Let me hold your hand as we stroll through it together, then:
This is not a robot (in the opinion of the original poster and me) because it is neither autonomous nor does it have the capacity to be made autonomous-ish by adding sensors and a brain (microcontroller). It can only perform canned macro-functions and sequences of these canned macro-functions. Micro-scale control of its functions is not available.
A programmable assembly-line robot is, however, a robot not because it's autonomous in itself (assuming you're talking about the arm / mechanical part), but because it could be autonomous if you grouped it with it's controller, which is a reasonable thing to do despite the fact that they tend to be seperated by some distance in practice, they key is they need not be. In most assembly lines, the robots are programmed to do repetitive tasks with minimal or no variation of behavior based on sensor inputs. But they could easily -- you just have to re-program the microcontroller (brain) and add sensors. So they are indeed robots -- micro-scale control of their behavior is available, and with inputs, a microcontroller, and some clever code, you can make an autonomous robot.
Well, strictly speaking everything in the real world is analog, of course. But, in the way we're using the terms here, analog means made from discrete analog components and feedback circuits with fixed values, which are distinctly unlike the human's (and other animals') unique ability to vary the analog operations in such widely varying and relatively precise ways.
Digital, as relevant here (like an Aibo), means able to be approximated by binary values and transformed by logical operations using digital circuits that drive digital-analog converters such as servos and motors with "digital" imputs and controls. This sort of thing lends itself very easily to programming that can be changed and modified easily, sensors added to the system with little impact or re-design needed, etc.
My point was that analog discrete devices, like the ones used in this toy, tend to be only cheap enough to warrant a system price of $80 when they are the plain old-fashioned fixed values, which means the circuit made of these that controls the behavior is not variable (its behavior depends on these fixed values). It does one thing, and has a few circuits that it can shunt in an out to do several canned things. But making it do a new thing, even a slight variation is hard and expensive, and adding a new input from a new sensor, something trivial in most digital control systems (like an Aibo), is nigh impossible.
So, again, the only way this sort of analog-circuit control system robot toy will help bring down the cost of other, digital processor-based robots, is if we find a way to make cheap discrete components with variable parameter values controllable by digital logic, and even then the savings would be pretty small. You still need the ASIC with the microcontroller in it. Maybe your servos and motors could be a bit cheaper -- maybe.
If these motor skills can really be done at such a price, there's no reason why we shouldnt see pretty dramatic drops in the prices of the more expensive tech toys.
Don't be so sure. These are analog control circuits, not digital logic. So there'
s no CPU or microcontroller to program with autonomous-ish behavior. And theres not an easy (or cheap) way to control the analog circuits even with add-on digital controller of some sort or add new response behavior based on new sensor inputs -- the discrete component operating ranges are to small to produce the wide variety of behavior you can do with digital logic.
So, if you want this toy to do something new, you can't just tweak some assembly code, or vary the pulse-code modulation signal to a servo, you have to design a new control circuit. There's the rub.
Still kinda cool to watch an $80 robot do a little jig with decent dexterity. It's a great achievement in low-cost analog feedback control systems. If we just knew how to make cheap resistors and capacitors with wide ranges of easily-controllable parameters, we'd be seeing some major advancements spawning from this..
.
The death of Bluetooth view is being advocated from a perspective that says Intel is in the driver's seat - a very PC centric view.
Take a look from another perspective - device centred - and the picture looks much much different.
Cheap devices use ASICs and ASSPs to implement Bluetooth. IBM, NEC, Toshiba, LSI, and somewhere down the line Mitsubish are the major ASIC and ASSP players. Now, with that in mind re-read my post, especially this part:
IBM and NEC both just dropped support for Bluetooth in their ASIC core selection (which is key to cellphone, other cheap device, and mobo mfg'ers), LSI and Mitsubishi stopped development altogether after wasting some cash trying to figure out what the spec actually was and how to plug the holes in it safely.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you bought a phone with an ASIC inside that includes a core that is no longer supported. That means there will be nore updated models of your device, no big deal, but it also means no new Bluetooth support in that line either. Which is what we're discussing. As much as I hate to agree with that ferarri-licking laptop monkey, he's right.
