would still likely favor the one that looks newer, cleaner and more professional.
When viewing a website that has been carefully constructed to look nice, then you feel like the person has put in a lot of effort. You *think* this means that it has been worked on longer, and more people have had time to view the content, and more thought has been put into it.
When you see a website with a black background, yellow text, and out of place images, you feel like the person has not put much effort in, and therefore the credibility of the website is suspect.
Sometimes this may be true, sometimes not, but I'm certain that this should have been obvious without a survey.
This is why some password thieves spent a lot of time on a fraudulent e-mail that they sent out to many ICQ users, myself included. It looked just like an official ICQ e-mail, every single link and image was loaded directly from the icq.com domain. The only exception was one link - the submit form. So while 99% of users would look at it, click a few links and see it goes to the icq.com website, and see the professional layout - a few would notice it was suspect purely because it was asking for our password because of some security problem.
We've come to associate professional design with companies, and to us that means quality. Brand name merchandise, clean stores, open spaces, etc. When a website is unclean, it feels like it has been done by a small business, someone without the greater know-how. Problem is, the open-source movement has very few good artists compared to programmers:)
Hmm, from a brief look at hypothyroid, like most things I show some of the symptoms, but not to the same degree, or slightly different. Doesn't sound like what i have.
I have seen a doctor once and he recommended excercise. He did a blood test and it indicated that I may have had glandular fever in the past and not realised.
Experimentation is the key I think. I'm going to try to excercise more often. Also, I'm going to get a laptop in the next 3 months or so, so hopefully the LCD display will make some difference too.
Slashdot Mirror
There will always be a need for more speed, and for more space. Scientists will never be able to simulate the universe, since the computer would need to be greater than that which it represents. Certainly some parts, but not it all down to every detail. If computers were capable of movie quality real time rendering, then there is still going to be room for improving AI tremendously, along with complex physics engines, and much more. We will always find more ways to burn clock cycles for more realism. If you are stuck for ways to burn your CPU then just ask me. I'll give you a hint on something new you can add to your game to improve realism and run slower.
As for disk space, similar argument applies. The more space we have the more we will fill. We will have increasingly better quality films, higher framerates, etc, up until the point where we are recording details from many different angles with miniature cameras, and keeping the data nicely formatted and referenced for database use. Our needs will scale with the technology. We are always hoping for just a little more, and after that we see the next stone to hop to.
So that I'm not completely critical, the home user will find little reason to upgrade, as indeed they already do. But I'd say this has always been the case. Average Joe likes to get the fastest PC and the best DVD player, but he only wants to upgrade every so many years. Whereas scientists, gamers, hobbyists, etc, like to update regularly to take advantage of new advances that they can use immediately. So I'd say the cycle will continue much the same.
I was one of those lanfest guys :)
:) Posters turned out to be the most successful targets to make off with.
Just a few facts to kill the humor in your post (please forgive me!).
We weren't locked in. There were only 400 or so of us. The walls weren't very bouncy (we tended to smack into them). And we also wanted to make off with the GeForce FX
I think this is part of the idea behind nVidia's new Cg. It allows developers to easily scale their games to take advantage of the power of new cards not yet developed.
I could easily be mistaken though, my understanding of Cg is very, very rudimentry.
I was there and saw the demo, and the fairy model was very impressive for computer graphics. The Ogre also.
However, as for REAL scenes, they also ran the game Stalker with the geforce FX. It looked VERY nice, ran slightly jerky at some parts - something gamers would shudder at - but on the whole very impressive speed for the detail available. Of course, not as realistic as the fairy model, but still very nice.
So look at the screenshots for that game and imagine it running at perhaps 40-60 fps at a guess, and thats what we saw there. The nVidia guy there said he tried it with a Geforce 4 MX 200 and it ran at around 2-3 fps. Still, that's an MX so not much surprise there.
Yes, you are right. We need more inane advertisements of these Linux success stories!
Must go now, I have about 5 separate stories of different companies/organisations running Linux to be submitted.
I think we see too many of these server switches. When its a company switching to a desktop, that is big news...but every server switch is just one story in a swirling pool. I guess this one was posted though because it is the charity organisation Good Samaritans rather than some small unknown enterprise.
Why is this marked redundant? I just searched through the comments and couldn't find an answer to whether it works with notebook chips.
Does it?
When it generates 600+ comments every time, I'd say there's enough interest in seeing it :)
I don't remember reading a "you must believe in the philosophy of the GNU/Linux community to be considered a memeber of the Slashdot community" when I signed up. Even though I do believe in the philosophy, not everyone here does - nor do they have to.
