I didn't RTFA (this is slashdot, what did you expect?) but what I'm wondering is how this is different from a CPU being dedicated to running the physics engine? Is this chip somehow optimized for physics? Right now, I can't think how it could be better than, say, having a box with 2 64bit CPUs and dedicating one of those CPUs to physics calculations when playing the game. To me, physics calculations should just be a bunch of relatively normal calculations (probably performed on a matrix) which just about any general purpose CPU should be good at.
I think you are looking at XNA Studio from the wrong angle. I don't think it is so much a platform to offer APIs and code (although it may very well come with some of this) as much as it is a platform that offers a way for a whole team to collaborate on a game. I would imagine that most game studios develop on Windows despite what platform they plan to release on. I don't see why you couldn't use XNA Studio to develop a PS2 game. I've used Visual Studio and it doesn't force you to use Microsoft's APIs. I think what they mean is not that.Net will run on anything or a similar message but that the C++ code you write in XNA will be saved in a format that can still be accessed by other compilers.
I think perhaps the biggest application of this program, would be to use it to prove, once you have the TCP packets, that they did indeed come from the same box. However, I think even this application is flawed, as I would imagine the biggest reason someone would want to have a "fingerprint" of a computer is to convict its user of some crime. Usually, the prosecution is required to prove his/her case beyond a resonable doubt, and, as you said, with all the machines on the internet, I think it is very reasonable to doubt that TCP packets with the same skew are indeed the same computer.
Its good to know that something like JHymn is there. So far, the DRM used with music from iTunes hasn't caused me any headaches yet. I starting using iTunes for downloads after I got an iPod so trying to use a different player wasn't a problem for me. For most of the music that I buy, I burn an audio CD so I can have a physical backup other than the one on my spare hard drive and I could always rip this CD to MP3 if I really needed to. I'll probably download JHymn just to keep around in case it disappears any time soon.
You are right, at times it does appear that way. If I was to name the one thing that bugs me the most about our government, it would probably be this. The only saving grace in the case of this trial is that judges seem to be more immune to this sort of thing, some try to follow the law as closely as they can without letting the outside world influence them. We can only hope that one such judge presides over this case.
To me this should be a very simple case to rule on. The government shouldn't be concerned that certain companies are supposedly losing money. After all, it is not the government's job to ensure the wealth of certain people/organizations. What the government should be concerned with is the application of law and specifically if the law is being broken. By definition, technology cannot break the law. Therefore, I believe that the government has no choice but to keep the precident set with Sony v. Universal. Also, if they did decide to alter the law to make technology that is used for mostly illegal purposes outlawed, who is going to decide what technology fits in this category, and who is able to predict what new inventions will fit? If anything, a reversal in the Betamax ruling will make innovation difficult and only benefit corporations that are already insanely rich.
Instead of concentrating on how to stop people from copying movies and music, the responsible industries should be concentrating on how to ensure that people are willing to buy their goods. I buy my digital music because it is easy, high quality, and has DRM that I can live with (from iTunes anyway). I also buy the movies I like because the format is always higher quality than what I can download. Who wants to watch some divx compressed screener on a nice home theater system?
Movie and music companies should concentrate on what they do, make movies and music, not on stifling technology.
While your comments are accurate and insightful for this audience, I still think the type of problems the OP talks about are valid reflextions of how some people view linux. Just think for a second about the normal joe who runs Windows but has somebody replace it with linux. Chances are if he ran into this problem he would reboot to try and fix it and blame it on Linux. After all, the stuff worked on Windows and to him the only thing that has changed since then is the operating system. A normal user is not going to open up the command line to restart whatever system is causing the problem. A normal user probably doesn't even know what a plugin is.
Really, this isn't a problem with Linux itself but it is a problem with the way parts of the community view linux. Many times, linux drivers or ports seem like an after-thought and as such don't function as well as their Windows couterparts. Don't get me wrong, I really like Linux and the ideas behind it. I run a server with Linux on it, and for something like this a lot of it does just work. However, there still isn't enough of a userbase for most companies to support it seriously as a desktop system. It seems like all of this is changing very fast, and I hope that the pace quickens. But until it does, I think many users will still find Linux intimidating/buggy even if it is not Linux's fault.
Well, I probably should have stated it in my main post that I think something like Google suggest could probably only be reasonably coded in Javascript. I wouldn't want to wait for a Java applet to load to use a feature like that. Perhaps compatiblity has come a long way since I've last tried to do something significant. Thats what the hack comment was trying to imply.
