So microsoft looses money on xboxes and expects to make it back on games, so what?
That doesn't make his point any less valid the he (and some others) plans to buy things that can be modded. I agree with him. When I buy a DVD player, it will be multi-region, and I will be able to fast forward past the damn FBI warning. If I buy a console, it will be one that is hackable. Just because MS sells the console's at a loss, doesn't change what I plan to do. I could really give a shit about their bottom line.
Why don't you record some of this on your HDVCR and send it to me? Oh wait....you can't!
There are other issues involved besides picture quality. Go read about it.
That's funny, I don't remember infringing on any of their copyrights.
And how the hell can you say "regardless of your personal beliefs regarding intellectual property rights and wrongs"? Those beliefs seem to me like they would be pretty important in how you treat all copyrights, not just the copyrights of articles you agree/disagree with.
Entitled to basic health care my ass, you have obviously never gotten a bill from a hospital.
And you are never going to make $20 million.
Yes people WORKING add to the sum of wealth in the world, but people sitting on their ass and earing interest does not. The money that they get as interest is actually just part of the wealth that people doing work and creating
things has made.
Technically, economics is not zero sum, and so perhaps my title was misleading but a lot of other things that it is a mere abstraction of are. For instance, land ownership. Too many of you guys seem to forget that.
I took Econ 101 at an Ivy-League University and got an A, but I know the difference between a model of reality and reality itself and I don't really care where either one of us was/wasn't educated. Your ideas you be able to stand on their own. Since you think where I was educated is what really matters, now that you know I expect you to bow in respect and awe at the size of my massive penis:)
Too many of you right-wing nutjobs think that because new wealth can be created, that any wealth someone gets is new. If I buy something for $10 and sell it for $100, I've just made $90. That doesn't mean I've contributed $90 worth of wealth to society. The thing existed both before and after I sold it and that $90 didn't appear from nowhere. Think about that for a while.
I didn't say corporations couldn't exist. They just wouldn't be controlled by a handful of ultra-rich people. I don't think you have a right to unlimited personal wealth. Why should you be able to own all the land/oil/etc in the world? Do you honestly think it is your right to own more than you could ever possibly need and have the rest of the world leasing/buying it from you, while you sit on you ass and do nothing? I think my right to earn a living beats your right right to own whatever you want at some point.
You are full of shit
At any given time there is a limited amount of money on this planet. Money decides what gets done. If I break my arm and don't have any money, I'm SOL. What kind of society do we live in when a person with a broken arm can't go to the nearest hospital and get it set? Something is very wrong with the system.
I don't have a problem with someone making 100K/year. Really, I don't. Some people are acutally worth that much. Ex: Doctors, really good engineers, etc. What I have a problem with is people who are worth 10 billion dollars. When one person has the economic and (arguably) the political influence of 10,000 people making 100k/year, something is fucked up.
What this country needs is a cap on individual wealth. Set it at say $20 million dollars. Assuming the average person makes $2 mil in their lifetime, this person can support himself and his family very well off half of that money.
The other half he can use to buy 5 perrsonal slaves. What's that you say, slave ownership is illegal? Technically, yes, but if he has enough money to pay someone to do his whims for their entire life, they're basically his "economic" slave. Yes the specfic person could quit and go work somewhere else, but he would just hire someone else and own half of two lives. Remember that this person has enough money so he himself will never have to do any work to contribute to society at all.
Well, it looks like I'll be switching away from Redhat pretty soon. I've been running Redhat 7.x and KDE on my desktop for about a year now and think it's great. KDE is a very well intergrated solution. Konqueror, Kmail, etc all interoperate with each other in a sensible, predictible fashion. I have Mozilla installed and I like it, but Konqueror is much more integrated. I like hiting ALT-F2 and typing gg:. Or typing a directory, or a website, or a program, or a samba/windows server, or any or the other protocols that KDE will seamlessly pass on the correct app. I don't want to be sent to a million non-KDE application, fill up all my RAM and have the names of the programs I'm actually running hidden from me. I want Mozilla's menu item to say Mozilla, not "Web Browser". Jeezus, if I run Linux I may just care about my operating systems internals. Right now I have about six web browsers installed on my system. I need to know which one I'm getting.
