What's the point of that then? Being able to chat at the same time as you're playing would be a marvelous feature. Surely the XBox360 hardware is up to the task.
This is a game console, not a general purpose PC. Pre-emptive multitasking isn't used. In other words, the hardware has to be "shared".
If what you propose is done, how will the game react when you "take" one of it's hardware threads away from it? Depends on the game.
Now, if a game is written to support chat during the game, pausing wouldn't be necessary. But if the game isn't, you still have an option besides quitting the game.
'find' is manual in that it is a process that I must figure out how to use. It is not intuitive. It is not native. It does not allow for discovery. It is frustrating, time consuming, and forces me to think far more about the problem than I wish to.
Sure, WinFS isn't going to read my mind, but at the same time I don't have to memorize 300 different keywords and their relationships to each other. I don't have to iteratively run "find" to restrict my query. I can't filter out categories of information without explicitly enumerating each element of a category. How does this process not scream "tedious pain in the ass" to you?
I want to navigate to my file. I don't necessarily know which file it is, what "keywords" I invented for that file, when I took it, etc. I start off with a thought "I took the coolest photo in florida last year, now where is it?" Note that I don't necessarily remember that it was of a lighthouse, that it was my christmas vacation, etc. However, I do know it was in Florida. And by looking at all of the pictures I took in Florida, I think to myself "oh yeah, I took that at christmas". At this point, I can easily filter out all of the non-christmas photos.
This isn't about "getting to the file", it's about FINDING the file. It's also about not being constrained to an artificial structure for those files. With your solution, how easy is it to select a set of "florida vacation" pictures and create a slideshow?
There is absolutely NOTHING in.Net that REQUIRES developers to use DCOM in their application for remote object invocation.
The tools you use to develop said application may be a different story entirely, but if a dev creates a.Net application that uses DCOM, it was their own choice -- not a result of.Net architecture.
I never said it was impossible. Tools that are currently available make it such a painful/annoying experience that I choose not to do it using said tools.
I could ride a bike 20 miles to and from work every day, but driving a car is certainly a lot more convenient. If I told you you should't own/drive a car to work because you can ride a bike, you'd probably laugh and call me an idiot -- driving is so much easier and more convenient.
The same applies here: Yeah, I could use cryptic commands and manage all of the data in a painstaking manual process, but why would I want to if there is a better solution that makes it several orders of magnitude easier? Aren't computers supposed to make our lives easier?
They are asking the court to uphold the employement agreement.
The "IP" that comes into play is a direct result of Lee accepting the EXACT SAME JOB at Google that he performed at Microsoft. His job requires strategic planning against competitors in his field. The arguement of inevitable disclosure comes into play because there isn't any way to determine if Lee's decisions that "beat" Microsoft were based on his 1st hand knowledge of Microsoft's plans, or his inate skill/cunning. In other words, he's tainted -- he already knows what Microsoft plans to do -- think of it as the executive equivelent of clean room reverse engineering.
Inevitable disclosure is very difficult to prove, and you generally have to prove that disclosure must happen as part of performing job. I could have knowledge of some special algorithm and do my job correctly without infringing on or disclosing that information. Lee can't.
In this case, I think it seems very easy to argue inevitable disclosure -- which I don't think is a good sign for Google.
I'm actually looking forward to using it in a manner that will help me organize my photos. Directory structures + filenames don't cut it, especially when you've got attributes like "christmas vacation, florida, camille, beach, lighthouse, 16:9 crop" that you want to associate with one file.
Of course, as you note, the system is useless if you have poor metadata associated with the files. But with good metadata, the flexability/power available to organize and find the information you are looking for is increased by an order of magnitude via dynamic folder creation.
Look, at least try to keep up here. Google already knew about the contract and planned for it: the man was going to be "on leave" for the year of the non-compete agreement. They basically hired the guy to do nothing at all, thereby not competing with Microsoft at all. This is, in fact, standard operating procedure when dealing with someone with such a contract but which HR has identified as someone they really, really want to employ.
Oh, I'm keeping up. I'm just not off in la-la land like some people around here are.