It was probably more a statement of not having enough experience with javascript to even think it was possible to do something like that and have it feel snappy. I've done some simple things in javascript, like iterate through items on a form, that have taken a noticable time to process. On the same computer, something like Google Maps is surprisingly fast.
I suppose Java might be overkill for something like the Google Suggest and it is a shame loading the JVM takes so much time/resources. I think javascript would be a much better language to use if things were supported uniformly accross browsers. It always seems like a huge waste of time to do something in javascript that works well in one browser only to have to entirely rewrite it or scrap it because it isn't working in a different browser.
Maybe I'm missing the point somewhere, but if you really want something on the web to feel like an app, why not make it a Java app that runs in the browser? With all the different browsers and how they each handle Javascript differently, I much rather write something in Java and know it will almost always work on different platforms. Anytime I have to do something in Javascript, it almost always feels like a hack. I can't imagine writing something like the stuff Google does in Javascript. Is there really an advantage to doing stuff this way over the Java way?
I am a Christian and I agree with most of the things you said. I think in science class you should be taught science, that is material backed by well accepted theories. If parents really feel that strongly about religion, then I think it should be their responsibility to teach it to their children or for them to place them in a private school where they do teach religion. I don't consider science to be blasphemy or anything silly like that. I would imagine that God would use science as his tool to create the world and life in it.
As far as prayer in school, I certainly don't think it should be forced or mandated, but I think religious activities in school should be accepted. For instance, students in my school organized an after school Bible study program. I think something like that is OK to have on school grounds and it doesn't violate the separation of church and state. After all, students are free to do what they please and the students in my former school who didn't care about religion probably didn't even know the group existed.
Even though I am a Christian, I think seperation of church and state is important. While my particular religion seems to be the most popular or at least the most outspoken in America, I don't think it should be forced on people or embraced by the government any more than any other religion. After all, I wouldn't want to be forced into following a different religion if one such became the most popular in America. Seperation of church and state protects my religion...it doesn't take it away. Again, if people really feel strongly about spreading the Word, then they should take it upon themselves to do so and not rely on the government to embrace it.
About the SDK, I've downloaded it but haven't taken a good look at it. What I'm wondering is if the SDK provides an interface for accessing the recorded content on the TiVo. Either way, I think its a neat idea...probably not one that will make the TiVo any more appealing to people who don't own one but it will probably add something to users who already have one.
Does anyone who has used the SDK or read more about it than me know if you can use this toolkit to access the TiVo's recorded content? From some of the comments, it seems that the TiVo can send video to your PC, but only in formats that aren't really useful. So, what I'm wondering is if you could use this SDK to write a small program that would take the content on the TiVo, compress it, and send it to the computer.
I haven't read much into this, but if the summary is right and Apple is trying to protect a trade secret, I was under the impression that it is the companies responsibility to protect this secret and that once it becomes open, there is nothing they can really do to stop it from spreading. For instance, you can't really copyright the ingredients to a cookie, so you keep the recepie secret. If this secret is leaked, or someone figures it out, there is nothing they can really do because it is not copyrighted or under protection.
The illegal downloading of motion pictures robs thousands of honest, hard-working people of their livelihood, and stifles creativity. We make millions of dollars off of one movie alone, while you waste away trying to scrap up enough money for retirement. Actors get paid millions for any crappy movie that they star in. Yet, we want you to feel bad for us. We pay the actors exorbinent fees yet say downloading one movie, that you probably wouldn't buy anyway, keeps that key grip operator from feeding his family, while the star of the film bathes in caviar. Don't you feel bad now?
It seems like Cell will have more memory bandwidth than the processors commonly used today. From this article:
"
The memory and processor bus interfaces designed by Rambus account for 90% of the Cell processor signal pins, providing an unprecedented aggregate processor I/O bandwidth of approximately 100 gigabytes-per-second. "
Since the only thing a virus needs to be a virus is the ability to spread itself, I think it would be very possible to create a virus for Mac OS X. What I would do is write a program that simply reads the user's address book and then uses Mail (or its own mail server) to send itself to everyone in the address book. This program wouldn't need to run as an elevated user or anything, so permissions wouldn't matter that much. The key to spreading it would be to have a spamer like approach to get this message in a number of Mac user's inboxes. I'm willing to be that there would be at least a small percent that would run it if the message was crafty enough. Voila! Mac virus. The only real difference between Mac and Windows with a virus like this is that on Windows you have a much greater chance of having more people run your program simply because of the larger user base. Don't get me wrong, I have a Mac and I enjoy using it, but it doesn't change the fact that numbers do play a large part in this.
