Networked multiplayer? So you're saying that if I want to play a game with a few mates, rather than just plugging in a few more controllers, everyone gets to bring over their entire PC setup, including the case, keyboard, mouse, monitor etc, then have everyone install network cards, plug them all into a switch, and get someone to install and configure a server? That sounds like so much fun!
Good luck sneaking up on someone...
Why would you sneak up on someone? You're not talking about those dreadful FPS are you? I was thinking more in terms of playing real GAMES...
It could be simple, if you were familiar with editing text files to configure things. In which case you would know that the # sign comments out options, effectively disabling them, and that removing the # activates it.
However that system has a possible problem: What happens if I uncomment both options? Are they mutually exclusive, or can two scheduling systems run side by side? What if I comment out both of them? Are they both necessary?
This sort of issue would be solved by a menu or radio buttons, for which there is no ambiguity.
If a user wasn't familar with editing text files, then he wouldn't know about commenting or uncommenting lines, and so would be stuck. Someone who has exclusively used user-friendly operating systems would presumably not be familar with editing text files.
I think the point is that with OSX you don't have to worry about all those pedantic distinctions between UIs/window managers/window systems/layers etc., you just get a decent interface.
You can argue that KDE is a good window manager, or that X is a good window system, but it's the interface as a whole which counts. An average user trying to install something or configure something doesn't care whether it's the window manager or the desktop which is making things difficult, it's the interface as a whole which is the problem.
I have something against paying 8k a year. Remember not everyone gets a scholarship. At that price a normal person is looking at $30k of debt. What a great start to life that is.
What, you have something against going to a state university?
Surely all the more renowned US universities are private? A university is about more than just education, it's about getting a name on your CV so you can get a job from the PHB who spent four years at some elite university and only gives jobs to people who went to the same 'fraternity'.
Given a properly motivated student, I'd put our state system up against the most expensive private schools in the country,
Yeah, but you know how Americans are, they look down on anyone who went to a state school. It's all about money and status, and you don't get that by going to a state school. Even if you get a degree, good luck getting a job when all the management types went to expensive private schools and want to employ all their mates.
If the money was used to create an endowment, a few grand each year could be given to 5 or 10 students, and the fund could be self-sustaining.
A few questions: 1. What is an endowment? 2. Would a few grand a year even cover tuition costs? 3. How is it self-sustaining? Surely all the money would run out in a few years.
Get about as close to your TV as you do your monitor, (for most people, less than 2 feet) and then tell me which picture looks better
Why would I need to get that close to my TV? I can play console games from the other side of the room as comfortably as I could play PC games sat in front of the computer. PC games might have a higher resolution, but if you're not sat at the desk you'll find that the game becomes very awkward to play.
Also there are other problems with PC gaming. One of them being you can't play them multiplayer: there's only one slot in the back of the computer to plug in a controller, PC games seem to think you want to play over a network. A bit patronising I think, assuming that PC gamers don't have any friends in real life. And the computer monitor is often too small to be viewed by everyone around the room. It's better just to plug a console into the TV, easier on the eyes than squinting to see the tiny pixels on a PC monitor.
I agree. No matter how far this "high-def" TV crap goes, or how fast and amazingly computer like your console gets. It will never compare to the amount at which the graphics card industry is growing.
Problem is with that, is, you said it yourself: graphics card industry. How many PC owners constantly upgrade to the latest graphics card? Not many. But the latest PC games are aimed at the latest graphics cards. Whereas with a console you just put the game in and that's that. It's not a surprise that console games are much more successful.
Also a console at a lower resolution and lower frame rate gives better graphics than a PC at higher resolutions and higher frame rates. I think it's to do with the way TV's work better than monitors. A 50 fps PC game at a high resolution looks blocky and awkward, whereas a 20fps console game with a low resolution looks smooth. TVs tend to soften the graphics whereas those high resolution PC monitors make everythign look jagged and sharp so you notice the faults.
Perhaps the money could be used to set up a trust for a scholarship fund.
