1) No practical use. 2) Redundant in emergencies 3) Taking up valuable bandwidth 4) User complains slowing down adoption of actual useful technologies like BPL 5) For hobby, there are tons of free internet solutions. Skype anyone?
Now, I'll admit that I'm taking a wild stab at #2. I assume that in actual emergencies, emergency personnel rely on other radio equipment than HAM, but I'm just taking a guess. But I think the other ones are pretty solid (save number one if number two is false).
Err, no, I don't remember HL: Source being a letdown. It was exactly what I expected; HL1 in the Source engine. The huge improvement in lighting quality was quite nice when replaying HL1.
I should point you towards Black Mesa: Source, which seems to be what you want; a professional quality full remake of HL1 in the HL2 engine.
They're currently rare, but shortly will not be. Mark Rein, IIRC, hinted that UT2007 would be 20 or 30 gigs. And then keep in mind that the "current" next-gen consoles need to last for years (What was it, at least five?)
When thinking of next-gen consoles, you need to think about the requirements of games along the FULL life of the console.
That said, I still think it's too early to shove BluRay or HD-DVD in consoles. Yes, we might need the capacity, but the hardware is too new to stick in consoles being manufactured today.
Almost certainly by doing geolocation on your IP. It is often possible to take somebody's IP and narrow down the exact city (or even sometimes borough) they're in, and it's almost always possible (With few rare exceptions) to get the country. IP blocks are allocated to ISPs in certain countries, and lots of people sell (or offer freely) databases that you can look up any IP's country in.
Incorrect. It's only free from within the US and Canada (not just the US), TO within the US and Canada. For example, sitting in Montreal, I can call Dallas for free, or I can call Toronto for free, or somebody in LA can call me for free.
What does WMP 11 do (that I care about) that good old MPC doesn't? I'd rather user a client that clones a 7-year old interface than Microsoft's latest and greatest. Shouldn't that tell Microsoft something?
My point is that Windows is closer. Yeah, you still need something to play QuickTime and DVDs on Windows, but there's a lot of stuff that Ubuntu is missing. Not being able to play MP3s, for example, is braindead. I don't care if it's proprietary and requires a license, it is something that a user is going to expect to just WORK. I mean, the machine I'm typing this message on right now is running Ubuntu (I work at a company that produces a linux distro), and I still haven't figured out a way to get WMV9 files to play, even using WINE (Reports are that a long and difficult process lets you get it installed, but that it still won't stream anything, meaning that even with MediaPlayerConnectivity it is still semi-useless).
With Windows, MP3 functionality is built in, and assuming you at least run Windows Update, you're going to get WMV9 support. MP3 is something that is important to a lot of people, but you've got to jump through hoops to get it going with most Linux distros.
Getting MP3 support in Ubuntu is a nightmare for the average user. The official instructions have them adding new repositories, and then executing commands in a terminal to install the MP3 support. I can do this just fine. My mother can't.
Until you can have a perfectly working linux install that does everything the average user needs without ever having a terminal application installed, it isn't ready for the average user. Most linux users are so blind to the needs of the average user that they assume that just because something is easy to them, it will be easy to everyone. Most computer users I know need me to come over just to install antivirus software for them, something as simple as downloading a file, running an installer, and clicking next a few times. How are these people, these average computer users, expected to reconfigure apt-get for new repositories and then install new packages from a terminal?
Even then, with the distros you've described, there isn't the same out-of-box factor with Windows. With Windows, you can get pretty far by running through Windows Update and getting the latest versions of everything, and then just installing the missing software (DVD player, quicktime, office, etc).
Linux has come a long way as far as usability is concerned, and it's still make great strides. But to your average joe, there is still way too much configuration and tweaking needed. Take the article at face value; most people don't even bother with Windows Update, because that's too complicated for them. Most people could never install even Windows on their own. Most people have a hard time trying to install QuickTime themselves, for example.
For an average user to use Linux, they must NEVER need to even SEE a console, they need all drivers to be installed for them on installation (I'll admit it, Ubuntu does this very well), and they need very easy ways to view proprietary codecs (DVDs, MP3s, WMV9s, etc). Linux still isn't there yet.
If anybody was actually surprised by this article, then they are obviously out of touch with the skill level of the average PC user. Compared to most, the author of this article was positively an advanced power-user.