I don't use Firefox on my Mac, but I have noticed high memory useage on Windows. Right now Firefox is open with 1 window that has 3 tabs and the mem usage is already over 40 MB. I also believe Firefox has some pretty large memory leaks, as I normally leave Firefox open over night and it has been crashed more than once when I've come back to my computer the next day. However, it does seem that this has lessened since 1.0.
Wouldn't most of the problems that affect Firefox also affect Mozilla? I use Firefox mostly because of the fact that I just need the browser and I also like some of the plugins. Other than that, I view Firefox and Mozilla as almost the same exact browser.
Why slashdot, why do you take all the good things away from me?
First you tell me to take a look at this really interesting website, that generates things that looks like art. Then, to my surprise, the index page loads only to find the rest of the site has crashed!
I'm pretty sure many of the popular games made in the last few years have used functional programming methods. If I'm not mistaken Quake 3's engine is not written using OOP code. Honestly I think it probably comes down to the choice of the code. I know for GBA it is possible to write a game using either assembly, C, or C++.
How would being able to "take advantage of object-oriented development methodologies" make any difference to the consumer or the way the games look/play?
What you said about X11 apps on OS X is true, but in my opinion most normal Mac users will never need to run X11 apps. While it would be fairly common for an average Linux user to use applications written for X11 while using Gnome or KDE. In fact, it seems that X11 apps are as part of a base installation of most distros. Going along with this thread, someones father is more than likely not going to install X11 on his Mac and then proceed to download a bunch of X11 apps, while if this same person was using Linux he would more than likely come across a few apps in his distro that were written for X11 and will look noticeably different than say apps written for Gnome.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't RTFA (this is slashdot, what did you expect?) but what I'm wondering is how this is different from a CPU being dedicated to running the physics engine? Is this chip somehow optimized for physics? Right now, I can't think how it could be better than, say, having a box with 2 64bit CPUs and dedicating one of those CPUs to physics calculations when playing the game. To me, physics calculations should just be a bunch of relatively normal calculations (probably performed on a matrix) which just about any general purpose CPU should be good at.
I think you are looking at XNA Studio from the wrong angle. I don't think it is so much a platform to offer APIs and code (although it may very well come with some of this) as much as it is a platform that offers a way for a whole team to collaborate on a game. I would imagine that most game studios develop on Windows despite what platform they plan to release on. I don't see why you couldn't use XNA Studio to develop a PS2 game. I've used Visual Studio and it doesn't force you to use Microsoft's APIs. I think what they mean is not that .Net will run on anything or a similar message but that the C++ code you write in XNA will be saved in a format that can still be accessed by other compilers.
I think perhaps the biggest application of this program, would be to use it to prove, once you have the TCP packets, that they did indeed come from the same box. However, I think even this application is flawed, as I would imagine the biggest reason someone would want to have a "fingerprint" of a computer is to convict its user of some crime. Usually, the prosecution is required to prove his/her case beyond a resonable doubt, and, as you said, with all the machines on the internet, I think it is very reasonable to doubt that TCP packets with the same skew are indeed the same computer.
http://betanewscache.iad.cachefly.net/betanews/art icles/1109870204/netscape8beta.png
:(
*weird sounds*
Sorry, I just threw up in my mouth
Its good to know that something like JHymn is there. So far, the DRM used with music from iTunes hasn't caused me any headaches yet. I starting using iTunes for downloads after I got an iPod so trying to use a different player wasn't a problem for me. For most of the music that I buy, I burn an audio CD so I can have a physical backup other than the one on my spare hard drive and I could always rip this CD to MP3 if I really needed to. I'll probably download JHymn just to keep around in case it disappears any time soon.
You are right, at times it does appear that way. If I was to name the one thing that bugs me the most about our government, it would probably be this. The only saving grace in the case of this trial is that judges seem to be more immune to this sort of thing, some try to follow the law as closely as they can without letting the outside world influence them. We can only hope that one such judge presides over this case.