What Redhat should work on is adding menu items to the GNOME and KDE menus for the applications you actually have installed. Right now most of them get left out. I don't even have a menu item for gimp!
I don't support the RIAA.
I haven't bought a CD in years.
I do as much as I can to spread awareness about why RIAA is evil.
I think you would find many other slashdotters do the same.
The first big worm ever (the morris worm) was for *NIX.
There have been worms for both *NIX and Windows for quite a while now. That doesn't mean they're equally secure. You need to consider the frequency and severity of security holes. OpenBSD has only had "One remote hole in the default install, in nearly 6 years!" But it has had one, does this make it as insecure as unpatched win98? Of course not. If you don't keep your software up to date, I don't feel sorry for you if you get hacked. The difference between MS and linux is that this worm exploits a bug that already been fixed for quite a while, whereas MS security is nowhere near what I would call proactive.
You obviously have never used any major linux distro. You should go to rhn.redhat.com or heck out any of the other major distributions. You have no idea what you're talking about. You can download OSS as precompiled executable code. You don't have to compile everything from scratch to use OSS.
Somebody mod this troll down so he looses his +1 bonus.
Gee....you sure seem to have backed down a bit though.
Your first post says that it just wouldn't work (implying a software issue).
Your second post says that you couldn't get it to work.
The problem doesn't seem to be that the guy wanted to use samba, but that he didn't know how to use it. The problem wasn't that he was pro-open source, the problem was that he was clueless.
FUD, cluelessness, etc are going to exsist on behalf of all operating systems. It's not like MS or Apple advocates have ever mislead anybody right? Always evaluate things for yourself.
Yes, more people use windows. So what?
You can't just assume the every piece of software has the same amount of bugs?
You are definately not a software engineer. Perhaps you might consider the possibility that some software is of a higher quality than other software. Your statement is logically equivalent to assuming the every brand of car is equally reliable, just some cars get driven more.
Linux is more secure than windows, by design.
This is such a simple, basic feature and the only way to work around it is to treat conference rooms like people? What a load of crap.
I've had to deal with this personally and it's just ridiculous.
Bravo, Germany!
These laws have nothing to do with you.
You are not single-handedly bankrupting our economy. Microsoft is a profitable company, they're not going bankrupt due to software piracy.
Microsoft used their monpoly status to illegally "steal" the browser market and many others. Things like palladium are about giving MS an easy way to steal even more markets.
MS has been convicted in court. They just have so much money sitting around (from theft) that it doesn't matter.
There are other things in life besides accounting principles. Things like human decency. I personally find the current state of copyright law to be morally reprehensible. It has gone way beyond compensating those who create. It's become a tool for the creation an enforcement of corporate monoplies, at the expense of the consumer. It's no longer used to promote creation, but instead to prevent it. That's what palladium is about, preventing anyone but microsoft from deciding what software is created. Palladium is probably illegal under current antitrust laws, but who has the money to fight Microsoft's legal department? If you've taken an accounting class, take an economics class an learn about why monopolies are bad for eveyone except the person who owns them. Theft of Windows does a lot less harm to the economy, than Microsoft's monopoly on computer operating systems does.
He's not taking away your rights.
Hollywood is taking away your rights.
A few large companies have collectively monopolized movie distribution is the US.
They want to keep this monopoly by creating barriers to entry into the market.
Technology is making it easy to make better movies cheaper. I can got to a story and buy a really decent digital video camera and dvd burner for less than $5000. Then I can go ahead and make my own movie. Sure, a can't do special effects as good as the ones in the matrix yet, but don't forget moore's law. Soon I will be able to.
