I was deriding the Yopy a couple days ago for having a chiclet keyboard. This thing's got a chiclet keypad. Make it bigger!
Add to that the fact that you're going to get face-grease all over the screen every time you talk on the phone. I don't see any reason to get one of these yet.
Re:So let me get this straight...
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
Royalties, my man, royalties. And damages.
This will be resolved in the courts
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Whether SCO's code has been infringed or not will be exposed in court.
Anything we say here is irrelevent. What is there to discuss except to say that having 'many cooks' increases the chance that any one of them may have tossed in a poison pill unwittingly?
I would hate to see those kids make any money off of this.
Copyright is a scourge on our democracy. It says in essence that thinking unoriginal thoughts is a crime. Take a look around, who among you would be willing to stand for a law that would put all of you in the hands of so-called "creators"?
Re:That reminds me of a saying...
on
Copyright Defeats?
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Can you imagine how industrious and well-disciplined the first few people must have been?
Here's the thing I was trying to get at before I was modded down to -1. Fighting wars is inevitable, but a rapid buildup of military might so far above and beyond even the next most powerful country is a sure-fire strategy for hastening the next war.
What the soldier, sailor, or airman cares about is irrelevent. They are training for war and of course they want the latest and greatest gadgets when they go into battle. But they are not the ones who decide military strategy nor State department strategy. We hope that those in the upper echelons of government have the insight and foresight to avert wars when at all possible. When these leaders are only focused in war waging instead of peace making we end up with a situation not unlike what we are faced with now, i.e. a world suspicious of the United States and its motives.
There was a great SNL skit back when Reagan was President where Reagan and his policy advisor were preparing for a meeting with the Russian premiew. The policy advisor role played as Gorby and asked the President, "With a fully functional missile defense shield, won't the USA be able to attack the USSR with impunity?" (paraphrased) The President just sat there with a puzzled look. It was pretty poignant. This is the biggest problem with a huge unbalance of power. The smaller states must ally amongst themselves *against* the larger power and be wary of even the slightest aggressive move on the large power's part. This is because they must either look out for their own safety or trust the larger power not to abuse its dominant position. Only one of those choices is a real option, and it doesn't bode well for either the dominant power or peace in general.
Back in the 'good old days' of warfare, either side was equally equipped to take on the other. This resulted in long, bloody wars that finally ended when either of the sides was exhausted and horrified at the death and destruction. Following these wars (from the Punic to the American Civil War) a long period of peace followed until the horrors of war were forgotten and the fools in power became ambitious. This type of peace is sometimes called "balance of power" because both sides are deterred from battle by the knowledge of the other's equal ability to wreak damage in return.
However, as modern times have arrived and technology growth quickens for those who have it and lags for those that do not yet it is becoming clear that the balance of power has been broken and the United States has become the sole military superpower in the world. During the Cold War there was a deterrent to war which was called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). The Soviet Union provided a balance of power to the United States through it's ability to rain an equal amount of world-ending nukes on the U.S. as the U.S. could do on the USSR. With this knowledge, neither side was too willing to jump at the chance at sneak attack though the possibility was wide open with the introduction of ICBMs.
Now the USSR is no more and the U.S. has risen to the top of the technological ladder. As the rest of the world crawls slowly towards the fulcrum of the Balance of Power, the U.S. quickly moves away from it. The technological prowess of the U.S. military is unmatched and continues to improve, which in turn continues to make the balance of power tilt more steeply in the U.S. direction.
Without a balance of power, other countries get antsy. They do not and can not have the expectation of a fair war, nor can they assume that the sole superpower is benign. So they turn up their rhetoric criticizing the U.S. Every little diplomatic faux pas is taken as a grand gesture of disrespect and threat of military aggression. No peace can possibly exist in such an atmosphere. What may seem like peace is only a thin veneer covering a boiling cauldron of dissatisfied lesser powers waiting to boil over or destroy the peace from within.
What the U.S. needs to do is placate our allies. The U.S. would be seriously hurt if allies were to turn against it because of the balance of power issue. Even now France and Germany and Russia have turned their collective backs on the U.S., this after enthusiastic support only 2 years ago. We cannot afford this kind of desertion of allies. It would be wise to simply give up this development of new weaponry and concentrate on making the existing technologies cheaper and more reliable. Even regressing several decades in technology would help bring about a better balance of power.