So with $126k, that just about puts one student through the US university system... I'm sorry if that's a cheap shot but I'm quite surprised at the cost of education in America. Also I apologise in advance for the spelling errors but I'm on my 13th tin and I haven't had a drink in a while so it's hitting me pretty bad.
I dunno, when I saw the post it was at 0, iwth 100% overrated. When I post I don't even touch the bit that selects karma bonus, and my posts end up at +1, I don't really even know how the thing even works. Sorry if I'm rambling or my spelling is off but I'm a bit drunk at the moment.
As far as I'm aware, the whole point of modding down a post that's currently at '1' is to censor it from the majority who read at '1'. Yeah the logo's crap, but does the post need moderating down? Is it really that disruptive that people need to be sheltered from it? At least he tried, there's no point punishing him by making him lose karma (which in this climate of flooding bots could be enough to get him a lengthy automatic ban).
And with the long discussion following it, anyone browsing at 1+ will wonder what the hell everyone's talking about and will have to click 'parent' to see the original post anyway, defeating the whole purpose of moderating it down.
The way I see it, moderating a post below '1' should only be done for crapfloods, like the bot that copies posts from other threads, or for first posts, or that story about the dirty old gay man in the garden. Moderation should be for marking out the really good posts, not for censoring posts you don't like.
I'm curious about something. Copyright infringement has been illegal since the start of copyright laws. A hundred years ago typing out a copy of someone's book would be illegal. Twenty years ago knowingly buying a pirated video tape from a market stall would be illegal. So now, using the Internet, why wouldn't it be illegal to download a film or a song?
Does copyright law change depending on the medium? Do previously illegal activities suddenly become legal because it's more convenient to do them? Do these people on this forum who try to justify downloading films and music do so because they honestly believe they have every right to do so, and that restricting downloading of copyrighted materials in any shape or form is inherently evil? Or do they want to do it because it's free and easy?
The problem with talking about copyright infringement is that both sides have vested interests. The copyright holders want to make money from their copyrights, the copyright infringers want to download day and night for free. Neither side thinks about copyright law objectively, they already have their position and then try to form arguments which support that position.
Funny thing: once upon a time, everything on the Internet WAS free. Pay for access, sure, but once the pipe was open there was a whole world of academics, collaborators, hobbyists, and so on whose whole reason for being on the Internet was to share. Share! Amazing!
Just as before, you're very free to share information on the Internet. What you're not allowed to do, is share information which is copyrighted and for which the copyright holder has not granted you permission to share. Nothing's changed from the 'days of yore', you can share things it's legal to share, and can't share things it's illegal to share. In the olden days you might have gotten away with downloading copyrighted material, but only because no-one knew about it. Perhaps the free lunch is over.
Commerical interests have no "this isn't how it should be" claim to stake. They're the Jonnys-come-lately online, and they *still* have to learn how to adjust.
I'm actually pretty sure that it's the illegal downloaders who are going to have to adjust to the law. Just because people were on the Internet first doesn't mean they have the right to break copyright law, if that's what you're implying. 'Commercial interests' may have come late to the Internet, but that doesn't mean the law is going to change to suit the people who were there first. I know you computer types like to think you own the Internet, and that when you're on a computer you can do whatever you want, whether breaking copyright (which is OK because it's not really stealing), or breaking into other people's computers (which is OK because it's their fault for not securing their computer, and they should reward you), but I don't think people in the real world, specifically the courts, will look at it that way.
Just because they're a business it don't mean that they're free of any responsibility. They must have responsibility
OK then, so that begs the question, what responsibility? And why? Why would one company have a responsibility to pander to the competition? Especially in a situation where they don't really have any competition. Yeah there's Open Office, but Microsoft pandering to Open Office is like McDonald's pandering to an independent hot-dog stand outside a football stadium.
Microsoft should be punished if they attempt to lock you in so you can't have access your data (this include data made for you) unless you pay them some money.