The MPAA and it's members seek to keep anyone from competing with their monopoly by creating laws such as the DMCA, which prevents you from making content viewable on their content delivery devices. The laws they seek to pass in the name of preventing piracy, have nothing to do with preventing piracy. You don't need DeCSS to pirate DVDs. You don't need palladium in hardware to get security. A software layer could provide the same level of security. The reason MS wants palladium in hardware is so that they can block you from running anything they don't approve of, allowing them to expand their monopoly.
Whining about hackers and software pirates is only done you get people like you, who don't understand the actual motivation for their actions. They know that kid who downloaded some movie off the internet was probably never going to buy it. They'll claim that they lost $20 he would have spent on the DVD and multiply that by the number of nodes on gnutella to get some staggering figure of annual losses due to piracy, but it's not reality.
These laws are all about getting control. When CDs came out, they were cheaper to produce than cassettes, yet the cost to the consumer was higher. They could only do this because they had thighter control over the production of CDs than they did of cassettes. It's all about getting more control and jacking up prices once you have it. Once every PC can only run MS code, what's to stop them from charging $1000 per user, per year. Certainly not the government, which would never dare interfere with the "free" market or offend one of the biggest spenders on political power.
Step two: Buy a law requiring DRM be locked on in all PC's
Step three: profit
Let's just hope this fails at step one. If this catches on, expect a lot of talk about how anyone who doesn't have it enabled is a terrorist/hacker/software pirate. Most of the public will be ignorant enough to believe them, and then, you'll be legally required to run a MS OS or you'll be breaking the law by not having DRM.
I really hope I have to start burning CPU's into FPGA's and have a system that runs at 200MHz in order to fake a palladium enabled CPU.
Back when I had 3 CDROM drives in my pc WMP used to access all three of them (making me wait for each one to spin up) before playing the file I actually opened, an mp3 on my HD. There was no good reason for it to do this. IMHO the (default) GUI is a ridiculously inefficient use of screen real estate as well.
Winamp gives you options to stop it from doing what's annoying you, use them.
His case (for those too lazy to read two sentences before they start flaming) is that MS has made EULA changes in SP1 that many would consider a bad thing, but the BBC article makes no mention of this.
Because they included the good and left out the bad the submitter considers the story to be baised. If you don't know anything about the EULA changes then, (besides reading the articles about it on slashdot) you can do a quick search and find out what they are pretty quickly. Granted it won't be as hard as a doctoral thesis, but you would have a clue what the submitter's point was.
Get a clue. I'm sick of this Linux users need to set a good example crap. Every person who uses Linux is not a spokesperson for the OS. People should choose their OS based on the OS, not because someone annoying uses/doesn't use it. If they don't, they're probably going to make a bad decision no matter what.
People can insult crappy software if they want. If someone is considering Linux, d'ya think it could be because they sick of MS' "You're going where we tell you today" attitude?
Linux can and is a viable alternative
If you're going to be a spelling nazi, check your grammar, buddy.
It's definately a voltage divider.
All other loads can be ignored.
And I have tried this:) I once got the crap zapped out of me (7,500VAC 30mA) while building a jacob's ladder.
Do you expect the same people who use the network predominantly for breaching copyright to care about the greater good?
Do you actually think they copyrights they're breaching have anything to do with the greater good?
Four companies have collectively monopolized music distribution, using copyright. Is this a good thing?
Get real. Record companies are scum. The artist would get more money if I mailed them a quarter, than if I bought the CD. Meanwhile, I would be giving the RIAA more money to keep it illegal to play legally purchased DVDs on my PC. I hope they all go bankrupt. Then we'll have competition.
I'll participate in a free market, but not the current abusive, short-sighted ologoploy. Tell me where I could legally download my 300 favorite CDs for a reasonable fee? I can't. Thankfully record companies don't have a long term business plan. They just keep trying to stifle new technology and get their business model legislated. They should be trying to provide the services people want. That's what they'd be doing in a free market economy. They're trying to tell me what I want. They can bite me.