Good one, except that Intel (and probably AMD as well) knows that CPU performance is no longer as important at bus performance and convenience. As the AC correctly pointed out:
Opteron is geared towards a completley different market than Itanium. Last week the Intel CEO said that Itanium sales are way ahead of schedule and said it was "gratifying" to see the product be accepted so much by the banking and scientific communities.
Or, said differently, Itanium is insignificantly small in the Intel portfolio. At least for the time being.
So register with a hotmail or yahoo account. That's no more traceable than your IP logs that follow you regardless. You don't have to make yourself any more traceable to post at +1 (or +2!) as opposed to -1.
That is true, but therein lies the danger of blindly opposing (just as dangerous of blindly following!).
He's an idiot, for sure, but in this case he's right. Accidentally, I'm sure, but IBM and NEC both just dropped support for Bluetooth in their ASIC core selection (which is key to cellphone, other cheap device, and mobo mfg'ers), LSI and Mitsubishi stopped development altogether after wasting some cash trying to figure out what the spec actually was and how to plug the holes in it safely.
It's almost impossible to get a Bluetooth core from any IP dealer, much less an ASIC vendor. And that's mostly the fault of Bluetooth itself for not being sure what it is -- spec-compliant implementations just weren't playing together well.
IMHO, the spec never settled and was originated by under-qualified individuals. Some of the braver, more vocal persons involved agree. Googling would yield some interesting commentary pages from some of those involved/de-involved in Bluetooth, if you're really interested.
And, if you don't think Intel can affect such a thing, try standing on the back of InfiniBand and trying to see through the dust to catch a glimpse of PCI-express as it buzzes by when Intel switched from the former to the latter.
Wireless USB comes from the same group that spec'ed out USB 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0, and that managed to out-sell the arguably-superior firewire spec. I think wireless USB will last longer than Bluetooth.
Yes it does. Of course it does. Intel is the 800 lb. gorialla, and everyone watches intently to see where it will sit.
If you don't know that you haven't been paying attention, and you might not realizwe that intel is the #1 semiconductor manufacturer in the world, by a gargantuan margin, and has been for a long, long time.
Case in point: InfiniBand
Intel can kill any but the most amazingly advanced technology, which Bluetooth definitely is not. Case closed.
Since it is possible to post and meta-moderate in the same thread, I just wanted to take this opportunity to tell you that I just meta-moderated one of your (ill-warranted) +1 informative mods as Unfair.
Please, let this be a lesson to you and everyone else reading: if you post a mirror (hopefully a real one, unlike this turd) do it as AC, otherwise you incur the wrath of the anti-Karma-whore (me).
They have not clearly stated that they would not attack a clean room effort.
Hmm, sounds to me like they just did, but you'd have to have actually read the article to know that:
'The question he should really be asking is why has no-one else offered to create an Open Source version of Java. Maybe because it's on the 'too hard' list. Sun would support an Open Source version of Java, but it need a lot of money and time to do so. You can't just flick a switch. Right now Sun has higher priorities in the form of Java 1.5,' he said.
Now what are you waiting for, Sun to make it for you? Don't hold your breath. But don't waste it complaining about a threat from Sun that doesn't exist, either.
It is not possible to lie without knowing it. A lie is a knowingly untruthful statement made with the intent of deceiving.
I'll second that. On the other hand:
perhaps he just got side-swiped by SCOX's falling share price??
Maybe, if that were true. You know, like if SCOX was falling and all, which it isn't.
SCO GROUP INC (SCOX) On Feb 17: 13.754 +0.123 (0.90%) Reuters
Too bad though. Would've been a good one. And would've made me happy and reinforced my justice fantasy. But, alas, it's sucking in favor of the SCOundrels.
The site itself is too FLASH-y to translate entirely, but here's the FAQ from the site, roughly translated by the fish. Very interesting.
---
The information mica (Info-MICA) with it is some abbreviation?
The abbreviation of Information Multi-layered Imprinted CArd. The mica of the ore (mica) it is designation from the meaning, memory medium which had the stratified structure the way.
---
It is operational principle of the information mica, general "cubic measure hologram" being how to be different, it does "thin film hologram"?