1) Sony crippled it and didn't give anything close to direct access to hardware, meaning very little hardware acceleration 2) Sony charged a big chunk of change to "buy" linux support
And Sony is actively trying to kill off PSP homebrew. So don't get your hopes up!
The problem is that with the PS2, DVDs were the happening thing. With BluRay, nobody cares.
Of EVERYBODY I know, only ONE person has an HDTV. And they're not really interested in HDDVD/BluRay (They have HD digital cable, and DVD is "good enough").
So while everybody was able to take advantage of the higher resolution provided by DVD, barely anybody can benefit from a high definition optical format. Most people don't have HDTVs, and of those that do, most of them have analog inputs (IE, no HDMI+HDCP), and won't be able to watch BluRay in HD anyhow. The only people who are going to buy the PS3 for BluRay are people who were already going to buy (more expensive) BluRay players, and there are not very many people out there. How many people do you know that have an HDDVD player?
So, the BluRay factor might help Sony down the road, but history shows that the first manufacturer to push out 10 million units usually dominates the market. By the time BluRay increases PS3 sales, Sony will already be in second or third place.
I see one of two things happening:
1) Sony drops the PS3 price before or shortly after launch, matching or beating Microsoft's price. Due to the existing Sony fans, the PS3 becomes the number one or two console ahead of Microsoft.
2) Sony keeps the price high. Barely anybody buys the PS3. Sony is in third place behind Nintendo and Microsoft.
The Wii is a much more attractive offering this time around. I think that it will likely bump Nintendo up to the number two slot. The number one slot is in sight, but I think the number two slot is a fair bet.
Let's also not forget that when the PS3 launch date rolls around, Microsoft can easily announce pricecutes. They have no problem losing a ton of money on hardware sales, and they're perfectly willing to do it. And then there's Halo 3. Even if it isn't ready by PS3 launch time, dropping such a bombshell early on in the PS3's lifespan could be a hit that the PS3 might not recover from.
A lot hinges on the Wii launch price, though. Current estimates put it from $149 to $299, with many insiders saying that it'll be closer to $149. At $299, the Wii is priced the same as the core 360, and will have to go on its unique controller alone. At $149, that's only 25% the cost of a PS3 and a bit over a third the cost of a 360, and it becomes a terribly attractive option.
DDT is effective, and harmless. There is NO credible scientific evidence that it has ANY effect on humans, OR wildlife. It was banned because of fake research by environmentalists that scared the public, not because anybody had proven anything. A scared public can be pretty persuasive.
So, which is worse, a safe and harmless chemical, or millions of people dying of Malaria? Gee, let me think.
The banning of DDT in areas that need it for disease control is almost criminal, and the banning of it in North America does a great job highlighting ignorance.
Just because the Wii and the GameCube both use IBM PowerPC processors doesn't men that "It's the gamecube hardware, only faster". That's like saying that the Athlon 64 is "The 386, only faster."
Other than the fact that we know little about ATI's GPU design for the unit, very little else about the GameCube and Revolution seem to be the same.
Why are the darned things still so big and bulky? Three points come into mind:
1) It has been 40 or 50 years since the Apollo-era spacesuits were designed. 2) It has been at least 30 years since the current NASA spacesuites were designed 3) The moon has no atmosphere. Mars DOES have an atmosphere. You don't need space suits on Mars, just suits to handle lower atmospheric pressure.
So, it has been 30 years since the last spacesuit redesign, and these things aren't even space suits, why the heck are they so damned big and bulky? You'd think 30 to 50 years of technological advancement would have led to bigger improvements than this...
And do those repressive areas of the world include the US or Canada?
Ham radio in North America is a hobby. Something done for fun, that has no actual practical value. WiFi, on the other hand, is useful. Be it aiding a homeowner in networking computers in different rooms, or sharing data among doctors in a hospital, WiFi actually does something useful. The same can't be said about Ham in the US or Canada.
