Not every uberdork wannabe is concerned with proper lab techniques and safety when trying to get a story on Slashdot.:) Example: those psychos blowing up CDs by spinning them at insanely high RPMs (although THAT was actually kinda cool).
Wow, that sucks. All I can say is that I've done the activation process several times on different systems and never had any problems. It's so quick you barely know it happpened. Hopefully they get your stuff resolved, and that it is indeed a rare case.
Databases with millions or billions of records can be processed and analyzed easily. Computing power is cheap these days. You think if the government bought the software they'd stick it on a couple P200's in a closet somewhere?
Heh, good analogy with the car (Futurama: "Like putting too much air in a balloon!")
In the case of interstellar travel though, that'd bite if you get to where you're going and realize they don't have the raw materials to build more ablative shielding. How do you get back?:)
You're right though, the concept is extremely fascinating. The best part of the posting was the bit about us travelling through space in SHIPS, not CRAFT. Once we start building vehicles that essentially aren't "disposable", there'll be a heck of a space rennaissance.
They wern't meant to be exploded directly against the ship, but a 'safe' distance away. The blast/shock wave is what actually propels the ship. The pusher-plate absorbs the shock and transmits it to the rest of the ship like a giant shock-absorber.
Thanks! I guess my followup question to that would be: how "clean" can that possibly be? I imagine using nukes to break earth orbit can't be too good for those of us on the ground.:)
I've heard of the Orion concept before and quite frankly I can't understand how you build something to withstand an atomic explosion for propulsion purposes and not have it blow itself to smithereens. I DO realize that we're not talking about megaton sized explosions here.:) However I'm still fuzzy on how a very low power explosion could keep the damage to the craft down while still providing an effective means of propulsion. Or is this similar to the impulse engines of star trek (the greatest scientific precursor ever, *snicker*), where the nuclear reaction is fed constantly by small amounts of reactive mass?
Sorry, but if I were an organization contracting someone to do work for me, I don't want it to be the first time that person will learn how much to estimate a project to be. Oh it may look nice that someone thinks they can do the project at a very small percentage of everyone else, but chances are they do not know what they're doing when it comes to estimation of time and effort. I'd hate to get that phone call from the guy, "oh, our project's now 1500% over budget, sorry".
You're not alone, old man.:) I'm much more impressed by something's specs than its looks. Sure it's nice to have a clear plexiglass case with neon lights -- makes it way easer to see the dust inside (yeah yeah, unless it's water cooled...). With all that time and money spent on making it look like it's fast you can go out and buy another fast computer.
Interesting format. Too bad they came into the market at just about the worst possible time -- right when everyone else was either releasing a new audio codec or shuffling for position to be the leader in the pack.
I doubt right away, at least for home use. Chances are that such a drive supporting as many standards as that will be prohibitably expensive for anyone other than businesses. Give it a year or so I guess.
Re:Truth about jon carmack
on
Tenebrae Quake
·
· Score: 1
A cousin of mine has been in therapy for 6 months after he lost a 'death match' and became catatonic
You can't blame video games on this. This is more of an issue of your cousin having a dubious grip on reality, or at the very least having a very serious problem distinguishing the difference between gaming and the real world. This is not the game's fault, nor is it your cousin's. He simply has a problem, mentally.
Regarding the Columbine massacre, blaming video games for that is downright ostrich-like (in other words, sticking your head in the sand in denial). These kids had very serious problems to begin with. The fact that nobody paid any attention to this, not even their parents, speaks something about the attitudes people have towards children. They cannot be raised by themselves. Something was missing here, either the teachers or counsellors at the school didn't see the problem or the parents were just "too busy" with other aspects of their life. Or, again, the kids had something wrong with them mentally and going on a shooting spree or acts of violence and crime was simply inevitable. Sometimes people are wired up that way. Blame the games? Give me a break.