As for thin film hologram, thickness of hologram wave length of light, is hologram when it is thinner than that. Vis-a-vis the reference beam which has wave length and the incident direction where the condition for causing diffraction is loose, differs, you can obtain diffracted light. It is hologram when on the one hand, as for cubic measure hologram, thickness of hologram is sufficiently thicker than wave length of light. Diffraction condition is harsh, generates diffracted light only vis-a-vis the wave length of specification and the reference beam which has incident direction. Until recently, if you mention hologram memory of bulk, those which are based on this cubic measure hologram principle were main current.
---
Information mica medium has, is "laminating guided wave road structure" some kind of ones?
The layer whose refractive index is high (core layer) with low layer (the clad layer), it means the thing of the structure which is laminated alternately. When laser light incidence is done in this, light being shut in the same way as the optical fiber near core layer, it keeps being spread. With the information mica, unevenness pattern is provided in each core layer, light disperses with this. As for this unevenness pattern, with the thin film hologram which beforehand can soak information, scattered light forms the picture, in order for it to be possible to recover information from this picture, is designed. In addition, by the fact that the layer which incidence it can point laser light is selected, the information which is remembered in each stratum can be recovered individually.
---
The computer hologram which is used in the optical design of the information mica (CGH: Computer-Generated Hologram) With it is what?
In order for the playback image of desire to be formed, it is the hologram which is synthesized in the calculation of the computer.
---
You have adopted with the information mica, is "opening multiple" some kind of data multiplex access method?
Multiple doing the information every of opening in 1 inside layer of medium, it means the thing of the system which you remember. With thin film hologram, incidence it just can point to laser light to 1 layer of specification, it is possible to play back the picture which instantly has mass information. But, the fine picture which was played back from hologram medium and the pixel pitch where the cheap general-purpose image pickup element of CCD and the like is rough there was density difference of 2 columns between, it was difficult to take in image at one time with the general-purpose image pickup element. With the information mica, because high density memory is actualized making use of the cheap image pickup element of marketing, the filter which possesses plural opening between medium and the image pickup element is provided, from midst of plural opening one of desire is consecutively selected and the method of keeping recovering the information of 1 inside layer in the time series by it keeps opening, is adopted.
(Reference link)
Http://www.phlab.ecl.ntt.co.jp/theme/2003/2003_12_01.pd f
---
Is mass production commercial business conversion of the information mica when around?
Eh? "About time?" The spec was just completed late last year (and that's arguable, even, since we're still finding bugs and problems in the spec even this year). What is it that makes you imply that PCI-E is somehow late or even strongly needed in the consumer market?
But if boards are going for the big speed upgrade, then it's time for the home networks to step up a notch too.
Why, exactly, does network speed need to increase because system bus speed increases? Just because you can cram 2.5Gbps from CPU to your video card (per link) you suddenly need more than 100Mbps on your LAN? I don't get it.
Are you the AC who posted almost exactly the same thing here? I ignored the AC post, despite the fact that it has (rather undeservedly) been modded up, but this is getting silly. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about ("rendering glitches could possibly be fixed on the fly" wtf?), so please stop spreading this nonsense.
PCI-E is about performance -- particularly higher bandwidth (scalable) and lower latency. I (and I suspsect you as well) have no idea what you're trying to say with regard to "allows data to be communicated back to the system after it has been processed on the card" (since both PCI and AGP are biderectional as well), but if there's a PCI-E "feature" to herald in addition to performance, it's the cost reduction allowed by the the use of high-speed differential serial links.
No, using multiple PCI-Express serial links (lanes) doesn't introduce any of the complexity of parallel buses because each lane is still independent -- you don't have to worry about bit skew between them, and you don't have to "sync the timing" of the two lanes in any way (the upper layers of the protocol handle this).
Did you RTFA? I did, and failed to find anything untoward or even mildly "sensational" about the spylog section. There is no mention of any "Russian spyware site(s)" anywhere, and exactly one reference to Russia, which says:
Despite its malicous sounding name, all this file contains is the tracking code provided by a russian company, spylog.com. I couldn't figure out how to view the stats that are being compiled by spylog, but the author no doubt has access to these stats and can use them to figure out how many computers he has hijacked.
Exaclt what part of the above (benign) description do you think you "corrected" via your post?
I use the same system, and sometimes I get spam, sometimes I don't. I can usually guess whether I will be spammed or not by the apparent sliminess or lack thereof of the site.