Slashdot caters its news to the geek masses, typically people of our opinions - but I see no reason why this news should be prohibited. This is important news for some/many slashdot readers, including myself, for where the only option for now has been nVidia. Now we have more of a choice.
I agree that ATI should have released the drivers opensource, but that does not exclude it for being news that is important to many slashdot readers.
What cpu, nvidia card and motherboard do you have? There was some problem with certain athlon chips and motherboards of a certain type or something. There was an infamous lockup which is probably what you experienced.
It could be fixed by adding mem=nopentium to your kernel options when it boots (or put it in lilo.conf or grub/menu.lst).
This problem was also in Win2000 I think, but there was an official patch.
Hope this helps.
It is not all that pointless.
It helps businesses run by slashdot readers find information for showing to clients to remove their fears of using opensource.
It also firmly establishes in the minds of the slashdot readers that it is true that opensource is cheaper - and keeps showing us over time that this is still the case. Markets change, and it is good to see how the economics of opensource are (not) changing.
It also gives ammunition for workers trying to convince their boss to use an open source technology.
There are probably other advantages too that I have not considerd, but these are some of the reasons why I like reading them.
Bayesian filters base their rules on your own personal spam folder and normal folder. So the spammer's filter will react differently to everyone else's, meaning that they will find it impossible to stay one step ahead of everyone else.
Of course, it passing through their own filter will be a helpful guaruntee that it will pass through some filters - the problem is with a bayesian filter it is thought that spammers will only be able to say "Click here" - anything more will be detecting. See the slashdot article I linked to anyway for more details, I'm only repeating what I've read elsewhere.
Previously bayesian spam filtering was demonstrated on slashdot to be very effective. Once this becomes commonplace, and seamless, no extra configuration required on the users behalf, hopefully we will see the end of spam.
However, combined with whitelists this could be quite useful. Bayesian filters to filter out spam, except for whitelisted spam. Eg mailing lists of advertisements you sign up to being whitelisted could be effectively. I suppose that when you sign up to a mailing list that would normally be recognised as spam, when it sends a confirmation e-mail your client could recognise it and ask if you want to add it to your whitelist.
Anyway, with the introduction of bayesian filters into an ordinary client means that the future of e-mail may not necessarily have to be so bleak.
This seems to me longer than the time for which Windows 98 was allocated, but not for server releases. I heard or read somewhere that the lifecycle had been extended, but I could be mistaken. Either way, this gives it another 2-4 years of usage. I'm not sure whether thats useful or not. Product Lifecycles
It was followed by a short lived, but lengthy discussion with regular readers of worldtechtribune (including the editor-in-chief apparently) and some other newsforge readers.
You may or may not find some interesting thoughts, or just more (mis)information.
I'd like to respond, but I really don't have the heart for it. I really have been in so many of these conversations that I've lost the zeal I used to have. People aren't going to change their minds, and I certainly won't until something new is presented, why should I? I understand evolution (as much as a lay person can), so I know what I need to see to change my mind.
I do agree with your analogy of truth - that is much like our journey in life. Or for some of us anyway, we pursue truth as a great treasure, getting closer but knowing that it will never be fully realised. One of the beauties of life really, that the joy of learning never ends.
Yes you are absolutely right.
Around 400 years ago I used to believe in a flat earth. But then, around my 513th birthday (I can't remember exactly, the years tend to blur after a while) I met a delightful man named Galileo. He was very smart, and funny too.
He was kind enough to show me all his research into the planetary orbits. He had some very convincing arguments and undeniable evidence. After spending a week or so with him (not trying to overstay my welcome though - but he just loved to explain his ideas to others) I had no choice to agree with him but that I'd been wrong - and the earth was a sphere - and that the earth revolved around the sun.
Then another man around 350 years later (I was about 870 at that time) another man named Charles Darwin invited me over. He was another smart man, but his mind seemed a bit clouded. He showed me his theory, that life had arisen through change passed on to children over millions of years. I had trouble taking him seriously, because he didn't have any evidence. I even read his book, which sounded like an interesting idea, but also acknowledged that there was no evidence. However, he remained hopeful that the evidence would show in good time. I decided that the wisest course of action was to wait and see.
Unfortunately, all the children of the Short Lived found his ideas quite desireable, as it removed responsibility from them. Being a short lived race, they loved the freedom and lack of moral responsibility. So his ideas spread like wildfire before there was any evidence. Unfortunately, now, around 150 years later there is still no evidence, but his ideas are being taught everywhere.
It matters little. I have lived around a 1000 years, and I know that the ideas of the Short Lived are fickle and change like the wind. What is popular today will be despised tomorrow. The Short Lived never learn from their mistakes, and in this case it will be a blessing for them to turn from these fairy tales that Charles Darwin could not prove to something with some evidence.