The reason I speak up about this is because I've been playing games ever since I was very little. Not all of them have been the least violent ones sold. Do you see me shooting up a high school because of them? No. Why? Because I understand that the games are fake. As in not real. I don't drive home from work and snap suddenly into Carmageddon-mode, or walk down the street and all of a sudden see the world of Grand Theft Auto 3 and go crazy beating up old ladies and shooting hookers for their money. Some people argue those types of games shouldn't be made because they make people do bad things. Those same people are in denial over the fact that those individuals will perform violent acts no matter what the trigger.
Right now we're focused on making Doom 3 a kickass, over the top single player game.
You know, it's good to see that there are still game developers out there that make FPS style games for single players in mind. It seems nowadays the single player components for such games are poorly designed, since the developer knows the primary use for most people is multiplayer online gaming. Not to knock multiplayer gaming or anything, I love that, but sometimes it's fun to not play online, and enjoy a good single player match. Just my 2c.
*sigh* I KNOW that the browser's tied to the OS, I was responding to the guy's issue with the lack of choice with the browsers. That implies use of the browser to browse, not general purpose OS use. That's what he was talking about (I hope), that's what I was talking about.
Getting away from interoprating software now: The EULA stuff. This is totally wacked. I'll agree wholeheartedly that changes to EULAs that come through security patching is a fucking joke, but what's the alternative? Not patching? Before you or someone else starts spouting off "switch to linux" comments let me stop you NOW. I know the argument, it's not pertinent in this particular branch of the thread.:)
They have completely separate teams of people who work on different products.
You're correct, my bad.
Then instead of criticizing them for not fixing their holes, we should be criticizing them for having a stupid, defective software development model. Either way, we still get to criticize them, because they're still doing stupid things. Basically we switch our focus from their laziness, to their incompetence.
Patching problems doesn't indicate laziness or incompetence, it indicates the acknowledgement of the problem and a willingness to fix it. It may very well be that the fault lies in those who originally coded the software, but it's redundant to argue the point now after the fact. My hope is that they learn from the mistakes and apply what they learned in future projects. Will we be able to tell that they did? Probably not.
Hey think of it this way... at least they're not as ballsy about it as Oracle, releasing a product and saying it's unbreakable.:)
Way to be a dick. Try replying to someone in a civil manner. That being said.
People always seem to be in the mindset that because IE is installed YOU MUST USE IT. You don't have to, not even once. You can install Mozilla. You can install Netscape. And *gasp* you can install Opera. I call that choice, don't you? I have that no matter what Microsoft OS I install.
The issue of software stability and security affects everyone -- all operating systems, all browsers, all software and hardware. My post was in response to someone going off on IE as if it was the only thing in the world to have a bug, and the response was simply to point out that if you're going to look at the issue and bash then at least try to come across like you've looked at that big picture first.
And before the inevitable "you've probably never touched linux" comment comes, let me nip that in the bud right now by saying I have, and I do currently. I have both an XP and Redhat box at home. I hope this doesn't disappoint too much, but I actually like both.
Technically, it's not my place to give excuses for someone else's work.:) As far as them being behind, I can only guess as to why certain issues haven't been patched:
1. They have more pressing issues to attend to. Patch the malformed URL syntax issue with IE or the "rootable" SQL Server one?
2. The issue isn't just browser related. Being as tied to the OS as it is (dug their own hole there, imho) a lot of those issues if fixed might cause problems in other areas of the OS. Hence, they may be waiting to release an OS service pack instead of a browser hotfix.
I'm not speaking out against anti-MS sentiments at all here, I'm simply saying a lot of people chalk these things up to a company that's too big to care. Shocking as it may be, that might not be true.:) They have a lot of interoperating products (again, their own hole that they dug) and problems with one can affect the others. Likewise, their fixes.
It does? How? The person I was replying to was droning on about the problems with IE, I'm simply trying to acknowledge problems other browsers are facing. There are further links off that particular url regarding this, I posted it as a branching point for others to continue reading, not to simply look at the numbers listed there and THEN reply.
I wasn't trying to prove my point at all, just stating the fact that IE isn't the only thing in the world that has bugs. And saying Mozilla isn't insecure because they patched one bug is total foolishness.
I highly doubt Microsoft has a small handful of programmers fixing problems.:) And there's definitely NOT a handful identifying them (scores of hax0rs!).