To me this should be a very simple case to rule on. The government shouldn't be concerned that certain companies are supposedly losing money. After all, it is not the government's job to ensure the wealth of certain people/organizations. What the government should be concerned with is the application of law and specifically if the law is being broken. By definition, technology cannot break the law. Therefore, I believe that the government has no choice but to keep the precident set with Sony v. Universal. Also, if they did decide to alter the law to make technology that is used for mostly illegal purposes outlawed, who is going to decide what technology fits in this category, and who is able to predict what new inventions will fit? If anything, a reversal in the Betamax ruling will make innovation difficult and only benefit corporations that are already insanely rich.
Instead of concentrating on how to stop people from copying movies and music, the responsible industries should be concentrating on how to ensure that people are willing to buy their goods. I buy my digital music because it is easy, high quality, and has DRM that I can live with (from iTunes anyway). I also buy the movies I like because the format is always higher quality than what I can download. Who wants to watch some divx compressed screener on a nice home theater system?
Movie and music companies should concentrate on what they do, make movies and music, not on stifling technology.
While your comments are accurate and insightful for this audience, I still think the type of problems the OP talks about are valid reflextions of how some people view linux. Just think for a second about the normal joe who runs Windows but has somebody replace it with linux. Chances are if he ran into this problem he would reboot to try and fix it and blame it on Linux. After all, the stuff worked on Windows and to him the only thing that has changed since then is the operating system. A normal user is not going to open up the command line to restart whatever system is causing the problem. A normal user probably doesn't even know what a plugin is.
Really, this isn't a problem with Linux itself but it is a problem with the way parts of the community view linux. Many times, linux drivers or ports seem like an after-thought and as such don't function as well as their Windows couterparts. Don't get me wrong, I really like Linux and the ideas behind it. I run a server with Linux on it, and for something like this a lot of it does just work. However, there still isn't enough of a userbase for most companies to support it seriously as a desktop system. It seems like all of this is changing very fast, and I hope that the pace quickens. But until it does, I think many users will still find Linux intimidating/buggy even if it is not Linux's fault.
Well, I probably should have stated it in my main post that I think something like Google suggest could probably only be reasonably coded in Javascript. I wouldn't want to wait for a Java applet to load to use a feature like that. Perhaps compatiblity has come a long way since I've last tried to do something significant. Thats what the hack comment was trying to imply.
It was probably more a statement of not having enough experience with javascript to even think it was possible to do something like that and have it feel snappy. I've done some simple things in javascript, like iterate through items on a form, that have taken a noticable time to process. On the same computer, something like Google Maps is surprisingly fast.
I suppose Java might be overkill for something like the Google Suggest and it is a shame loading the JVM takes so much time/resources. I think javascript would be a much better language to use if things were supported uniformly accross browsers. It always seems like a huge waste of time to do something in javascript that works well in one browser only to have to entirely rewrite it or scrap it because it isn't working in a different browser.
Maybe I'm missing the point somewhere, but if you really want something on the web to feel like an app, why not make it a Java app that runs in the browser? With all the different browsers and how they each handle Javascript differently, I much rather write something in Java and know it will almost always work on different platforms. Anytime I have to do something in Javascript, it almost always feels like a hack. I can't imagine writing something like the stuff Google does in Javascript. Is there really an advantage to doing stuff this way over the Java way?
I am a Christian and I agree with most of the things you said. I think in science class you should be taught science, that is material backed by well accepted theories. If parents really feel that strongly about religion, then I think it should be their responsibility to teach it to their children or for them to place them in a private school where they do teach religion. I don't consider science to be blasphemy or anything silly like that. I would imagine that God would use science as his tool to create the world and life in it.
As far as prayer in school, I certainly don't think it should be forced or mandated, but I think religious activities in school should be accepted. For instance, students in my school organized an after school Bible study program. I think something like that is OK to have on school grounds and it doesn't violate the separation of church and state. After all, students are free to do what they please and the students in my former school who didn't care about religion probably didn't even know the group existed.
Even though I am a Christian, I think seperation of church and state is important. While my particular religion seems to be the most popular or at least the most outspoken in America, I don't think it should be forced on people or embraced by the government any more than any other religion. After all, I wouldn't want to be forced into following a different religion if one such became the most popular in America. Seperation of church and state protects my religion...it doesn't take it away. Again, if people really feel strongly about spreading the Word, then they should take it upon themselves to do so and not rely on the government to embrace it.
