On the contrary, the choice is very bad. It would not surprise me if someone could come up with a set of 5 games that run flawlessly on vista, but fail under wine, which would also say nothing whatsoever about the _general_ compatibility of either platform.
If I take a look at 5 trees in my city and conclude they are sick, I cannot conclude that all trees are sick. If I test 10 keyboards and conclude they all suck, I cannot make the claim that all keyboards suck.
How about we mod you -1:Flamebait instead? At least the author admits the article is "a bit biased".
Let us take a look at a definition of flamebait (wikipedia): Flamebait is a message posted to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the troll often has no real interest in.
As a professional software developer I have a professional interest in the performance of OS-es, even when it comes to gaming. My message was in no way intended to provoke emotional response; I even replaced the names of the OS-es with placeholders to indicate my argument has nothing to do with the OS-es themselves, but with the methodology followed in the article. Please elaborate why my posting should be modded 'flamebait', for I fail to see a valid reason.
On the other hand you're saying it ISN'T news for nerds that games built to run on a prior version of Windows don't work in new one but do work on a totally different operating system?
No, I have said no such thing whatsoever. If apps written for A run better on B, it is indeed news. The article however fails miserably in showing evidence for such a claim.
Let me guess. You don't think it's news that newer versions of Office won't open old word documents but Open Office will.
My vision on another subject that is remotely related to the one we are discussing is irrelevant. Please stick to the issue you are debating.
Don't get me wrong, the choice of games (besides perhaps Civ 4) is questionable,
Which was the point I was making, together with the fact that it is bad practice to (non-randomly) pick 5 out of a population of thousands and make assumptions based solely on those 5.
but make no mistake YOU are the one trolling.
Lets take a look at a definition of a troll (wikipedia): An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response.
I fail to see how my post is controversial; I also fail to see any intention of provoking an emotional response. You simply calling my post 'trolling' has no relevance.
The author of the blog article has a point.
The only point the author can make is that for his obscure and very small subset of all possible games, they run better on wine than on vista. My point is that that says absolutely nothing about vista in general.
So this guy takes a whopping 5 games (out of thousands, and most quite obscure) and concludes that system BLA is better than system XYZ. Article mod: -1, Flamebait.
Yes, there is a fairly large amount of it only a few lightminutes away from earth; and the best thing is: tons of helium are being created every second! Unfortunately you have to overcome some issues, like gravitational pull and high temperatures.
But are the big record companies not also the distributors?
And I am not talking about books because there is a lot less money flowing in that sector; and with the current state of legalised corruption in the US, he who has the money writes the laws. So the big record companies and Hollywood companies have a much higher impact on society than the book publishers or writers.
Ok, I get your point. The eerie feeling I got was because the term 'lossy compression' is normally used to indicate a process where you lose data in order to save lots of space. Any sort of recording is not made in order to save space, but in order make it possible to relive a performance.
So there definitively occurs loss with any recording (or even any model of reality, F = ma comes to mind), but because that loss was unintentional and not caused to save space, I would still prefer another term.
I still DJ on a pair of old Pioneer CDJ 500 mkII LTD cd players (no kidding, that's their real name) and the moment the CDJ1000 came out it was already clear to me: they had so much advantages over vinyl (looping, no skipping, CDs weigh far less than vinyl, multiple instant cue points per track, wave data display) that it would be only a matter of time before they would replace the trusted old Technics SL-1200
No one at the time believed me though, especially not fellow vinyl spinning DJs...
There is a new trend now though: mixing straight of an iPod. I am going to be testing that very soon.
Yes, but could one then not also state that *any* recording employs lossy compression? Even a usual very first step in a recording process, the microphone, uses 'compression' in that microphones have cutoff frequencies. And an analog tape recorder will record 'more' if it it running at double speed. So I am not really comfortable with the term 'lossy compression' here.
I have never met a single individual that, when faced with a good vinyl sound system versus an equal CD system, did not prefer the vinyl.
You have never met me.:-)
I understand why ppl prefer vinyl, but their reason to like it more is actually the same reason why I like it less. A really good hifi-system can make a vinyl record sound 'warmer' than its cd counterpart. I for one do not want the sound to be 'warmer', I want it to be as realistic as possible. I percieve the 'warmth' as an addition, something that was not there when microphones first registered the sound that wound up on the audio-carrier.
In the old Motown days there were producers who perfectly knew how a song would ultimately sound on vinyl, or so I have been told. They would manipulate the sound, distort it if you will, so the final result was exactly what they wanted. I have unfortunately never heard such a record on a good hifi-set, but I could imagine preferring vinyl there.