Besides, it isn't like there aren't alternatives to Ham radios. In the US and Canada, there aren't many places that don't have at least analog cell phone coverage (And you can always resort to the old 80s/90s brick phones that do a lot better at analog reception than modern phones). There's also satellite phones, which should work pretty much anywhere, even when you can't get cellphone coverage. And of course, if the FCC hasn't crippled UWB, you'd be able to use that to set up a country-wide network with complete coverage and transmission powers a fraction of that of a cellphone, but with the miniscule transmission power the FCC permits, the best you can hope for with UWB is hundreds of megabits or several gigabits at a few feet, or wifi-type speeds at wifi type ranges.
I doubt they'll run it at a higher clockspeed. They're implementing a die shrink, from 90nm to 65nm. This will run much cooler, resolving a lot of the 360s overheating issues. It also draws less power, potentially shrinking the 360's massive power brick.
People are speculating about higher speeds simply BECAUSE a die shrink would probably ENABLE higher speeds. That doesn't mean that Microsoft will do anything with clockspeed. They probably won't.
That said, they wouldn't be setting a precedent if they did raise clockspeed. Anybody remember the addon for the N64 that added more graphics memory? It enabled some games to run at higher framerates, with more detail. How is that any different from higher clockspeed in the 360? You have your "normal" mode that the game is targetted at, then you have your "enhanced" mode where more CPU power enables some more detail or features. That is no different than what Nintendo did with the N64.
Fraps can record at a much higher resolution than your 1280x1024 stated, as of version 2.7.0 (6th Nov 2005) it can capture video up too 1920x540 and 2160x480 resolutions. One think that can help with your video capture is a faster hard drive or setting up a RAID 0 array to record to.
Those are not higher resolution. Notice that as the horizontal resolution increases, the vertical resolution decreases.
Do you see the trend here? They're all about a megapixel. They're not significantly higher resolution than the other resolutions. They're also useless, since they are rediculously widescreen. 2160x480 is 9:1 widescreen. He wants 4:3, or 1280x1024. So they don't matter.
A faster hard drive may or may not help. FRAPS encodes things as it records, so I imagine the bottleneck is CPU more than the hard-drive.
Have you looked into FRAPS (http://www.fraps.com/)? It doesn't quite meet your resolution requirements, but still gets you most of the way there.
It can record at 1152x864 (4:3) or 1280x720 (16:9) as a max resolution.
1280x1024 is only about a third higher resolution. Perhaps there is some technical limit that prevents fraps from passing one megapixel per frame (both supported max res are slightly below that mark), and 1280x1024 is 1.3 megapixels. But maybe they just picked a megapixel as an arbitrary ceiling to prevent customer complaints from slow performance.
I don't know anything about the internals of FRAPS, but it seems ideally suited to a dualcore system.
I suggest you contact the FRAPS people and ask them:
1) If a special build can be produced that supports 1280x1024 2) If FRAPS can take advantage of a second core (Game on one, FRAPS on the other) for such intensive recording
The demo videos are impressive. The UT2003 one at 1024x768 is just the intro and title screen, but the 800x600 Doom 3 demo is a minute of gameplay, and it doesn't seem to be dropping any frames.
I think people are overestimating the effectiveness of immersion.
I'm bilingual. I speak English, and French. Why? Because I have spent my entire life in Quebec, a province in which the primary language is French. I've taken innumerable French courses (since they're mandatory by law), and graduated from "french immersion" schools (This is where the government forces English speakers to take things like geography and history in French).
Can I speak French? Yes. Can I understand it? Yes. Can I read it? Yes. Can I write it? Horrible grammar, but yes. Am I good at it? Hell no! After having had French education since kindergarten, and being immersed in a French culture my entire life, I am still nowhere near fluent. People talk about taking a few years to become fluent. Now, maybe I'm just not good at learning languages, but my 20 years says that's unlikely.
I'm sure there are mitigating factors. There are differences between living in a French province, but an English community (where most of my friends speak English), and living in Japan where you have NOTHING but Japanese to communicate in. For me, French is just something that I am exposed to daily, not something that I need to use on a daily basis. My verb conjugation in French is still guesswork. Thank goodness so many verb endings in French are pronounced the same, so that I can speak French much better than I write it!
So what am I trying to say? Well, immerse yourself and take lessons all you want, chances are the best you can hope for even after decades is merely to be able to communicate with relative ease. Forget about fluency.