Oh yeah, I'm sure there a not bugs in the newest version of Outlook at all.
Yes, I have Outlook 2k. It's an annoying POS. It's got bugs. The bugs I've found aren't security flaws, but it definately has bugs.
The damn progam won't let me change it's settings to view all emails as plain text. That means every time there is a bug in the MS HTML rendering, I could get hosed. That's totally goddammed insecure. That's not tight security at all. What planet are you from? Does MS pay you to troll for them or do you just not have a clue?
Yep, that one board definately has and FPGA on it. So that means the bitboys haven't produced any silicon yet. This is a prototype..... Who know if it works well or will actually be fast?
I didn't mean the your cars should've tracked walls. That just wasn't right for your application. Given that track you were, you guys probably couldn't have really gone much faster.
This contest seems pretty cool, and I'm just imagining what it could be like scaled up (in terms of time, people, and resources availible to each team.
I envision a track that has no line in the middle, it's just a normal track with normal walls one each side. This would be harder to drive in, but it would be more impressive and a future generation of these cars could possibly run with more that one car on the track at a time. Only one car can follow a line. Having sidewalls would make it more like actual driving too. If you hit the wall, that run doesn't count. I'm thinking of this on more of a scale like the whole robocup thing. My school holds a world robocup title, but I'm just not interested in participating. in that project. I'd rather work on something where there was the possibility of doing it better that a human could, and competing alongside one to prove it. It think it would also be cool, because it would be really computationally expensive. You could use a CPU computing optimal paths through a turn (using perfect Skip Barber style) instead of just an optimal speed, and you could have a ton of different sensors to give you redundant measurements for position tracking and mapping. This would let you handle things like wheels slipping.
Slashdot Mirror
MS should be able to do anything that doesn't violate (antitrust) law.
So microsoft looses money on xboxes and expects to make it back on games, so what?
That doesn't make his point any less valid the he (and some others) plans to buy things that can be modded. I agree with him. When I buy a DVD player, it will be multi-region, and I will be able to fast forward past the damn FBI warning. If I buy a console, it will be one that is hackable. Just because MS sells the console's at a loss, doesn't change what I plan to do. I could really give a shit about their bottom line.
Why don't you record some of this on your HDVCR and send it to me? Oh wait....you can't!
There are other issues involved besides picture quality. Go read about it.
That's funny, I don't remember infringing on any of their copyrights.
And how the hell can you say "regardless of your personal beliefs regarding intellectual property rights and wrongs"? Those beliefs seem to me like they would be pretty important in how you treat all copyrights, not just the copyrights of articles you agree/disagree with.
Entitled to basic health care my ass, you have obviously never gotten a bill from a hospital. :)
And you are never going to make $20 million.
Yes people WORKING add to the sum of wealth in the world, but people sitting on their ass and earing interest does not. The money that they get as interest is actually just part of the wealth that people doing work and creating things has made.
Technically, economics is not zero sum, and so perhaps my title was misleading but a lot of other things that it is a mere abstraction of are. For instance, land ownership. Too many of you guys seem to forget that. I took Econ 101 at an Ivy-League University and got an A, but I know the difference between a model of reality and reality itself and I don't really care where either one of us was/wasn't educated. Your ideas you be able to stand on their own. Since you think where I was educated is what really matters, now that you know I expect you to bow in respect and awe at the size of my massive penis
Too many of you right-wing nutjobs think that because new wealth can be created, that any wealth someone gets is new. If I buy something for $10 and sell it for $100, I've just made $90. That doesn't mean I've contributed $90 worth of wealth to society. The thing existed both before and after I sold it and that $90 didn't appear from nowhere. Think about that for a while.
I didn't say corporations couldn't exist. They just wouldn't be controlled by a handful of ultra-rich people.