Oh, and the continous hissing and little cracs and pops, especially on classical vinyl records, are continuously triggering reactions in my brain, thus interfering with the ability to enjoy the music...
It may sound strange, but I think the most positive influence I had from any classes was learning Latin; not that I can now translate anything more basic than "Marcus et Cornelia in horto ambulant.", but because that thought my neural net to effectively split up one big problem into an number of smaller problems Also learning 8086 assembly language and 'manually' calling msdos calls (int 21h) and bios calls (int 10h) thought me how "to think" like a computer.
Somehow I believe that if one continues to give money to bands like Led Zeppelin, that would not be much of an incentive to write new music... And that is the reason we have copyright.
Why not? If that would mean that for instance Microsoft is forced to really innovate and bring real functions in their OS-es, the world might just be a better place.
Remember, providing incentive for writers is only a *means* to the *goal* of a richer society...
(...) what they sell you is a license to listen to that music.
IANAL, but when you buy a book or a CD, you actually own that book or CD. You can do almost everything with it (burn it, sell it, write stuff on it, etc), as long as what you do with it is legal. I.e. you can not legally kill someone by hitting him with a book you legally bought. Copyright only deprives you of possible actions you normally have, in this case: you cannot make copies and distribute them, unless for specific purposed (scholarship, etc). Note that (apart for maybe a short time: patents) you are free to copy any physical good (preferably inprove on it in some way) and sell it for a profit. One of the pillarstones of capitalism. What you 'write' on your copy is also limited by trademark laws: you cannot start making sportsshoes and sell them as 'Nike'.
Transferred ownership would imply that the music wouldn't belong to the record company anymore.
That is right; that specific rendering does not belong to them anymore. When a bookstore sells me a book, they do not own that book anymore. When a recordshop (or a record company directly) sells me a CD, it is not the owner anymore. And 'music' in itself cannot be owned; it is an illusion backed by orwellian newspeak (intellectual 'property'); you cannot own music, just like you cannot own a thought or a story. These 'things' are by definition immaterial and therefor cannot and should not be considered 'property' just like physical goods.
And that is why it is so brilliant: of course there are people behind this who like to put MS on its place, but by focussing on the data-availability argument they can sit back and relax. The only was MS can say "Hey, you are doing this to bug us" is for them to publicly admit that lock-in and your-data-is-our-hostage are the bottom line of how MS works. As brilliant as copyleft if you ask me.
Being Dutch I can tell you that it will be highly unlikely that something like what happened in Mass. takes place here in NL. The whole structure of our political system is based on cooperation, on finding the right compromise that works best for the largest group of people, without ignoring minorities.
We've got legalised euthanasia: if someone really wants to die because he faces very strong suffering with no way out, our society gives him the right to let him die in a humane way. Even the christian parties in our government do not try to roll this back.
If you want to smoke pot, hey, no problemo.
Gay marriage: why not? Abortion? yes: under the right circumstances.
Prostitution is also legal; allows for better regulation, less health issues and last but not least: taxation:-). You actually put money in the treasure chest here if you visit a prostitute.
The crux of this all: our political system is more focussed on getting our society to work better. There will be prostitution whatever you do, so its better to legalise and regulate. There were cases of euthanasia and abortion before our laws permitted it, so again better to regulate. Pot, idem. Over here we do not only implement the stuff lobbyists would like; we have no legalised system of bribes here, ehhm, in the US they are called 'campaign contributions' I believe. Also we do not have a winner-takes-all 2 political party system; anyone can start a political party and be elected in our parliament. There is even one seat for the 'Animal Rights Party' right now.
So in this case common sence prevails again: there is simply no way anyone can seriously state that it is better to have all of our documents unreadable in 10, 20, 50 whatever years time. There is also no way that someone can seriously state that you must use products from 1 (even foreign) company in order to communicate with each other. Fortunately our politicians see this also, so the chanches of this getting a Mass. handling are quite small, since there is little incentive to cater to the wishes of some convicted foreign monopolist.
There was no evidence asbestos was dangerous. There was no evidence diethylstilbestrol (DES) was dangerous. There was no evidence that 'enginered' genes from Monsanto would spread to normal crops. There was no evidence the introduction of rabbits would cause havoc in the habitats of native species.
There is no evidence that nanoparticles from paint can enter human cells and cause harm. Would you paint your house with such paint, or would you like to be absolutely positively sure that such particles are safe?