I'll be honest, I'm interested in learning Japanese as a third language. But what has stopped me so far is a nagging voice in my head that says "If you've spent your entire life taking French courses and living in a French culture and still suck at it, what makes you think you can ever learn Japanese, idiot?".
I am but a clueless n00b, but could somebody explain to me why this is any better than anything else?
It strikes me like anybody who is competent enough to use and maintain a secure Trustix distribution would be equally qualified to maintain a secure, say, RHEL 4 distro. RHEL 4 is also not burdened by a GUI, and supports SElinux. I'm sure you can also install Ubuntu without X, and I know you can for many other distros.
So, if you have the qualifications, why use Trustix? And if you don't, wouldn't a more user friendly distro that did have a GUI that tried to help you with security be more secure? A user that knows how a firewall works but doesn't know how to use IPtables would be better off using a GUI config program than trying (and failing) to manage the firewall by CLI.
That said, I know how to configure IPtables by the command line, but find it much easier to leave such things to APF. I'm less likely to make mistakes that way, and it saves me time. It is also probably more secure, since it will account for things that I might not have thought of on my own.
What volume limit is good? The volume level isn't measured in decibels, just a sliding bar. What about going between songs that are very quiet and very loud? I've had the Sound Check feature on my iPod and in iTunes enabled for ages (supposedly it normalizes between songs), but it doesn't seem to do anything.
With the volume limit, it seems like either I'd set a limit that would be good for loud songs, but make it hard to hear quiet songs, or set a limit that would be good for quiet songs, but still too loud for loud songs.
So, to me, this might solve the problem of preventing deafening volumes, but it doesn't make my listening experience any better. Really, what I want is for Sound Check to just do what it is suppose to. If all my songs played back at similar volume levels, I wouldn't need to worry about turning up volume for a quiet song only to be deafened by the next one in the queue.
Slashdot Mirror
Coffee gives me a similar length word with two 'r' in it.
I used to, but not anymore:
1) No practical use.
2) Redundant in emergencies
3) Taking up valuable bandwidth
4) User complains slowing down adoption of actual useful technologies like BPL
5) For hobby, there are tons of free internet solutions. Skype anyone?
Now, I'll admit that I'm taking a wild stab at #2. I assume that in actual emergencies, emergency personnel rely on other radio equipment than HAM, but I'm just taking a guess. But I think the other ones are pretty solid (save number one if number two is false).
Err, no, I don't remember HL: Source being a letdown. It was exactly what I expected; HL1 in the Source engine. The huge improvement in lighting quality was quite nice when replaying HL1.
I should point you towards Black Mesa: Source, which seems to be what you want; a professional quality full remake of HL1 in the HL2 engine.
They're currently rare, but shortly will not be. Mark Rein, IIRC, hinted that UT2007 would be 20 or 30 gigs. And then keep in mind that the "current" next-gen consoles need to last for years (What was it, at least five?)
When thinking of next-gen consoles, you need to think about the requirements of games along the FULL life of the console.
That said, I still think it's too early to shove BluRay or HD-DVD in consoles. Yes, we might need the capacity, but the hardware is too new to stick in consoles being manufactured today.
Almost certainly by doing geolocation on your IP. It is often possible to take somebody's IP and narrow down the exact city (or even sometimes borough) they're in, and it's almost always possible (With few rare exceptions) to get the country. IP blocks are allocated to ISPs in certain countries, and lots of people sell (or offer freely) databases that you can look up any IP's country in.
I meant call my landline. I do have a landline.
Regular long distance charges aren't much either. I think that from montreal to anywhere in north america is usually about 10 cents a minute.
Incorrect. It's only free from within the US and Canada (not just the US), TO within the US and Canada. For example, sitting in Montreal, I can call Dallas for free, or I can call Toronto for free, or somebody in LA can call me for free.
What does WMP 11 do (that I care about) that good old MPC doesn't? I'd rather user a client that clones a 7-year old interface than Microsoft's latest and greatest. Shouldn't that tell Microsoft something?
My point is that Windows is closer. Yeah, you still need something to play QuickTime and DVDs on Windows, but there's a lot of stuff that Ubuntu is missing. Not being able to play MP3s, for example, is braindead. I don't care if it's proprietary and requires a license, it is something that a user is going to expect to just WORK. I mean, the machine I'm typing this message on right now is running Ubuntu (I work at a company that produces a linux distro), and I still haven't figured out a way to get WMV9 files to play, even using WINE (Reports are that a long and difficult process lets you get it installed, but that it still won't stream anything, meaning that even with MediaPlayerConnectivity it is still semi-useless).