I can appreciate the advantages of open source, but the unfortunate truth is that hardly any casual computer user can set up and use an open source OS like they can with Windows. A furthering of that is that those are the people driving the computer industry by buying computers and software. It's a sad thing to say, but the geeks are minority.
Point is, IE isn't the only "insecure" browser out there. *gasp*
As a side note: making note of having a patch released within 24 hours is moot. Patch release speed isn't a competition. Personally I'd rather see people take their time to release patches so it's done RIGHT instead of clobbering other items in the thing being fixed.
Slashdot Mirror
Not every uberdork wannabe is concerned with proper lab techniques and safety when trying to get a story on Slashdot. :) Example: those psychos blowing up CDs by spinning them at insanely high RPMs (although THAT was actually kinda cool).
Wow, that sucks. All I can say is that I've done the activation process several times on different systems and never had any problems. It's so quick you barely know it happpened. Hopefully they get your stuff resolved, and that it is indeed a rare case.
Databases with millions or billions of records can be processed and analyzed easily. Computing power is cheap these days. You think if the government bought the software they'd stick it on a couple P200's in a closet somewhere?
I guess the point is that either a) they would build it in orbit and deorbit there, or b) they wouldn't boost away above a major urban center. :)
Hey I'm no treehugger, I just know that airbursts and spacebursts are bad for my computers. :)
In the case of interstellar travel though, that'd bite if you get to where you're going and realize they don't have the raw materials to build more ablative shielding. How do you get back? :)
You're right though, the concept is extremely fascinating. The best part of the posting was the bit about us travelling through space in SHIPS, not CRAFT. Once we start building vehicles that essentially aren't "disposable", there'll be a heck of a space rennaissance.
Thanks! I guess my followup question to that would be: how "clean" can that possibly be? I imagine using nukes to break earth orbit can't be too good for those of us on the ground. :)
I've heard of the Orion concept before and quite frankly I can't understand how you build something to withstand an atomic explosion for propulsion purposes and not have it blow itself to smithereens. I DO realize that we're not talking about megaton sized explosions here. :) However I'm still fuzzy on how a very low power explosion could keep the damage to the craft down while still providing an effective means of propulsion. Or is this similar to the impulse engines of star trek (the greatest scientific precursor ever, *snicker*), where the nuclear reaction is fed constantly by small amounts of reactive mass?
Sorry, but if I were an organization contracting someone to do work for me, I don't want it to be the first time that person will learn how much to estimate a project to be. Oh it may look nice that someone thinks they can do the project at a very small percentage of everyone else, but chances are they do not know what they're doing when it comes to estimation of time and effort. I'd hate to get that phone call from the guy, "oh, our project's now 1500% over budget, sorry".
And to think the average game nowadays using full install comes to at least twice that for space requirements. Feh.
Framerate's one thing, but it's all for nothing when your ping times chew ass. Nothing like getting fragged at 200fps. :D
You're not alone, old man. :) I'm much more impressed by something's specs than its looks. Sure it's nice to have a clear plexiglass case with neon lights -- makes it way easer to see the dust inside (yeah yeah, unless it's water cooled...). With all that time and money spent on making it look like it's fast you can go out and buy another fast computer.
Interesting format. Too bad they came into the market at just about the worst possible time -- right when everyone else was either releasing a new audio codec or shuffling for position to be the leader in the pack.
I doubt right away, at least for home use. Chances are that such a drive supporting as many standards as that will be prohibitably expensive for anyone other than businesses. Give it a year or so I guess.
You can't blame video games on this. This is more of an issue of your cousin having a dubious grip on reality, or at the very least having a very serious problem distinguishing the difference between gaming and the real world. This is not the game's fault, nor is it your cousin's. He simply has a problem, mentally.
Regarding the Columbine massacre, blaming video games for that is downright ostrich-like (in other words, sticking your head in the sand in denial). These kids had very serious problems to begin with. The fact that nobody paid any attention to this, not even their parents, speaks something about the attitudes people have towards children. They cannot be raised by themselves. Something was missing here, either the teachers or counsellors at the school didn't see the problem or the parents were just "too busy" with other aspects of their life. Or, again, the kids had something wrong with them mentally and going on a shooting spree or acts of violence and crime was simply inevitable. Sometimes people are wired up that way. Blame the games? Give me a break.