You are absolutely right; I had not thought of that one. Asbestos off course stems form an era when the word nanotech was (probably) not yet thought up, so most of the general public (and even probably here on/.) would not connect the two (saving my face here:-).
So all it takes now is for the media to connect asbestos and nanotech; that might convince politicians to disregard brib^H^H^H^H campaign contributions to make sure the proper safeguards will be incorporated in laws.
Slashdot Mirror
On the contrary, the choice is very bad. It would not surprise me if someone could come up with a set of 5 games that run flawlessly on vista, but fail under wine, which would also say nothing whatsoever about the _general_ compatibility of either platform.
If I take a look at 5 trees in my city and conclude they are sick, I cannot conclude that all trees are sick. If I test 10 keyboards and conclude they all suck, I cannot make the claim that all keyboards suck.
Let us take a look at a definition of flamebait (wikipedia): Flamebait is a message posted to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the troll often has no real interest in.
As a professional software developer I have a professional interest in the performance of OS-es, even when it comes to gaming. My message was in no way intended to provoke emotional response; I even replaced the names of the OS-es with placeholders to indicate my argument has nothing to do with the OS-es themselves, but with the methodology followed in the article. Please elaborate why my posting should be modded 'flamebait', for I fail to see a valid reason.
On the other hand you're saying it ISN'T news for nerds that games built to run on a prior version of Windows don't work in new one but do work on a totally different operating system?No, I have said no such thing whatsoever. If apps written for A run better on B, it is indeed news. The article however fails miserably in showing evidence for such a claim.
Let me guess. You don't think it's news that newer versions of Office won't open old word documents but Open Office will.My vision on another subject that is remotely related to the one we are discussing is irrelevant. Please stick to the issue you are debating.
Don't get me wrong, the choice of games (besides perhaps Civ 4) is questionable,Which was the point I was making, together with the fact that it is bad practice to (non-randomly) pick 5 out of a population of thousands and make assumptions based solely on those 5.
but make no mistake YOU are the one trolling.Lets take a look at a definition of a troll (wikipedia): An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response.
I fail to see how my post is controversial; I also fail to see any intention of provoking an emotional response. You simply calling my post 'trolling' has no relevance.
The author of the blog article has a point.The only point the author can make is that for his obscure and very small subset of all possible games, they run better on wine than on vista. My point is that that says absolutely nothing about vista in general.
So this guy takes a whopping 5 games (out of thousands, and most quite obscure) and concludes that system BLA is better than system XYZ. Article mod: -1, Flamebait.
What a beautifully worded response; that slash of irony made me smile. Thanks.
Yes, there is a fairly large amount of it only a few lightminutes away from earth; and the best thing is: tons of helium are being created every second! Unfortunately you have to overcome some issues, like gravitational pull and high temperatures.
But are the big record companies not also the distributors?
And I am not talking about books because there is a lot less money flowing in that sector; and with the current state of legalised corruption in the US, he who has the money writes the laws. So the big record companies and Hollywood companies have a much higher impact on society than the book publishers or writers.
It's only an example. Most 'copyright'-money flows to big companies who own the copyrights; the actual performers don't own them.
Because their (record)contracts keeps them from doing so? How many artists own the rights to their own recordings?
Ok, I get your point. The eerie feeling I got was because the term 'lossy compression' is normally used to indicate a process where you lose data in order to save lots of space. Any sort of recording is not made in order to save space, but in order make it possible to relive a performance.
So there definitively occurs loss with any recording (or even any model of reality, F = ma comes to mind), but because that loss was unintentional and not caused to save space, I would still prefer another term.
A lot of people also prefer a physical book over reading from a display.
We are human, and part of the human experience in interacting with our environment is touch and smell. I still *love* the smell of vinyl.
I still DJ on a pair of old Pioneer CDJ 500 mkII LTD cd players (no kidding, that's their real name) and the moment the CDJ1000 came out it was already clear to me: they had so much advantages over vinyl (looping, no skipping, CDs weigh far less than vinyl, multiple instant cue points per track, wave data display) that it would be only a matter of time before they would replace the trusted old Technics SL-1200
No one at the time believed me though, especially not fellow vinyl spinning DJs...
There is a new trend now though: mixing straight of an iPod. I am going to be testing that very soon.
Yes, but could one then not also state that *any* recording employs lossy compression? Even a usual very first step in a recording process, the microphone, uses 'compression' in that microphones have cutoff frequencies. And an analog tape recorder will record 'more' if it it running at double speed. So I am not really comfortable with the term 'lossy compression' here.