Presumably, the only reason your data is in their format is if you've made it using their software and saved it in their format. In which case, surely you have already paid for their software? This also means they haven't locked up your data, you've done so yourself by using their document formats. If you prefer for instance an Open Office document, or a.txt, what's stopping you keeping your data in one of those instead? You're making it sound like a conspiracy by Microsoft, as if they were releasing viruses which went around people's computers changing all their files to Word documents.
If I make a text, book, memorandum with word I expect it to be mine not encrypted in some proprietary mambo jumbo that MS thinks it's the solution for me.
Encrypted? Surely when you open the document in the same program you created it in, it opens up and you have access to your data? And if you don't like the MS Word format then don't use it.
I'm not a Microsoft apologist, in fact I don't like the idea of obfuscated, closed file formats, but your arguments aren't exactly the most convincing.
I think the winning entry isn't one of the better ones. It's a very soft-focus picture, and it's easy to make things look real if you choose a vague image. I for one could make a very photorealistic computer-generated picture of pitch-black darkness, but it wouldn't mean much.
The way these images don't look too realistic is the way everything is too smooth and perfect. The boxes and curtains etc. all look too straight. Surfaces are too smooth and shiny, even when they shouldn't be. The chair in the kitchen picture looks like a brand-new plastic chair with a wood design.
Perhaps the results might be different if the algorithm took into account the uneven-ness of certain surfaces, i.e. that wood would have tiny grooves and lumps in, that curtains would be slightly frayed on the surface, rather than plasticy.
Of course, communicating via the Internet should only be available to those who understand the underlying technical concepts and protocols. Of course, I am being sarcastic, and have several issues with your viewpoint.
1. Saying that only people who write HTML can produce content on the Internet is arbitrary. There is no reason, whether technical or ethical, why someone who does not know HTML should not be able to produce content for other people via the web. Your point about advice is valid, as long as you are talking about advice on HTML. But on any other topic, your point falls apart. Why does knowing HTML make you more knowledgeable on every single subject which is discussed on the Internet? I think this is a case of arrogance.
2. An analogy is only allowing people to drive who can build cars, or for a less extreme analogy, people who can drive manual cars. There is no reason why people with automatic cars should not be allowed on the roads, especially when the underlying technology is abstracted allowing people to drive safety and effectively without understanding the underlying transmission system.
3. Speaking as someone who does know HTML, even I disagree with you. Writing pages via raw HTML is a terrible way to run an internet journal*. It is inefficient. The best way is probably to input the articles via a web form or other abstracted system, and to let the underlying scripts and programs generate the HTML page automatically, either once-off or dynamically when the page is accessed, drawing data from the content database. Writing the HTML directly for each page is what I'd expect from someone just getting to grips with making web pages, rather than from someone actually using them for a practical purpose. I know this is a bad example, but could you imagine how for instance Slashdot would be run if each commenter had to write a HTML page for their comment, rather than just typing in a form?
Except without the intellectual capacity. Honestly, I thought these aspergers retards were supposed to be intelligent and creative, that's not what you see on slashdot!
You'd be surprised. Go to any school that's taken away all the processed food and replaced it with food without the artificial sweeteners and E-numbers. Ask them about the change in children's behaviour.
There is rarely an "OK dad" that comes easily from my three year-old.
Perhaps that's because he's your step-son, and therefore you're not his 'dad'? Why would he call you that? Ever considered that might have something to do with his behaviour?
Because it's not, that's just something invented to make people feel better about being anti-social. "It's ok if I'm a cold, distant, selfish person with no social skills, at least I'm more creative and intelligent than those awful norms."
No, you're wrong. Let me repost something from earlier...
The book is about a kid with Austism. The author is on the record as saying Asbergers is nothing to do with it. Let me clarify: Autism is a serious condition, Asbergers is a cop-out excuse for having no balls.
Slashdot Mirror
Networked multiplayer? So you're saying that if I want to play a game with a few mates, rather than just plugging in a few more controllers, everyone gets to bring over their entire PC setup, including the case, keyboard, mouse, monitor etc, then have everyone install network cards, plug them all into a switch, and get someone to install and configure a server? That sounds like so much fun!