Knowing nothing about Forth, I will take your word for it.
However, what are Forth's GUI libraries like? Can Forth be used with embedded Windows (CE, XP, or 98)? I haven't seen any compilers for CE except for C/C++ and VB.
We can argue all day about what an embedded system should and shouldn't contain, but in the cases that an embedded Windows system makes sense, can Forth be used successfully? Or is Forth better used for implementing the whole embedded system (fuel injection systems for example)?
Coding those widgets in assembler is pretty time consuming.
As for crashing, they'd probably have a custom GPF handler that forced a hard reset. You'd never see the BSOD and the longest downtime you'd have would be 6 seconds.
Evidence 2: There were other MMOGs before it like Ultima Online.
Conclusion: it is still possible for a new game to be successful.
Your conclusion is not supported by any of the evidence. In fact Everquest is the primary first mover as they have defined what it means to be a MMOG. They have all the traits of a first mover including the risk taking involved in pioneering the area and the reward of large numbers of subscribers. That Everquest could wildly succeed against Ultima Online is not indicative of anything. The barrier to entry at that time was much lower than it is now. For a new game to compete well with Everquest it would have to be incredibly great. However, without investor backing, it is unlikely that such a game could be created.
Investors look at the data and see that games that are entering the market later than Everquest are having their lunch handed to them. Not enough money is being made. There are better investment opportunities elsewhere for the VCs.
Slashdot Mirror
Save your money for a rainy day.
Yes, it won't be. But I can't tell you why I know.
I was deriding the Yopy a couple days ago for having a chiclet keyboard. This thing's got a chiclet keypad. Make it bigger!
Add to that the fact that you're going to get face-grease all over the screen every time you talk on the phone. I don't see any reason to get one of these yet.
Royalties, my man, royalties. And damages.
Whether SCO's code has been infringed or not will be exposed in court.
Anything we say here is irrelevent. What is there to discuss except to say that having 'many cooks' increases the chance that any one of them may have tossed in a poison pill unwittingly?
iTRON is a big deal here in Japan with it being one of the leading embedded operating systems here. eCos seems to support a flavor of it.
It would be interesting to see what American companies could do with the TRON system.
It is the word used to group together the entire population into one entity. I'm sure we can come to an agreeance on that.
Scimitar-wielding man shot first!
A penny saved is a penny earned.
I would hate to see those kids make any money off of this.
Copyright is a scourge on our democracy. It says in essence that thinking unoriginal thoughts is a crime. Take a look around, who among you would be willing to stand for a law that would put all of you in the hands of so-called "creators"?
Can you imagine how industrious and well-disciplined the first few people must have been?
I'll just wait five years. They are bound to have a better idea then.
Where's the rush to guess now?
One almost wonders to what extent George had his paws in LucasArts considering how good that division of the Lucas empire is.
If this is your thing, you might as well just go grab a free copy of Maya and get to work making your own *real* movie.
The Yopy brings a whole new meaning to 'chiclet keyboard'. Has anyone who's used one comment?
The keyboard is teh suxxors.
Here's the thing I was trying to get at before I was modded down to -1. Fighting wars is inevitable, but a rapid buildup of military might so far above and beyond even the next most powerful country is a sure-fire strategy for hastening the next war.
What the soldier, sailor, or airman cares about is irrelevent. They are training for war and of course they want the latest and greatest gadgets when they go into battle. But they are not the ones who decide military strategy nor State department strategy. We hope that those in the upper echelons of government have the insight and foresight to avert wars when at all possible. When these leaders are only focused in war waging instead of peace making we end up with a situation not unlike what we are faced with now, i.e. a world suspicious of the United States and its motives.
There was a great SNL skit back when Reagan was President where Reagan and his policy advisor were preparing for a meeting with the Russian premiew. The policy advisor role played as Gorby and asked the President, "With a fully functional missile defense shield, won't the USA be able to attack the USSR with impunity?" (paraphrased) The President just sat there with a puzzled look. It was pretty poignant. This is the biggest problem with a huge unbalance of power. The smaller states must ally amongst themselves *against* the larger power and be wary of even the slightest aggressive move on the large power's part. This is because they must either look out for their own safety or trust the larger power not to abuse its dominant position. Only one of those choices is a real option, and it doesn't bode well for either the dominant power or peace in general.