About the SDK, I've downloaded it but haven't taken a good look at it. What I'm wondering is if the SDK provides an interface for accessing the recorded content on the TiVo. Either way, I think its a neat idea...probably not one that will make the TiVo any more appealing to people who don't own one but it will probably add something to users who already have one.
Also of interest would be AMD's Geode line of processors, found here: http://www.amd.com/us-en/ConnectivitySolutions/Pro ductInformation/0,,50_2330_9863,00.html.
It looks like these guys run on about 1 Watt and are x86 compatible.
Does anyone who has used the SDK or read more about it than me know if you can use this toolkit to access the TiVo's recorded content? From some of the comments, it seems that the TiVo can send video to your PC, but only in formats that aren't really useful. So, what I'm wondering is if you could use this SDK to write a small program that would take the content on the TiVo, compress it, and send it to the computer.
I haven't read much into this, but if the summary is right and Apple is trying to protect a trade secret, I was under the impression that it is the companies responsibility to protect this secret and that once it becomes open, there is nothing they can really do to stop it from spreading. For instance, you can't really copyright the ingredients to a cookie, so you keep the recepie secret. If this secret is leaked, or someone figures it out, there is nothing they can really do because it is not copyrighted or under protection.
The illegal downloading of motion pictures robs thousands of honest, hard-working people of their livelihood, and stifles creativity. We make millions of dollars off of one movie alone, while you waste away trying to scrap up enough money for retirement. Actors get paid millions for any crappy movie that they star in. Yet, we want you to feel bad for us. We pay the actors exorbinent fees yet say downloading one movie, that you probably wouldn't buy anyway, keeps that key grip operator from feeding his family, while the star of the film bathes in caviar. Don't you feel bad now?
It seems like Cell will have more memory bandwidth than the processors commonly used today. From this article:
" The memory and processor bus interfaces designed by Rambus account for 90% of the Cell processor signal pins, providing an unprecedented aggregate processor I/O bandwidth of approximately 100 gigabytes-per-second. "
Since the only thing a virus needs to be a virus is the ability to spread itself, I think it would be very possible to create a virus for Mac OS X. What I would do is write a program that simply reads the user's address book and then uses Mail (or its own mail server) to send itself to everyone in the address book. This program wouldn't need to run as an elevated user or anything, so permissions wouldn't matter that much. The key to spreading it would be to have a spamer like approach to get this message in a number of Mac user's inboxes. I'm willing to be that there would be at least a small percent that would run it if the message was crafty enough. Voila! Mac virus. The only real difference between Mac and Windows with a virus like this is that on Windows you have a much greater chance of having more people run your program simply because of the larger user base. Don't get me wrong, I have a Mac and I enjoy using it, but it doesn't change the fact that numbers do play a large part in this.
I don't use Firefox on my Mac, but I have noticed high memory useage on Windows. Right now Firefox is open with 1 window that has 3 tabs and the mem usage is already over 40 MB. I also believe Firefox has some pretty large memory leaks, as I normally leave Firefox open over night and it has been crashed more than once when I've come back to my computer the next day. However, it does seem that this has lessened since 1.0.
Wouldn't most of the problems that affect Firefox also affect Mozilla? I use Firefox mostly because of the fact that I just need the browser and I also like some of the plugins. Other than that, I view Firefox and Mozilla as almost the same exact browser.
Why slashdot, why do you take all the good things away from me?
First you tell me to take a look at this really interesting website, that generates things that looks like art. Then, to my surprise, the index page loads only to find the rest of the site has crashed!
Why must you tease me so?
I'm pretty sure many of the popular games made in the last few years have used functional programming methods. If I'm not mistaken Quake 3's engine is not written using OOP code. Honestly I think it probably comes down to the choice of the code. I know for GBA it is possible to write a game using either assembly, C, or C++.
How would being able to "take advantage of object-oriented development methodologies" make any difference to the consumer or the way the games look/play?
What you said about X11 apps on OS X is true, but in my opinion most normal Mac users will never need to run X11 apps. While it would be fairly common for an average Linux user to use applications written for X11 while using Gnome or KDE. In fact, it seems that X11 apps are as part of a base installation of most distros. Going along with this thread, someones father is more than likely not going to install X11 on his Mac and then proceed to download a bunch of X11 apps, while if this same person was using Linux he would more than likely come across a few apps in his distro that were written for X11 and will look noticeably different than say apps written for Gnome.