I don't think you have a right to unlimited personal wealth. Why should you be able to own all the land/oil/etc in the world? Do you honestly think it is your right to own more than you could ever possibly need and have the rest of the world leasing/buying it from you, while you sit on you ass and do nothing? I think my right to earn a living beats your right right to own whatever you want at some point.
You are full of shit At any given time there is a limited amount of money on this planet. Money decides what gets done. If I break my arm and don't have any money, I'm SOL. What kind of society do we live in when a person with a broken arm can't go to the nearest hospital and get it set? Something is very wrong with the system.
I don't have a problem with someone making 100K/year. Really, I don't. Some people are acutally worth that much. Ex: Doctors, really good engineers, etc.
What I have a problem with is people who are worth 10 billion dollars. When one person has the economic and (arguably) the political influence of 10,000 people making 100k/year, something is fucked up.
What this country needs is a cap on individual wealth. Set it at say $20 million dollars. Assuming the average person makes $2 mil in their lifetime, this person can support himself and his family very well off half of that money. The other half he can use to buy 5 perrsonal slaves. What's that you say, slave ownership is illegal? Technically, yes, but if he has enough money to pay someone to do his whims for their entire life, they're basically his "economic" slave. Yes the specfic person could quit and go work somewhere else, but he would just hire someone else and own half of two lives. Remember that this person has enough money so he himself will never have to do any work to contribute to society at all.
Well, it looks like I'll be switching away from Redhat pretty soon. I've been running Redhat 7.x and KDE on my desktop for about a year now and think it's great. KDE is a very well intergrated solution. Konqueror, Kmail, etc all interoperate with each other in a sensible, predictible fashion. I have Mozilla installed and I like it, but Konqueror is much more integrated. I like hiting ALT-F2 and typing gg:. Or typing a directory, or a website, or a program, or a samba/windows server, or any or the other protocols that KDE will seamlessly pass on the correct app. I don't want to be sent to a million non-KDE application, fill up all my RAM and have the names of the programs I'm actually running hidden from me.
I want Mozilla's menu item to say Mozilla, not "Web Browser". Jeezus, if I run Linux I may just care about my operating systems internals. Right now I have about six web browsers installed on my system. I need to know which one I'm getting.
What Redhat should work on is adding menu items to the GNOME and KDE menus for the applications you actually have installed. Right now most of them get left out. I don't even have a menu item for gimp!
If you don't care about other people, maybe you would care about the legal implications of your machine performing a DOS attack against someone else?
I don't support the RIAA. I haven't bought a CD in years. I do as much as I can to spread awareness about why RIAA is evil. I think you would find many other slashdotters do the same.
The first big worm ever (the morris worm) was for *NIX.
There have been worms for both *NIX and Windows for quite a while now. That doesn't mean they're equally secure. You need to consider the frequency and severity of security holes.
OpenBSD has only had "One remote hole in the default install, in nearly 6 years!" But it has had one, does this make it as insecure as unpatched win98? Of course not. If you don't keep your software up to date, I don't feel sorry for you if you get hacked. The difference between MS and linux is that this worm exploits a bug that already been fixed for quite a while, whereas MS security is nowhere near what I would call proactive.
You obviously have never used any major linux distro. You should go to rhn.redhat.com or heck out any of the other major distributions. You have no idea what you're talking about. You can download OSS as precompiled executable code. You don't have to compile everything from scratch to use OSS.
Somebody mod this troll down so he looses his +1 bonus.
Gee....you sure seem to have backed down a bit though.
Your first post says that it just wouldn't work (implying a software issue).
Your second post says that you couldn't get it to work.
The problem doesn't seem to be that the guy wanted to use samba, but that he didn't know how to use it. The problem wasn't that he was pro-open source, the problem was that he was clueless.
FUD, cluelessness, etc are going to exsist on behalf of all operating systems. It's not like MS or Apple advocates have ever mislead anybody right? Always evaluate things for yourself.