Back in the 'good old days' of warfare, either side was equally equipped to take on the other. This resulted in long, bloody wars that finally ended when either of the sides was exhausted and horrified at the death and destruction. Following these wars (from the Punic to the American Civil War) a long period of peace followed until the horrors of war were forgotten and the fools in power became ambitious. This type of peace is sometimes called "balance of power" because both sides are deterred from battle by the knowledge of the other's equal ability to wreak damage in return.
However, as modern times have arrived and technology growth quickens for those who have it and lags for those that do not yet it is becoming clear that the balance of power has been broken and the United States has become the sole military superpower in the world. During the Cold War there was a deterrent to war which was called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). The Soviet Union provided a balance of power to the United States through it's ability to rain an equal amount of world-ending nukes on the U.S. as the U.S. could do on the USSR. With this knowledge, neither side was too willing to jump at the chance at sneak attack though the possibility was wide open with the introduction of ICBMs.
Now the USSR is no more and the U.S. has risen to the top of the technological ladder. As the rest of the world crawls slowly towards the fulcrum of the Balance of Power, the U.S. quickly moves away from it. The technological prowess of the U.S. military is unmatched and continues to improve, which in turn continues to make the balance of power tilt more steeply in the U.S. direction.
Without a balance of power, other countries get antsy. They do not and can not have the expectation of a fair war, nor can they assume that the sole superpower is benign. So they turn up their rhetoric criticizing the U.S. Every little diplomatic faux pas is taken as a grand gesture of disrespect and threat of military aggression. No peace can possibly exist in such an atmosphere. What may seem like peace is only a thin veneer covering a boiling cauldron of dissatisfied lesser powers waiting to boil over or destroy the peace from within.
What the U.S. needs to do is placate our allies. The U.S. would be seriously hurt if allies were to turn against it because of the balance of power issue. Even now France and Germany and Russia have turned their collective backs on the U.S., this after enthusiastic support only 2 years ago. We cannot afford this kind of desertion of allies. It would be wise to simply give up this development of new weaponry and concentrate on making the existing technologies cheaper and more reliable. Even regressing several decades in technology would help bring about a better balance of power.
Knowing nothing about Forth, I will take your word for it.
However, what are Forth's GUI libraries like? Can Forth be used with embedded Windows (CE, XP, or 98)? I haven't seen any compilers for CE except for C/C++ and VB.
We can argue all day about what an embedded system should and shouldn't contain, but in the cases that an embedded Windows system makes sense, can Forth be used successfully? Or is Forth better used for implementing the whole embedded system (fuel injection systems for example)?
Just because there is a 3 in 1000 chance of a strike and a strike actually occurs, it does not mean that the initial odds were wrong.
m@$5iV3 TsUnAmI 5W33p$ @7l@n7iC c0@57 In AsTeRoId ImP@C7 5C3N@Ri0 F0R M@rch 16, 2880
F0R iMm3dI@73 r3l3@$3
$@N7@ CrUz, c@--iF @n AsTeRoId cR@$h35 In70 7h3 3@r7h, I7 Iz LiK3Ly 70 5pL@5h D0Wn 50M3Wh3r3 iN 7H3 0c3@N5 7h@7 CoVeR 70 p3rC3N7 0F 7H3 Pl@n37'$ 5urf@c3. hUg3 75Un@mI w@v35, $pR3@dInG 0U7 Fr0m 7h3 iMpAcT 5i73 lIkE 7h3 rIpPlEs FrOm @ r0cK 70553d in70 @ P0Nd, w0uLd InUnD@73 h3@vily P0PuL@73D C0@57@L @R3@5. a C0MpU73r 5iMuL@7i0n 0f @n @573R0Id imp@c7 75Un@mI D3V3L0P3D bY sCiEnTiStS @7 7H3 UnIv3r5i7y 0f CaLiFoRnIa, $@n7@ Cruz, 5H0W5 W@V3$ @$ hIgH @5 400 f337 5W33pInG 0N70 7H3 @7l@n7iC c0@57 0F tHe UnI73d StAtEs.