The reason I speak up about this is because I've been playing games ever since I was very little. Not all of them have been the least violent ones sold. Do you see me shooting up a high school because of them? No. Why? Because I understand that the games are fake. As in not real. I don't drive home from work and snap suddenly into Carmageddon-mode, or walk down the street and all of a sudden see the world of Grand Theft Auto 3 and go crazy beating up old ladies and shooting hookers for their money. Some people argue those types of games shouldn't be made because they make people do bad things. Those same people are in denial over the fact that those individuals will perform violent acts no matter what the trigger.
You know, it's good to see that there are still game developers out there that make FPS style games for single players in mind. It seems nowadays the single player components for such games are poorly designed, since the developer knows the primary use for most people is multiplayer online gaming. Not to knock multiplayer gaming or anything, I love that, but sometimes it's fun to not play online, and enjoy a good single player match. Just my 2c.
Here's a question: define "malicious site". My banking site? No. /.? Maybe. :) Unless I go around to letmehackyourwindozebox.com am I really at risk?
Getting away from interoprating software now: The EULA stuff. This is totally wacked. I'll agree wholeheartedly that changes to EULAs that come through security patching is a fucking joke, but what's the alternative? Not patching? Before you or someone else starts spouting off "switch to linux" comments let me stop you NOW. I know the argument, it's not pertinent in this particular branch of the thread. :)
You're correct, my bad.
Patching problems doesn't indicate laziness or incompetence, it indicates the acknowledgement of the problem and a willingness to fix it. It may very well be that the fault lies in those who originally coded the software, but it's redundant to argue the point now after the fact. My hope is that they learn from the mistakes and apply what they learned in future projects. Will we be able to tell that they did? Probably not.
Hey think of it this way... at least they're not as ballsy about it as Oracle, releasing a product and saying it's unbreakable. :)
People always seem to be in the mindset that because IE is installed YOU MUST USE IT. You don't have to, not even once. You can install Mozilla. You can install Netscape. And *gasp* you can install Opera. I call that choice, don't you? I have that no matter what Microsoft OS I install.
The issue of software stability and security affects everyone -- all operating systems, all browsers, all software and hardware. My post was in response to someone going off on IE as if it was the only thing in the world to have a bug, and the response was simply to point out that if you're going to look at the issue and bash then at least try to come across like you've looked at that big picture first.
And before the inevitable "you've probably never touched linux" comment comes, let me nip that in the bud right now by saying I have, and I do currently. I have both an XP and Redhat box at home. I hope this doesn't disappoint too much, but I actually like both.
1. They have more pressing issues to attend to. Patch the malformed URL syntax issue with IE or the "rootable" SQL Server one?
2. The issue isn't just browser related. Being as tied to the OS as it is (dug their own hole there, imho) a lot of those issues if fixed might cause problems in other areas of the OS. Hence, they may be waiting to release an OS service pack instead of a browser hotfix.
I'm not speaking out against anti-MS sentiments at all here, I'm simply saying a lot of people chalk these things up to a company that's too big to care. Shocking as it may be, that might not be true. :) They have a lot of interoperating products (again, their own hole that they dug) and problems with one can affect the others. Likewise, their fixes.
Oh well.
I wasn't trying to prove my point at all, just stating the fact that IE isn't the only thing in the world that has bugs. And saying Mozilla isn't insecure because they patched one bug is total foolishness.
I can appreciate the advantages of open source, but the unfortunate truth is that hardly any casual computer user can set up and use an open source OS like they can with Windows. A furthering of that is that those are the people driving the computer industry by buying computers and software. It's a sad thing to say, but the geeks are minority.
As a side note: making note of having a patch released within 24 hours is moot. Patch release speed isn't a competition. Personally I'd rather see people take their time to release patches so it's done RIGHT instead of clobbering other items in the thing being fixed.