Yes, more people use windows. So what?
You can't just assume the every piece of software has the same amount of bugs?
You are definately not a software engineer. Perhaps you might consider the possibility that some software is of a higher quality than other software.
Your statement is logically equivalent to assuming the every brand of car is equally reliable, just some cars get driven more.
Linux is more secure than windows, by design.
This is such a simple, basic feature and the only way to work around it is to treat conference rooms like people? What a load of crap.
I've had to deal with this personally and it's just ridiculous.
Bravo, Germany!
These laws have nothing to do with you.
You are not single-handedly bankrupting our economy.
Microsoft is a profitable company, they're not going bankrupt due to software piracy.
Microsoft used their monpoly status to illegally "steal" the browser market and many others. Things like palladium are about giving MS an easy way to steal even more markets.
MS has been convicted in court. They just have so much money sitting around (from theft) that it doesn't matter.
There are other things in life besides accounting principles. Things like human decency. I personally find the current state of copyright law to be morally reprehensible. It has gone way beyond compensating those who create. It's become a tool for the creation an enforcement of corporate monoplies, at the expense of the consumer. It's no longer used to promote creation, but instead to prevent it. That's what palladium is about, preventing anyone but microsoft from deciding what software is created. Palladium is probably illegal under current antitrust laws, but who has the money to fight Microsoft's legal department?
If you've taken an accounting class, take an economics class an learn about why monopolies are bad for eveyone except the person who owns them. Theft of Windows does a lot less harm to the economy, than Microsoft's monopoly on computer operating systems does.
He's not taking away your rights.
Hollywood is taking away your rights.
A few large companies have collectively monopolized movie distribution is the US. They want to keep this monopoly by creating barriers to entry into the market.
Technology is making it easy to make better movies cheaper. I can got to a story and buy a really decent digital video camera and dvd burner for less than $5000. Then I can go ahead and make my own movie. Sure, a can't do special effects as good as the ones in the matrix yet, but don't forget moore's law. Soon I will be able to.
The MPAA and it's members seek to keep anyone from competing with their monopoly by creating laws such as the DMCA, which prevents you from making content viewable on their content delivery devices.
The laws they seek to pass in the name of preventing piracy, have nothing to do with preventing piracy. You don't need DeCSS to pirate DVDs. You don't need palladium in hardware to get security. A software layer could provide the same level of security. The reason MS wants palladium in hardware is so that they can block you from running anything they don't approve of, allowing them to expand their monopoly.
Whining about hackers and software pirates is only done you get people like you, who don't understand the actual motivation for their actions. They know that kid who downloaded some movie off the internet was probably never going to buy it. They'll claim that they lost $20 he would have spent on the DVD and multiply that by the number of nodes on gnutella to get some staggering figure of annual losses due to piracy, but it's not reality.
These laws are all about getting control. When CDs came out, they were cheaper to produce than cassettes, yet the cost to the consumer was higher. They could only do this because they had thighter control over the production of CDs than they did of cassettes.
It's all about getting more control and jacking up prices once you have it. Once every PC can only run MS code, what's to stop them from charging $1000 per user, per year. Certainly not the government, which would never dare interfere with the "free" market or offend one of the biggest spenders on political power.
Step one: Roll out paladium in all new PC's.
Step two: Buy a law requiring DRM be locked on in all PC's
Step three: profit
Let's just hope this fails at step one. If this catches on, expect a lot of talk about how anyone who doesn't have it enabled is a terrorist/hacker/software pirate. Most of the public will be ignorant enough to believe them, and then, you'll be legally required to run a
MS OS or you'll be breaking the law by not having DRM.
I really hope I have to start burning CPU's into FPGA's and have a system that runs at 200MHz in order to fake a palladium enabled CPU.
Back when I had 3 CDROM drives in my pc WMP used to access all three of them (making me wait for each one to spin up) before playing the file I actually opened, an mp3 on my HD. There was no good reason for it to do this. IMHO the (default) GUI is a ridiculously inefficient use of screen real estate as well.