tHe R353@rCh3r5 b@53d 7H3Ir $iMuL@7i0n 0n @ r3@L @573R0Id kN0Wn To b3 0n C0Ur53 f0r @ Cl053 3Nc0uN73r Wi7h 3@R7H eIgHt c3n7uRi35 Fr0m N0W. StEvEn W@Rd, @ r353@rch3r At 7h3 iN57i7u73 0f G30phy5ic5 AnD pL@N37@Ry pHy5iC5 @7 Uc$c, @nD eRiK @$pH@Ug, @n @5$0Ci@73 pR0F3550r 0F 3@r7h 5Ci3nC35, R3P0R7 7h3iR fInDiNg$ iN 7H3 jUn3 i5$U3 0F 7h3 G30phy5ic@l J0UrN@L iN73rN@7i0n@l.
m@rCh 16, 2880, iZ 7h3 DaY 7H3 @$73r0iD Kn0wN aS 1950 d@, A hUgE r0ck tWo-tHiRdS 0F @ MiL3 in DiAmEtEr, iZ dU3 70 5wInG 50 Cl053 70 3@r7h i7 cOuLd 5l@m in70 ThE @7l@n7ic 0C3@n @7 38,000 mIl35 P3R H0Ur. 7h3 pR0B@BiLi7y 0f @ DiR3C7 hI7 iZ Pr377y 5m@lL, Bu7 oVeR tHe LoNg 7Im35C@L35 0F 3@R7H'5 hI570Ry, @573R0Id$ 7Hi$ 5Iz3 @Nd l@rG3R g07Z PeRiOdIcAlLy HaMmErEd 7h3 Pl@n37, 50m37im35 wI7H cAlAmItOuS 3Ff3c75. 7H3 $0-c@lL3D k/7 ImPaCt, F0R 3X@MpL3, 3Nd3d 7h3 @G3 Of ThE dIn05@uR5 65 mIlLi0n Y3@r5 @g0.
"Fr0m @ G30l0gIc p3r5p3c7iv3, 3V3N75 lik3 7hI5 G07z h@pP3N3D m@nY 7Im35 In 7h3 p@57. @573R0Id$ 7H3 SiZe 0f 1950 D@ g07z Pr0b@bLy 57RuCk 7h3 3@r7h @b0u7 600 7im35 5InC3 7h3 @G3 0f 7h3 dIn05@uR5," w@rD 5@iD.
W@Rd @nD @5ph@ug'5 57udy iZ p@r7 0f A G3N3R@L 3Ff0r7 70 cOnDuCt @ r@7I0N@L @55355M3N7 0f @$73r0iD ImP@C7 H@Z@Rd5. @5ph@ug, Wh0 0rg@niz3d @ N@$@-5P0N50r3d 5cI3N7IfIc W0Rk$h0p 0n @573r0id5 L@$7 Y3@r, N073D 7h@7 @573r0iD Ri$k$ aRe InTeReStInG cUz ThE pR0B@BiLi7i35 @R3 $0 $m@lL WhIl3 7h3 pOtEnTiAl C0N53qU3Nc35 @r3 eNoRmOuS. Fur7h3rm0r3, 7h3 l@w5 0F 0RbI7@l M3Ch@nIc5 m@k3 iT p055iBl3 fOr 5cI3N7I575 70 Pr3dIc7 @N ImP@C7 iF 7H3Y @r3 @Bl3 70 dEtEcT 7H3 AsTeRoId In @dV@Nc3.
"I7'5 lIk3 kN0WiNg tHe 3X@C7 7im3 wh3n M0Un7 sHaStA wIlL 3RuP7," @$pH@Ug 5@iD. "7H3 wAy To D3@l wI7H @nY n@7Ur@l hAzArD iZ 70 iMpR0V3 0Ur Kn0wL3Dg3 bAsE, 50 w3 c@n 7uRn ThE kInD 0F hUm@n Ph3@R 7h@7 g375 pL@Y3D 0N In 7H3 MoViEs In70 50m37hing 7h@7 W3 g07Z A H@NdL3 0n."
@L7H0UgH 7h3 pr0b@bili7y 0F @N iMpAcT fR0M 1950 dA iZ oNlY @B0U7 0.3 p3rC3N7, I7 iZ 7H3 OnLy @573R0Id y37 D373C73d 7h@7 5ci3n7i575 C@Nn07 3n7iR3Ly di5mi55 @5 @ 7hR3@7. @ 73@m 0f $cI3N7I575 L3D bY r353@RcH3R5 @7 N@$@'$ j37 pR0PuL5I0N LaBoRaToRy r3p0r73D 0n 7H3 Pr0b@bIlI7Y 0F 1950 d@ cR055InG p@7H5 Wi7h ThE 3@r7h iN 7h3 @PrIl 5, 2002, I55u3 0F 7H3 j0uRn@l $ci3nc3.