There is a provision in the contract, should Microsoft sue and successfully uphold their employment contract with Lee, that Google will pay Lee to be "on leave" for a year. Note that this provision doesn't kick in UNLESS Microsoft prevents Lee from working for Google. Google didn't hire him and immediately put him on vacation.
Microsoft's lawsuit is no longer about the contract, it's about their "trade secrets", and they're claiming that "some time in the future" (aka now to infinity) Lee will leak their trade secrets and can therefore not work for Google, not now or ever, contract or no contract.
Bzzt. Sorry, please try again.
From the article:
Microsoft spokeswoman Stacy Drake said the company is not trying to keep Lee, who founded a Microsoft research center in China, from taking his Google post forever. "We are asking that Dr. Lee and Google honor the one-year noncompete/confidentiality agreement that Lee signed with us," Drake said in a statement.
Inevitable disclosure of "trade secrets" is the justification for the non-compete clause in the contract, not an additional "you can't work for google" arguement. Non-competes are tossed out in courts if their sole purpose is to prevent employees from seeking other jobs.
None of your arguement matters, because you're completely missing the point. This is a contract dispute -- nothing more, nothing less. He isn't being sued because he changed jobs, he isn't being sued because he's smart and "knows stuff". He's being sued because he broke a contract.
Hate it all you want, but that's the reality of it.
He signed a contract stating he wouldn't work for a direct competitor doing the same job he did at Microsoft for a period of one year after leaving Microsoft.
But he did. He broke the contract. He knew he was breaking the contract. He had specific provisions added to his employement contract with Google to cover his ass in case Microsoft called him on it.
It means that I don't want people outside of a certain radius (say, beyond the walls of my house) using my WAP.
The response time of a wireless NIC is several orders of magnitude faster than the time it takes for a signal to travel through the air (think of the difference between a CPU hitting cache vs a CPU hitting main memory and multiply by a factor of ~250 per 100 feet).
Obviously, this technique isn't precise to the exact cm, but the tolerances are acceptable. In other words, the coverage pattern won't look like a starfish -- network behavior will be erratic near the perimeter (just as if you were just at the edge of signal range).
The "computer chugging along" effect is irrelevent. The NIC handles the wireless protocol, not the CPU. The CPU just says "transmit this packet".
No, it shuts down if the time it takes for your wireless nic to respond to the wap is greater than a certain threshold, where the threshhold is set in a manner that represents absolute distance from the access point.
This has nothing to do with the actual 'ping time' of data sent using the wireless protocol, rather it has everything to do with the 'ping time' of protocol itself.
Add in the cost of an external USB enclosure. Then factor in the typical margin between wholesale (which is what you're close to paying ordering online) and MSRP.
Actually, I would imagine this would be more useful for solving larger problems that are run infrequently, where you want do do a distributd task once a month that takes 1000 machine hours and get back a result in 1 hour.
Actually, they're not, although my understanding was that MS claimed they were.
If you use windows update, you can't get past the authentication mechanism. If you setup automatic updates, you'll get them on the schedule you specify.
Which means that after it goes around the legs of my cofee table, it won't reach half of the seats on my couch.
You only have to plug a controller once.
Unless you tug on it too hard and yank it out, because the cord is too damn short.
Agreed. Sony can take one of two routes now--price at $400 and say it's the same as the Xbox because the $300 doesn't count. Or Sony can price it at $300 with a hard drive and wireless controller.
I honestly don't expect Sony to price their unit at $300. But at the same time, I know that with a base unit price of $400 I'm willing to wait to find out.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the point of that then? Being able to chat at the same time as you're playing would be a marvelous feature. Surely the XBox360 hardware is up to the task.
This is a game console, not a general purpose PC. Pre-emptive multitasking isn't used. In other words, the hardware has to be "shared".
If what you propose is done, how will the game react when you "take" one of it's hardware threads away from it? Depends on the game.
Now, if a game is written to support chat during the game, pausing wouldn't be necessary. But if the game isn't, you still have an option besides quitting the game.
So you're arguing that all "advancements" are irrelevent and shouldn't be developed because they aren't already invented? *boggle*
'find' is manual in that it is a process that I must figure out how to use. It is not intuitive. It is not native. It does not allow for discovery. It is frustrating, time consuming, and forces me to think far more about the problem than I wish to.