Winamp gives you options to stop it from doing what's annoying you, use them.
He did make his case:
EULA changes.
His case (for those too lazy to read two sentences before they start flaming) is that MS has made EULA changes in SP1 that many would consider a bad thing, but the BBC article makes no mention of this.
Because they included the good and left out the bad the submitter considers the story to be baised. If you don't know anything about the EULA changes then, (besides reading the articles about it on slashdot) you can do a quick search and find out what they are pretty quickly. Granted it won't be as hard as a doctoral thesis, but you would have a clue what the submitter's point was.
Get a clue. I'm sick of this Linux users need to set a good example crap. Every person who uses Linux is not a spokesperson for the OS. People should choose their OS based on the OS, not because someone annoying uses/doesn't use it. If they don't, they're probably going to make a bad decision no matter what.
People can insult crappy software if they want. If someone is considering Linux, d'ya think it could be because they sick of MS' "You're going where we tell you today" attitude?
Linux can and is a viable alternative
If you're going to be a spelling nazi, check your grammar, buddy.
It's definately a voltage divider. :) I once got the crap zapped out of me (7,500VAC 30mA) while building a jacob's ladder.
All other loads can be ignored.
And I have tried this
Do you expect the same people who use the network predominantly for breaching copyright to care about the greater good?
Do you actually think they copyrights they're breaching have anything to do with the greater good?
Four companies have collectively monopolized music distribution, using copyright. Is this a good thing?
Get real. Record companies are scum. The artist would get more money if I mailed them a quarter, than if I bought the CD. Meanwhile, I would be giving the RIAA more money to keep it illegal to play legally purchased DVDs on my PC. I hope they all go bankrupt. Then we'll have competition.
I'll participate in a free market, but not the current abusive, short-sighted ologoploy. Tell me where I could legally download my 300 favorite CDs for a reasonable fee? I can't. Thankfully record companies don't have a long term business plan. They just keep trying to stifle new technology and get their business model legislated. They should be trying to provide the services people want. That's what they'd be doing in a free market economy. They're trying to tell me what I want. They can bite me.
Oh yeah, I'm sure there a not bugs in the newest version of Outlook at all.
Yes, I have Outlook 2k. It's an annoying POS. It's got bugs. The bugs I've found aren't security flaws, but it definately has bugs.
The damn progam won't let me change it's settings to view all emails as plain text. That means every time there is a bug in the MS HTML rendering, I could get hosed. That's totally goddammed insecure. That's not tight security at all. What planet are you from? Does MS pay you to troll for them or do you just not have a clue?
Yep, that one board definately has and FPGA on it. So that means the bitboys haven't produced any silicon yet. This is a prototype.....
Who know if it works well or will actually be fast?
I didn't mean the your cars should've tracked walls. That just wasn't right for your application. Given that track you were, you guys probably couldn't have really gone much faster.
This contest seems pretty cool, and I'm just imagining what it could be like scaled up (in terms of time, people, and resources availible to each team.
I envision a track that has no line in the middle, it's just a normal track with normal walls one each side. This would be harder to drive in, but it would be more impressive and a future generation of these cars could possibly run with more that one car on the track at a time. Only one car can follow a line. Having sidewalls would make it more like actual driving too. If you hit the wall, that run doesn't count.
I'm thinking of this on more of a scale like the whole robocup thing. My school holds a world robocup title, but I'm just not interested in participating. in that project. I'd rather work on something where there was the possibility of doing it better that a human could, and competing alongside one to prove it.
It think it would also be cool, because it would be really computationally expensive. You could use a CPU computing optimal paths through a turn (using perfect Skip Barber style) instead of just an optimal speed, and you could have a ton of different sensors to give you redundant measurements for position tracking and mapping. This would let you handle things like wheels slipping.