With Windows, MP3 functionality is built in, and assuming you at least run Windows Update, you're going to get WMV9 support. MP3 is something that is important to a lot of people, but you've got to jump through hoops to get it going with most Linux distros.
Getting MP3 support in Ubuntu is a nightmare for the average user. The official instructions have them adding new repositories, and then executing commands in a terminal to install the MP3 support. I can do this just fine. My mother can't.
Until you can have a perfectly working linux install that does everything the average user needs without ever having a terminal application installed, it isn't ready for the average user. Most linux users are so blind to the needs of the average user that they assume that just because something is easy to them, it will be easy to everyone. Most computer users I know need me to come over just to install antivirus software for them, something as simple as downloading a file, running an installer, and clicking next a few times. How are these people, these average computer users, expected to reconfigure apt-get for new repositories and then install new packages from a terminal?
Even then, with the distros you've described, there isn't the same out-of-box factor with Windows. With Windows, you can get pretty far by running through Windows Update and getting the latest versions of everything, and then just installing the missing software (DVD player, quicktime, office, etc).
Linux has come a long way as far as usability is concerned, and it's still make great strides. But to your average joe, there is still way too much configuration and tweaking needed. Take the article at face value; most people don't even bother with Windows Update, because that's too complicated for them. Most people could never install even Windows on their own. Most people have a hard time trying to install QuickTime themselves, for example.
For an average user to use Linux, they must NEVER need to even SEE a console, they need all drivers to be installed for them on installation (I'll admit it, Ubuntu does this very well), and they need very easy ways to view proprietary codecs (DVDs, MP3s, WMV9s, etc). Linux still isn't there yet.
If anybody was actually surprised by this article, then they are obviously out of touch with the skill level of the average PC user. Compared to most, the author of this article was positively an advanced power-user.
PS2 linux failed because:
1) Sony crippled it and didn't give anything close to direct access to hardware, meaning very little hardware acceleration
2) Sony charged a big chunk of change to "buy" linux support
And Sony is actively trying to kill off PSP homebrew. So don't get your hopes up!
The problem is that with the PS2, DVDs were the happening thing. With BluRay, nobody cares.
Of EVERYBODY I know, only ONE person has an HDTV. And they're not really interested in HDDVD/BluRay (They have HD digital cable, and DVD is "good enough").
So while everybody was able to take advantage of the higher resolution provided by DVD, barely anybody can benefit from a high definition optical format. Most people don't have HDTVs, and of those that do, most of them have analog inputs (IE, no HDMI+HDCP), and won't be able to watch BluRay in HD anyhow. The only people who are going to buy the PS3 for BluRay are people who were already going to buy (more expensive) BluRay players, and there are not very many people out there. How many people do you know that have an HDDVD player?
So, the BluRay factor might help Sony down the road, but history shows that the first manufacturer to push out 10 million units usually dominates the market. By the time BluRay increases PS3 sales, Sony will already be in second or third place.
I see one of two things happening:
1) Sony drops the PS3 price before or shortly after launch, matching or beating Microsoft's price. Due to the existing Sony fans, the PS3 becomes the number one or two console ahead of Microsoft.
2) Sony keeps the price high. Barely anybody buys the PS3. Sony is in third place behind Nintendo and Microsoft.
The Wii is a much more attractive offering this time around. I think that it will likely bump Nintendo up to the number two slot. The number one slot is in sight, but I think the number two slot is a fair bet.
Let's also not forget that when the PS3 launch date rolls around, Microsoft can easily announce pricecutes. They have no problem losing a ton of money on hardware sales, and they're perfectly willing to do it. And then there's Halo 3. Even if it isn't ready by PS3 launch time, dropping such a bombshell early on in the PS3's lifespan could be a hit that the PS3 might not recover from.
A lot hinges on the Wii launch price, though. Current estimates put it from $149 to $299, with many insiders saying that it'll be closer to $149. At $299, the Wii is priced the same as the core 360, and will have to go on its unique controller alone. At $149, that's only 25% the cost of a PS3 and a bit over a third the cost of a 360, and it becomes a terribly attractive option.