Good luck sneaking up on someone...
Why would you sneak up on someone? You're not talking about those dreadful FPS are you? I was thinking more in terms of playing real GAMES...
It could be simple, if you were familiar with editing text files to configure things. In which case you would know that the # sign comments out options, effectively disabling them, and that removing the # activates it.
However that system has a possible problem: What happens if I uncomment both options? Are they mutually exclusive, or can two scheduling systems run side by side? What if I comment out both of them? Are they both necessary?
This sort of issue would be solved by a menu or radio buttons, for which there is no ambiguity.
If a user wasn't familar with editing text files, then he wouldn't know about commenting or uncommenting lines, and so would be stuck. Someone who has exclusively used user-friendly operating systems would presumably not be familar with editing text files.
I think the point is that with OSX you don't have to worry about all those pedantic distinctions between UIs/window managers/window systems/layers etc., you just get a decent interface.
You can argue that KDE is a good window manager, or that X is a good window system, but it's the interface as a whole which counts. An average user trying to install something or configure something doesn't care whether it's the window manager or the desktop which is making things difficult, it's the interface as a whole which is the problem.
I have something against paying 8k a year. Remember not everyone gets a scholarship. At that price a normal person is looking at $30k of debt. What a great start to life that is.
What, you have something against going to a state university?
Surely all the more renowned US universities are private? A university is about more than just education, it's about getting a name on your CV so you can get a job from the PHB who spent four years at some elite university and only gives jobs to people who went to the same 'fraternity'.
Given a properly motivated student, I'd put our state system up against the most expensive private schools in the country,
Yeah, but you know how Americans are, they look down on anyone who went to a state school. It's all about money and status, and you don't get that by going to a state school. Even if you get a degree, good luck getting a job when all the management types went to expensive private schools and want to employ all their mates.
If the money was used to create an endowment, a few grand each year could be given to 5 or 10 students, and the fund could be self-sustaining.
A few questions:
1. What is an endowment?
2. Would a few grand a year even cover tuition costs?
3. How is it self-sustaining? Surely all the money would run out in a few years.
Get about as close to your TV as you do your monitor, (for most people, less than 2 feet) and then tell me which picture looks better
Why would I need to get that close to my TV? I can play console games from the other side of the room as comfortably as I could play PC games sat in front of the computer. PC games might have a higher resolution, but if you're not sat at the desk you'll find that the game becomes very awkward to play.
Also there are other problems with PC gaming. One of them being you can't play them multiplayer: there's only one slot in the back of the computer to plug in a controller, PC games seem to think you want to play over a network. A bit patronising I think, assuming that PC gamers don't have any friends in real life. And the computer monitor is often too small to be viewed by everyone around the room. It's better just to plug a console into the TV, easier on the eyes than squinting to see the tiny pixels on a PC monitor.
I agree. No matter how far this "high-def" TV crap goes, or how fast and amazingly computer like your console gets. It will never compare to the amount at which the graphics card industry is growing.
Problem is with that, is, you said it yourself: graphics card industry. How many PC owners constantly upgrade to the latest graphics card? Not many. But the latest PC games are aimed at the latest graphics cards. Whereas with a console you just put the game in and that's that. It's not a surprise that console games are much more successful.
Also a console at a lower resolution and lower frame rate gives better graphics than a PC at higher resolutions and higher frame rates. I think it's to do with the way TV's work better than monitors. A 50 fps PC game at a high resolution looks blocky and awkward, whereas a 20fps console game with a low resolution looks smooth. TVs tend to soften the graphics whereas those high resolution PC monitors make everythign look jagged and sharp so you notice the faults.
Perhaps the money could be used to set up a trust for a scholarship fund.
So with $126k, that just about puts one student through the US university system... I'm sorry if that's a cheap shot but I'm quite surprised at the cost of education in America. Also I apologise in advance for the spelling errors but I'm on my 13th tin and I haven't had a drink in a while so it's hitting me pretty bad.