You have never met me. :-)
I understand why ppl prefer vinyl, but their reason to like it more is actually the same reason why I like it less. A really good hifi-system can make a vinyl record sound 'warmer' than its cd counterpart. I for one do not want the sound to be 'warmer', I want it to be as realistic as possible. I percieve the 'warmth' as an addition, something that was not there when microphones first registered the sound that wound up on the audio-carrier.
In the old Motown days there were producers who perfectly knew how a song would ultimately sound on vinyl, or so I have been told. They would manipulate the sound, distort it if you will, so the final result was exactly what they wanted. I have unfortunately never heard such a record on a good hifi-set, but I could imagine preferring vinyl there.
Oh, and the continous hissing and little cracs and pops, especially on classical vinyl records, are continuously triggering reactions in my brain, thus interfering with the ability to enjoy the music...
Yup, prostitution in the Netherlands is legal. Prostitutes pay taxes and helth insurance companies are oblidged to take them as customers.
It may sound strange, but I think the most positive influence I had from any classes was learning Latin; not that I can now translate anything more basic than "Marcus et Cornelia in horto ambulant.", but because that thought my neural net to effectively split up one big problem into an number of smaller problems Also learning 8086 assembly language and 'manually' calling msdos calls (int 21h) and bios calls (int 10h) thought me how "to think" like a computer.
You mean Microsoft would not have made such enourmous profits?
Somehow I believe that if one continues to give money to bands like Led Zeppelin, that would not be much of an incentive to write new music... And that is the reason we have copyright.
Why not? If that would mean that for instance Microsoft is forced to really innovate and bring real functions in their OS-es, the world might just be a better place.
Remember, providing incentive for writers is only a *means* to the *goal* of a richer society...
And that is why it is so brilliant: of course there are people behind this who like to put MS on its place, but by focussing on the data-availability argument they can sit back and relax. The only was MS can say "Hey, you are doing this to bug us" is for them to publicly admit that lock-in and your-data-is-our-hostage are the bottom line of how MS works. As brilliant as copyleft if you ask me.
Being Dutch I can tell you that it will be highly unlikely that something like what happened in Mass. takes place here in NL. The whole structure of our political system is based on cooperation, on finding the right compromise that works best for the largest group of people, without ignoring minorities.
We've got legalised euthanasia: if someone really wants to die because he faces very strong suffering with no way out, our society gives him the right to let him die in a humane way. Even the christian parties in our government do not try to roll this back.
If you want to smoke pot, hey, no problemo.
Gay marriage: why not? Abortion? yes: under the right circumstances.
Prostitution is also legal; allows for better regulation, less health issues and last but not least: taxation :-). You actually put money in the treasure chest here if you visit a prostitute.
The crux of this all: our political system is more focussed on getting our society to work better. There will be prostitution whatever you do, so its better to legalise and regulate. There were cases of euthanasia and abortion before our laws permitted it, so again better to regulate. Pot, idem. Over here we do not only implement the stuff lobbyists would like; we have no legalised system of bribes here, ehhm, in the US they are called 'campaign contributions' I believe. Also we do not have a winner-takes-all 2 political party system; anyone can start a political party and be elected in our parliament. There is even one seat for the 'Animal Rights Party' right now.
So in this case common sence prevails again: there is simply no way anyone can seriously state that it is better to have all of our documents unreadable in 10, 20, 50 whatever years time. There is also no way that someone can seriously state that you must use products from 1 (even foreign) company in order to communicate with each other. Fortunately our politicians see this also, so the chanches of this getting a Mass. handling are quite small, since there is little incentive to cater to the wishes of some convicted foreign monopolist.
Oops, hit 'reply' instead of 'preview': in the above one should read: rabbits introduced in Australia...
There was no evidence asbestos was dangerous. There was no evidence diethylstilbestrol (DES) was dangerous. There was no evidence that 'enginered' genes from Monsanto would spread to normal crops. There was no evidence the introduction of rabbits would cause havoc in the habitats of native species.
There is no evidence that nanoparticles from paint can enter human cells and cause harm. Would you paint your house with such paint, or would you like to be absolutely positively sure that such particles are safe?
You are absolutely right; I had not thought of that one. Asbestos off course stems form an era when the word nanotech was (probably) not yet thought up, so most of the general public (and even probably here on /.) would not connect the two (saving my face here :-).
So all it takes now is for the media to connect asbestos and nanotech; that might convince politicians to disregard brib^H^H^H^H campaign contributions to make sure the proper safeguards will be incorporated in laws.
Ehhm, reasoning was a bit short trying to get first post *blush*. More reasoning is in this. reply