"I7'5 @ L0W 7hR3@7, @C7U@LlY @ bIt L0W3R 7H@N 7h3 7Hr3@7 oF b3iNg Hi7 By @n @$-Y37-UnDi$c0v3r3d @573R0Id In 7h3 5@m3 5Iz3 r@nG3 0v3r 7H3 5@M3 P3Ri0d 0f 7im3, bu7 I7 Pr0vId3d @ g00D r3pr353n7@7iv3 5C3N@Ri0 f0r U5 70 @n@lYz3," @5Ph@uG $@Id.
f0r 7h3 $iMuL@7i0n, tHe R3$3@rCh3r$ Ch0$3 @N iMp@c7 5i73 c0n$i$73n7 wI7H tHe 0rI3N7@7I0N oF 7H3 3@R7H aT 7h3 7Im3 0f 7h3 pR3DiC73d 3nc0un73r: iN 7H3 @7L@N7Ic 0c3@N AbOuT 360 MiLeS fr0m 7H3 u.$. cOaSt. W@Rd 5umm@riz3d 7h3 R35uL75 @$ fOlLoWs:
tHe 60,000-M3G@70N Bl@57 0F 7H3 ImP@C7 V@P0RiZ3$ 7H3 @573R0Id @nD BlOwS @ CaViTy In 7h3 0C3@n 11 mil35 @cR055 @nD @lL 7H3 w@y D0Wn 70 7H3 53@fL00r, wHiCh Iz @b0u7 3 mIl35 D33p @7 7h@7 p0iN7. 7h3 Bl@57 3V3N 3Xc@v@735 sOmE oF tHe SeAfLoOr. wAtEr 7H3N Ru$h35 B@Ck iN 70 fIlL 7h3 c@vI7Y, @nD @ RiNg 0F WaVeS $pR3@d$ 0u7 in aLl DiR3C7I0N5. 7h3 ImP@C7 Cr3@73$ 75Un@mI w@v35 0f @lL FrEqUeNcIeS @Nd W@V3L3Ng7h5, Wi7h @ P3@k w@v3l3nG7H @b0u7 7h3 5@m3 aS 7H3 Di@m373r 0f 7H3 c@vi7y. CuZ l0w3r-fR3Qu3nCy w@v35 7r@v3l f@573r 7h@n W@V35 Wi7h hIgH3R fR3Qu3nCi35, 7H3 InI7I@L ImPuLsE 5Pr3@D5 0u7 iN70 @ $3Ri35 0f w@v35.
"In ThE m0vI3$ 7H3Y 5H0W 0N3 BiG w@v3, bU7 U aCtUaLlY 3Nd up Wi7h d0z3n$ 0f w@v35. 7H3 FiR57 oNeS 70 @RrIv3 @R3 PrEtTy SmAl
And thus I do not care.
Coding those widgets in assembler is pretty time consuming.
As for crashing, they'd probably have a custom GPF handler that forced a hard reset. You'd never see the BSOD and the longest downtime you'd have would be 6 seconds.
DOC can't be bought except in bulk and only by businesses. It's also extravagantly priced. And it's the only game in town, sadly.
Evidence 1: Everquest was not the "first mover."
Evidence 2: There were other MMOGs before it like Ultima Online.
Conclusion: it is still possible for a new game to be successful.
Your conclusion is not supported by any of the evidence. In fact Everquest is the primary first mover as they have defined what it means to be a MMOG. They have all the traits of a first mover including the risk taking involved in pioneering the area and the reward of large numbers of subscribers. That Everquest could wildly succeed against Ultima Online is not indicative of anything. The barrier to entry at that time was much lower than it is now. For a new game to compete well with Everquest it would have to be incredibly great. However, without investor backing, it is unlikely that such a game could be created.
Investors look at the data and see that games that are entering the market later than Everquest are having their lunch handed to them. Not enough money is being made. There are better investment opportunities elsewhere for the VCs.