I dunno, when I saw the post it was at 0, iwth 100% overrated. When I post I don't even touch the bit that selects karma bonus, and my posts end up at +1, I don't really even know how the thing even works. Sorry if I'm rambling or my spelling is off but I'm a bit drunk at the moment.
As far as I'm aware, the whole point of modding down a post that's currently at '1' is to censor it from the majority who read at '1'. Yeah the logo's crap, but does the post need moderating down? Is it really that disruptive that people need to be sheltered from it? At least he tried, there's no point punishing him by making him lose karma (which in this climate of flooding bots could be enough to get him a lengthy automatic ban).
And with the long discussion following it, anyone browsing at 1+ will wonder what the hell everyone's talking about and will have to click 'parent' to see the original post anyway, defeating the whole purpose of moderating it down.
The way I see it, moderating a post below '1' should only be done for crapfloods, like the bot that copies posts from other threads, or for first posts, or that story about the dirty old gay man in the garden. Moderation should be for marking out the really good posts, not for censoring posts you don't like.
I'm curious about something. Copyright infringement has been illegal since the start of copyright laws. A hundred years ago typing out a copy of someone's book would be illegal. Twenty years ago knowingly buying a pirated video tape from a market stall would be illegal. So now, using the Internet, why wouldn't it be illegal to download a film or a song?
Does copyright law change depending on the medium? Do previously illegal activities suddenly become legal because it's more convenient to do them? Do these people on this forum who try to justify downloading films and music do so because they honestly believe they have every right to do so, and that restricting downloading of copyrighted materials in any shape or form is inherently evil? Or do they want to do it because it's free and easy?
The problem with talking about copyright infringement is that both sides have vested interests. The copyright holders want to make money from their copyrights, the copyright infringers want to download day and night for free. Neither side thinks about copyright law objectively, they already have their position and then try to form arguments which support that position.
Funny thing: once upon a time, everything on the Internet WAS free. Pay for access, sure, but once the pipe was open there was a whole world of academics, collaborators, hobbyists, and so on whose whole reason for being on the Internet was to share. Share! Amazing!
Just as before, you're very free to share information on the Internet. What you're not allowed to do, is share information which is copyrighted and for which the copyright holder has not granted you permission to share. Nothing's changed from the 'days of yore', you can share things it's legal to share, and can't share things it's illegal to share. In the olden days you might have gotten away with downloading copyrighted material, but only because no-one knew about it. Perhaps the free lunch is over.
Commerical interests have no "this isn't how it should be" claim to stake. They're the Jonnys-come-lately online, and they *still* have to learn how to adjust.
I'm actually pretty sure that it's the illegal downloaders who are going to have to adjust to the law. Just because people were on the Internet first doesn't mean they have the right to break copyright law, if that's what you're implying. 'Commercial interests' may have come late to the Internet, but that doesn't mean the law is going to change to suit the people who were there first. I know you computer types like to think you own the Internet, and that when you're on a computer you can do whatever you want, whether breaking copyright (which is OK because it's not really stealing), or breaking into other people's computers (which is OK because it's their fault for not securing their computer, and they should reward you), but I don't think people in the real world, specifically the courts, will look at it that way.
Just because they're a business it don't mean that they're free of any responsibility. They must have responsibility
.txt, what's stopping you keeping your data in one of those instead? You're making it sound like a conspiracy by Microsoft, as if they were releasing viruses which went around people's computers changing all their files to Word documents.
OK then, so that begs the question, what responsibility? And why? Why would one company have a responsibility to pander to the competition? Especially in a situation where they don't really have any competition. Yeah there's Open Office, but Microsoft pandering to Open Office is like McDonald's pandering to an independent hot-dog stand outside a football stadium.
Microsoft should be punished if they attempt to lock you in so you can't have access your data (this include data made for you) unless you pay them some money.