Sure, WinFS isn't going to read my mind, but at the same time I don't have to memorize 300 different keywords and their relationships to each other. I don't have to iteratively run "find" to restrict my query. I can't filter out categories of information without explicitly enumerating each element of a category. How does this process not scream "tedious pain in the ass" to you?
I want to navigate to my file. I don't necessarily know which file it is, what "keywords" I invented for that file, when I took it, etc. I start off with a thought "I took the coolest photo in florida last year, now where is it?" Note that I don't necessarily remember that it was of a lighthouse, that it was my christmas vacation, etc. However, I do know it was in Florida. And by looking at all of the pictures I took in Florida, I think to myself "oh yeah, I took that at christmas". At this point, I can easily filter out all of the non-christmas photos.
This isn't about "getting to the file", it's about FINDING the file. It's also about not being constrained to an artificial structure for those files. With your solution, how easy is it to select a set of "florida vacation" pictures and create a slideshow?
There is absolutely NOTHING in .Net that REQUIRES developers to use DCOM in their application for remote object invocation.
.Net application that uses DCOM, it was their own choice -- not a result of .Net architecture.
The tools you use to develop said application may be a different story entirely, but if a dev creates a
I never said it was impossible. Tools that are currently available make it such a painful/annoying experience that I choose not to do it using said tools.
I could ride a bike 20 miles to and from work every day, but driving a car is certainly a lot more convenient. If I told you you should't own/drive a car to work because you can ride a bike, you'd probably laugh and call me an idiot -- driving is so much easier and more convenient.
The same applies here: Yeah, I could use cryptic commands and manage all of the data in a painstaking manual process, but why would I want to if there is a better solution that makes it several orders of magnitude easier? Aren't computers supposed to make our lives easier?
And that obtuse set of commands is better WHY?
Text of complaint: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/business/lin ks/ms_complaint.pdf
They are asking the court to uphold the employement agreement.
The "IP" that comes into play is a direct result of Lee accepting the EXACT SAME JOB at Google that he performed at Microsoft. His job requires strategic planning against competitors in his field. The arguement of inevitable disclosure comes into play because there isn't any way to determine if Lee's decisions that "beat" Microsoft were based on his 1st hand knowledge of Microsoft's plans, or his inate skill/cunning. In other words, he's tainted -- he already knows what Microsoft plans to do -- think of it as the executive equivelent of clean room reverse engineering.
Inevitable disclosure is very difficult to prove, and you generally have to prove that disclosure must happen as part of performing job.
I could have knowledge of some special algorithm and do my job correctly without infringing on or disclosing that information. Lee can't.
In this case, I think it seems very easy to argue inevitable disclosure -- which I don't think is a good sign for Google.
If you don't like it, go back to using your Altair. The rest of the world isn't afraid of better solutions to common problems.
Great, now show me how to find all of the lighthouse pictures I've ever taken from floria that aren't a 16:9 crop?
Or better, how I would use said directory structure to organize pictures with Camille in them for some sort of surprise birthday photo montage?
I'm actually looking forward to using it in a manner that will help me organize my photos. Directory structures + filenames don't cut it, especially when you've got attributes like "christmas vacation, florida, camille, beach, lighthouse, 16:9 crop" that you want to associate with one file.
Of course, as you note, the system is useless if you have poor metadata associated with the files. But with good metadata, the flexability/power available to organize and find the information you are looking for is increased by an order of magnitude via dynamic folder creation.
Look, at least try to keep up here. Google already knew about the contract and planned for it: the man was going to be "on leave" for the year of the non-compete agreement. They basically hired the guy to do nothing at all, thereby not competing with Microsoft at all. This is, in fact, standard operating procedure when dealing with someone with such a contract but which HR has identified as someone they really, really want to employ.
Oh, I'm keeping up. I'm just not off in la-la land like some people around here are.
There is a provision in the contract, should Microsoft sue and successfully uphold their employment contract with Lee, that Google will pay Lee to be "on leave" for a year. Note that this provision doesn't kick in UNLESS Microsoft prevents Lee from working for Google. Google didn't hire him and immediately put him on vacation.