--
Try not to throw insults into your arguments. I do not believe evolution is the best fit (why do you group it as darwinianism vs creationism rather than evolution vs creationism?). I don't think it requires fewer assumptions, that is something that would have to be argued for and demonstrated - but I simply don't have the time, esp. considering all other discussions I've had about the subject. Always a waste of time. Unless there's a few lurkers I've helped to understand the issue properly.
I find this very ignorant considering that any discussion of origins must first begin in assumptions.
Or have you seen the birth of the world?
Some slippery slope.
Sure, I'm more than happy to leave it at that.
Could we be serious for a moment... you don't know how many times I have engaged in a discussion and beat my head against a wall because they don't understand creationism. And I'm being deadly serious with what I say. There are certain concepts that they consider true, and so they try and understand the creatinist argument within that context - and fail because of that to see what I'm saying.
When I argue against evolution I can imagine what replies I would give to my arguments if I believed there were no God, and that all life arose through chance mutations. It is probably easier for the creationist to do this, since they had the advantage of being brought up in an evolutionist society - so that view is saturated everywhere. Creationism is a foreign view to our society at large, and therefore little understood.
I don't know if you are going to be any different. There is more to learn than just a link can provide, or a message I write. I have learned this from discussions online. For you to understand, you actually have to open your mind and say for a moment "what if there was a God? (or if you already believe there is) What if the earth is really only 6,000 years old? How then would I explain ?" Then perhaps you will begin to understand what arguments are futile circles, and what issues are the crux of the debate.
I know if I provide a link (or am pretty certain anyway) that you will read, and your mind will begin to come up with a thousand and one reasons why the thing you just read is irrelevant, false, or poor logic. Then you will post excerpts here, and I will have to explain to you step by step why the point they were making was actually relevant, and wasn't as idiotic as you first thought.
However, if you think you are a different breed to those I have encountered before, then I would be willing to send you some links - but my time is more precious than it once was, and I have no interest in running around in circles again. I could provide you with some links on the basis that you read them for your own knowledge, so that you can better understand our argument - but not so that I can begin a lengthy debate with you. I would be happy to clarify any points of confusion and help you understand our position, but not debate for hours via slashdot or e-mail.
And please don't refer to it as "[my] kind of creationism" - my views are the same as the prominent creation scientists, and where I differ in opinion from them I redirect you to their superior knowledge, because I am no authority.
You more than adequately proved my point. And you have even further embedded in my mind the fact that everyone I have argued with so far does not understand the creationist argument.
Come back when you at least understand our position.
Though we must not forget that natural selection does occur.
Though I imagine most evolutionists will have trouble understanding how natural selection can be true while evolution (change from species to species) cannot be.
Let them wonder. I have spent too long explaining it. They should take some time to understand the creationist view before I talk to them again.
I have always expected and known this to be the case. It's the same with operating systems. Kde and Windows XP have a professional, clean, consistent look. Even if they both crashed frequently (not saying they do or not), users would still likely favor the one that looks newer, cleaner and more professional.
:)
When viewing a website that has been carefully constructed to look nice, then you feel like the person has put in a lot of effort. You *think* this means that it has been worked on longer, and more people have had time to view the content, and more thought has been put into it.
When you see a website with a black background, yellow text, and out of place images, you feel like the person has not put much effort in, and therefore the credibility of the website is suspect.
Sometimes this may be true, sometimes not, but I'm certain that this should have been obvious without a survey.
This is why some password thieves spent a lot of time on a fraudulent e-mail that they sent out to many ICQ users, myself included. It looked just like an official ICQ e-mail, every single link and image was loaded directly from the icq.com domain. The only exception was one link - the submit form. So while 99% of users would look at it, click a few links and see it goes to the icq.com website, and see the professional layout - a few would notice it was suspect purely because it was asking for our password because of some security problem.
We've come to associate professional design with companies, and to us that means quality. Brand name merchandise, clean stores, open spaces, etc. When a website is unclean, it feels like it has been done by a small business, someone without the greater know-how. Problem is, the open-source movement has very few good artists compared to programmers
Why is fruit juice unhealthy? Do you have any (web) references about that?
Does this sound like the stuff reiserfs is talking about doing? I don't really understand the future of reiserfs, but this all sounds familiar.
Hmm, from a brief look at hypothyroid, like most things I show some of the symptoms, but not to the same degree, or slightly different. Doesn't sound like what i have.
I have seen a doctor once and he recommended excercise. He did a blood test and it indicated that I may have had glandular fever in the past and not realised.
Experimentation is the key I think. I'm going to try to excercise more often. Also, I'm going to get a laptop in the next 3 months or so, so hopefully the LCD display will make some difference too.