Presumably, the only reason your data is in their format is if you've made it using their software and saved it in their format. In which case, surely you have already paid for their software? This also means they haven't locked up your data, you've done so yourself by using their document formats. If you prefer for instance an Open Office document, or a
If I make a text, book, memorandum with word I expect it to be mine not encrypted in some proprietary mambo jumbo that MS thinks it's the solution for me.
Encrypted? Surely when you open the document in the same program you created it in, it opens up and you have access to your data? And if you don't like the MS Word format then don't use it.
I'm not a Microsoft apologist, in fact I don't like the idea of obfuscated, closed file formats, but your arguments aren't exactly the most convincing.
I think the winning entry isn't one of the better ones. It's a very soft-focus picture, and it's easy to make things look real if you choose a vague image. I for one could make a very photorealistic computer-generated picture of pitch-black darkness, but it wouldn't mean much.
The way these images don't look too realistic is the way everything is too smooth and perfect. The boxes and curtains etc. all look too straight. Surfaces are too smooth and shiny, even when they shouldn't be. The chair in the kitchen picture looks like a brand-new plastic chair with a wood design.
Perhaps the results might be different if the algorithm took into account the uneven-ness of certain surfaces, i.e. that wood would have tiny grooves and lumps in, that curtains would be slightly frayed on the surface, rather than plasticy.
Of course, communicating via the Internet should only be available to those who understand the underlying technical concepts and protocols. Of course, I am being sarcastic, and have several issues with your viewpoint.
1. Saying that only people who write HTML can produce content on the Internet is arbitrary. There is no reason, whether technical or ethical, why someone who does not know HTML should not be able to produce content for other people via the web. Your point about advice is valid, as long as you are talking about advice on HTML. But on any other topic, your point falls apart. Why does knowing HTML make you more knowledgeable on every single subject which is discussed on the Internet? I think this is a case of arrogance.
2. An analogy is only allowing people to drive who can build cars, or for a less extreme analogy, people who can drive manual cars. There is no reason why people with automatic cars should not be allowed on the roads, especially when the underlying technology is abstracted allowing people to drive safety and effectively without understanding the underlying transmission system.
3. Speaking as someone who does know HTML, even I disagree with you. Writing pages via raw HTML is a terrible way to run an internet journal*. It is inefficient. The best way is probably to input the articles via a web form or other abstracted system, and to let the underlying scripts and programs generate the HTML page automatically, either once-off or dynamically when the page is accessed, drawing data from the content database. Writing the HTML directly for each page is what I'd expect from someone just getting to grips with making web pages, rather than from someone actually using them for a practical purpose. I know this is a bad example, but could you imagine how for instance Slashdot would be run if each commenter had to write a HTML page for their comment, rather than just typing in a form?
* I don't like the word 'blog'.
In other news, turkeys vote against Christmas.
Except without the intellectual capacity. Honestly, I thought these aspergers retards were supposed to be intelligent and creative, that's not what you see on slashdot!
You'd be surprised. Go to any school that's taken away all the processed food and replaced it with food without the artificial sweeteners and E-numbers. Ask them about the change in children's behaviour.
There is rarely an "OK dad" that comes easily from my three year-old.
Perhaps that's because he's your step-son, and therefore you're not his 'dad'? Why would he call you that? Ever considered that might have something to do with his behaviour?
I'm sorry but they just weren't attractive. Notice how the attractive singers don't need to pretend to be lesbians in order to get attention?
Well, the more broadly and vaguely you define it, the more people can say they've got it. Don't you know anything about fads?
Because it's not, that's just something invented to make people feel better about being anti-social. "It's ok if I'm a cold, distant, selfish person with no social skills, at least I'm more creative and intelligent than those awful norms."
(you would be depressed too if you were being raped on a regular basis)
I wouldn't.
No, you're wrong. Let me repost something from earlier...
The book is about a kid with Austism. The author is on the record as saying Asbergers is nothing to do with it. Let me clarify: Autism is a serious condition, Asbergers is a cop-out excuse for having no balls.
Then if you can get by as if you were normal, doesn't that prove that this 'Aspergers' thing is all in your head? I.e. the next ADHD?