DDT is effective, and harmless. There is NO credible scientific evidence that it has ANY effect on humans, OR wildlife. It was banned because of fake research by environmentalists that scared the public, not because anybody had proven anything. A scared public can be pretty persuasive.
So, which is worse, a safe and harmless chemical, or millions of people dying of Malaria? Gee, let me think.
The banning of DDT in areas that need it for disease control is almost criminal, and the banning of it in North America does a great job highlighting ignorance.
Just because the Wii and the GameCube both use IBM PowerPC processors doesn't men that "It's the gamecube hardware, only faster". That's like saying that the Athlon 64 is "The 386, only faster."
Other than the fact that we know little about ATI's GPU design for the unit, very little else about the GameCube and Revolution seem to be the same.
Why are the darned things still so big and bulky? Three points come into mind:
1) It has been 40 or 50 years since the Apollo-era spacesuits were designed.
2) It has been at least 30 years since the current NASA spacesuites were designed
3) The moon has no atmosphere. Mars DOES have an atmosphere. You don't need space suits on Mars, just suits to handle lower atmospheric pressure.
So, it has been 30 years since the last spacesuit redesign, and these things aren't even space suits, why the heck are they so damned big and bulky? You'd think 30 to 50 years of technological advancement would have led to bigger improvements than this...
And do those repressive areas of the world include the US or Canada?
Ham radio in North America is a hobby. Something done for fun, that has no actual practical value. WiFi, on the other hand, is useful. Be it aiding a homeowner in networking computers in different rooms, or sharing data among doctors in a hospital, WiFi actually does something useful. The same can't be said about Ham in the US or Canada.
Besides, it isn't like there aren't alternatives to Ham radios. In the US and Canada, there aren't many places that don't have at least analog cell phone coverage (And you can always resort to the old 80s/90s brick phones that do a lot better at analog reception than modern phones). There's also satellite phones, which should work pretty much anywhere, even when you can't get cellphone coverage. And of course, if the FCC hasn't crippled UWB, you'd be able to use that to set up a country-wide network with complete coverage and transmission powers a fraction of that of a cellphone, but with the miniscule transmission power the FCC permits, the best you can hope for with UWB is hundreds of megabits or several gigabits at a few feet, or wifi-type speeds at wifi type ranges.
I doubt they'll run it at a higher clockspeed. They're implementing a die shrink, from 90nm to 65nm. This will run much cooler, resolving a lot of the 360s overheating issues. It also draws less power, potentially shrinking the 360's massive power brick.
People are speculating about higher speeds simply BECAUSE a die shrink would probably ENABLE higher speeds. That doesn't mean that Microsoft will do anything with clockspeed. They probably won't.
That said, they wouldn't be setting a precedent if they did raise clockspeed. Anybody remember the addon for the N64 that added more graphics memory? It enabled some games to run at higher framerates, with more detail. How is that any different from higher clockspeed in the 360? You have your "normal" mode that the game is targetted at, then you have your "enhanced" mode where more CPU power enables some more detail or features. That is no different than what Nintendo did with the N64.
Fraps can record at a much higher resolution than your 1280x1024 stated, as of version 2.7.0 (6th Nov 2005) it can capture video up too 1920x540 and 2160x480 resolutions. One think that can help with your video capture is a faster hard drive or setting up a RAID 0 array to record to.
Those are not higher resolution. Notice that as the horizontal resolution increases, the vertical resolution decreases.
1152 * 864 = 995,328
1280 * 720 = 921,600
1920 * 540 = 1,036,800
2160 * 480 = 1,036,800
Do you see the trend here? They're all about a megapixel. They're not significantly higher resolution than the other resolutions. They're also useless, since they are rediculously widescreen. 2160x480 is 9:1 widescreen. He wants 4:3, or 1280x1024. So they don't matter.
A faster hard drive may or may not help. FRAPS encodes things as it records, so I imagine the bottleneck is CPU more than the hard-drive.
Absolutely worst case is you use XDMCP to forward OpenGL to a Windows box and use FRAPS from there ;)
Have you looked into FRAPS (http://www.fraps.com/)? It doesn't quite meet your resolution requirements, but still gets you most of the way there.