Microsoft's lawsuit is no longer about the contract, it's about their "trade secrets", and they're claiming that "some time in the future" (aka now to infinity) Lee will leak their trade secrets and can therefore not work for Google, not now or ever, contract or no contract.
Bzzt. Sorry, please try again.
From the article:
Microsoft spokeswoman Stacy Drake said the company is not trying to keep Lee, who founded a Microsoft research center in China, from taking his Google post forever. "We are asking that Dr. Lee and Google honor the one-year noncompete/confidentiality agreement that Lee signed with us," Drake said in a statement.
Inevitable disclosure of "trade secrets" is the justification for the non-compete clause in the contract, not an additional "you can't work for google" arguement. Non-competes are tossed out in courts if their sole purpose is to prevent employees from seeking other jobs.
None of your arguement matters, because you're completely missing the point. This is a contract dispute -- nothing more, nothing less. He isn't being sued because he changed jobs, he isn't being sued because he's smart and "knows stuff". He's being sued because he broke a contract.
Hate it all you want, but that's the reality of it.
He signed a contract stating he wouldn't work for a direct competitor doing the same job he did at Microsoft for a period of one year after leaving Microsoft.
But he did. He broke the contract. He knew he was breaking the contract. He had specific provisions added to his employement contract with Google to cover his ass in case Microsoft called him on it.
And now Microsoft is calling him on it.
Did Borland have their employees sign an employment contract containing a non-compete clause? No? Sorry, your argument is irrelevent.
MS is setting a very dangerous precedent.
...
I suppose enforcing a contract could be considered a "dangerous precedent" to anyone who doesn't intend to honor said agreement
I failed English. :P Seriously though, strategy is one of the words I seem to consistently butcher ...
The game design has elements of stratedgy that I refuse to acknowledge, and it lets people beat me.
WTF, are you dense? You're comparing remote debugging with how an application communicates with remote objects?
It means that I don't want people outside of a certain radius (say, beyond the walls of my house) using my WAP.
The response time of a wireless NIC is several orders of magnitude faster than the time it takes for a signal to travel through the air (think of the difference between a CPU hitting cache vs a CPU hitting main memory and multiply by a factor of ~250 per 100 feet).
Obviously, this technique isn't precise to the exact cm, but the tolerances are acceptable. In other words, the coverage pattern won't look like a starfish -- network behavior will be erratic near the perimeter (just as if you were just at the edge of signal range).
The "computer chugging along" effect is irrelevent. The NIC handles the wireless protocol, not the CPU. The CPU just says "transmit this packet".
No, it shuts down if the time it takes for your wireless nic to respond to the wap is greater than a certain threshold, where the threshhold is set in a manner that represents absolute distance from the access point.
This has nothing to do with the actual 'ping time' of data sent using the wireless protocol, rather it has everything to do with the 'ping time' of protocol itself.
Add in the cost of an external USB enclosure. Then factor in the typical margin between wholesale (which is what you're close to paying ordering online) and MSRP.
It is a lot closer than you think.
Actually, I would imagine this would be more useful for solving larger problems that are run infrequently, where you want do do a distributd task once a month that takes 1000 machine hours and get back a result in 1 hour.
If you want to download and apply updates manually, go here: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/current. aspx
Actually, they're not, although my understanding was that MS claimed they were.
If you use windows update, you can't get past the authentication mechanism. If you setup automatic updates, you'll get them on the schedule you specify.
They're (supposedly) using 1.8" drives, which don't typically have the kind of capacity a normal desktop drive would have.
The cord is 9 feet long.
Which means that after it goes around the legs of my cofee table, it won't reach half of the seats on my couch.
You only have to plug a controller once.
Unless you tug on it too hard and yank it out, because the cord is too damn short.
Agreed. Sony can take one of two routes now--price at $400 and say it's the same as the Xbox because the $300 doesn't count. Or Sony can price it at $300 with a hard drive and wireless controller.
I honestly don't expect Sony to price their unit at $300. But at the same time, I know that with a base unit price of $400 I'm willing to wait to find out.