It can record at 1152x864 (4:3) or 1280x720 (16:9) as a max resolution.
1280x1024 is only about a third higher resolution. Perhaps there is some technical limit that prevents fraps from passing one megapixel per frame (both supported max res are slightly below that mark), and 1280x1024 is 1.3 megapixels. But maybe they just picked a megapixel as an arbitrary ceiling to prevent customer complaints from slow performance.
I don't know anything about the internals of FRAPS, but it seems ideally suited to a dualcore system.
I suggest you contact the FRAPS people and ask them:
1) If a special build can be produced that supports 1280x1024
2) If FRAPS can take advantage of a second core (Game on one, FRAPS on the other) for such intensive recording
The demo videos are impressive. The UT2003 one at 1024x768 is just the intro and title screen, but the 800x600 Doom 3 demo is a minute of gameplay, and it doesn't seem to be dropping any frames.
I think people are overestimating the effectiveness of immersion.
I'm bilingual. I speak English, and French. Why? Because I have spent my entire life in Quebec, a province in which the primary language is French. I've taken innumerable French courses (since they're mandatory by law), and graduated from "french immersion" schools (This is where the government forces English speakers to take things like geography and history in French).
Can I speak French? Yes. Can I understand it? Yes. Can I read it? Yes. Can I write it? Horrible grammar, but yes. Am I good at it? Hell no! After having had French education since kindergarten, and being immersed in a French culture my entire life, I am still nowhere near fluent. People talk about taking a few years to become fluent. Now, maybe I'm just not good at learning languages, but my 20 years says that's unlikely.
I'm sure there are mitigating factors. There are differences between living in a French province, but an English community (where most of my friends speak English), and living in Japan where you have NOTHING but Japanese to communicate in. For me, French is just something that I am exposed to daily, not something that I need to use on a daily basis. My verb conjugation in French is still guesswork. Thank goodness so many verb endings in French are pronounced the same, so that I can speak French much better than I write it!
So what am I trying to say? Well, immerse yourself and take lessons all you want, chances are the best you can hope for even after decades is merely to be able to communicate with relative ease. Forget about fluency.
I'll be honest, I'm interested in learning Japanese as a third language. But what has stopped me so far is a nagging voice in my head that says "If you've spent your entire life taking French courses and living in a French culture and still suck at it, what makes you think you can ever learn Japanese, idiot?".
Maybe I just suck at learning other languages.
Old news. People were running OSX under VMware before they got it running on bare metal hardware.
I.E. Bob Ross teaches to paint by example
Err, you do know that he's dead, right?
I am but a clueless n00b, but could somebody explain to me why this is any better than anything else?
It strikes me like anybody who is competent enough to use and maintain a secure Trustix distribution would be equally qualified to maintain a secure, say, RHEL 4 distro. RHEL 4 is also not burdened by a GUI, and supports SElinux. I'm sure you can also install Ubuntu without X, and I know you can for many other distros.
So, if you have the qualifications, why use Trustix? And if you don't, wouldn't a more user friendly distro that did have a GUI that tried to help you with security be more secure? A user that knows how a firewall works but doesn't know how to use IPtables would be better off using a GUI config program than trying (and failing) to manage the firewall by CLI.
That said, I know how to configure IPtables by the command line, but find it much easier to leave such things to APF. I'm less likely to make mistakes that way, and it saves me time. It is also probably more secure, since it will account for things that I might not have thought of on my own.
What volume limit is good? The volume level isn't measured in decibels, just a sliding bar. What about going between songs that are very quiet and very loud? I've had the Sound Check feature on my iPod and in iTunes enabled for ages (supposedly it normalizes between songs), but it doesn't seem to do anything.
With the volume limit, it seems like either I'd set a limit that would be good for loud songs, but make it hard to hear quiet songs, or set a limit that would be good for quiet songs, but still too loud for loud songs.
So, to me, this might solve the problem of preventing deafening volumes, but it doesn't make my listening experience any better. Really, what I want is for Sound Check to just do what it is suppose to. If all my songs played back at similar volume levels, I wouldn't need to worry about turning up volume for a quiet song only to be deafened by the next one in the queue.