I've also signed up using an encoded name (random string, really, that I just link to thier site name in a text file). The 20 or so sites I tested either spammed both (sold the emails) or neither. I didn't find any sites that spammed a random name but didn't spam a name including their name.
Re:It's not the RFID that unnerves me about this.
on
RFID Tags For The Rich
·
· Score: 1
Hey, that's great -- we need more shops like that, not fewer. I'm touched and moved by that sort of small, mom & pop, know everyone by name and face service. Plus, that's much better than having to carry the card around (I have too many already).
I just can't wait until we figure out a way to use technology to enhance the storage and recall capacity of those kind owners' brains so that we can scale their service up to work in actual civilizations, you know, like cities with more than a few thousand customer for them to remember? And, of course, link them all up so that when I shop at the store owned by their clones in another city, they still recognize me and give me that warm down-home service.
So, I say scrap all this development of ways to give me better service via technology and computers! Instead, we should work on ways to genetically modify and enhance the mental capabilities of the existing clerks and tellers so that they are just as convenient and useful even in large-scale settings, you know? That way, they get to keep thier menial, easily-automated jobs wth the relatively minor inconvenience of some minor genetic enhancedments. I'm sure you'd agree that's far more desireable than having to learn to adapt and overcome or retrain in a new skill or occupation.
Heck, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that nothing slows down evolution like removing all trace of pressures to adapt, and that's what we need: Less evolution and progress! More stagnation! W00t!
Well, "fast" was sort of in the spec (hop in, play 30 min, log out), unless you mean fast gameplay (which is really common only on airplane-heavy maps in my experience). AA doesn't really work well as a "fast" games in either sense.
I think BF1942 has one of the smallest gaps between best/worst players of all FPS games I've played, probably because the vehicles are good equalizers, and no class or firearm is excessively powerful or abusable -- the all-too-commonly-annoying sniper is pretty well nerfed). This makes it a good n00b game and very easy to get started in.
AA, on the other hand, has a built-in entry barrier (training mission and honor-building stuff that does less to improve your skills than it does to hassle you and delay your fun). And the gap between best and worst players, although somewhat mitigated by the high-honor servers, is huge.
There are also very few hard-to-learn "tricks" in BF1942 that advanced players can use to taunt and bewilder n00bs. Not that there are such tricks in AA (unless you count learning to sit really still for a long time and move very slowly, which was indeed hard for me to master), but there are in most FPS games (rocket jumping, conc jumping, wall walking, speed-hopping, etc.)
I played Tribes, and liked it for (1) big maps and (2) vehicles. I disliked it for everything else (boring sparse maps, bad netcode, jumpy prediction, mediocre graphics, lack of mods). I even witnessed the suckathon that was Tribes2, for a short while. While Tribes1/2 certainly included vehicles, the variety (a few sizes of the same personnel-carrier in Tribes vs BF's battleships, carriers, tanks, jeeps, planes, artillery, submarines, . . . ) and number of variatons (4-5 in Tribes vs. 32+ in BF) really didn't make vehicles as integral to the gameplay of Tribes as they do in BF. Nor were they particularly "cool" or "fun" vehicles that one might tweak one's skill with in order to become an awe-inspiring expert at the controls. They were utilitatian and plain. IMHO.
Now, in the Really Has Vehicles list I also know about: Codename Eagle and HALO. (Many omitted because vehicles must be (1) freely driveable and (2) armed.)
And for the record, these are the upcoming titles that I believe plan to include vehicles: Unreal2k4, HalfLife2.
So, unless you know of more, compared to the hundreds of FPS games out there, I'd say true vehicle support is very rare.
You have a good point, but I think you're jumping too quickly to a solution in the wrong direction, IMHO. You want servers filtered and segregated by skill level. I don't think this will work. Here's why:
Intermediate-to-advanced players will surely occasionally hop onto a n00b server to shoot some fish in a barrel, take out some frustration, test a new tecchnique, or whatever. This will annoy and discourage players who are "expecting" to do well because of server skill settings.
Some new players may even incorrectly assume that they don't have to bother with the (relatively high) learning curve of the controls and coordination required for most FPS games.
A sort of Peter principle kicks in: as soon as you have one or a few games where you start to do much better than the preset skill level for that server, you have to move on. It would be hard to tune the system to choose the "break-point" at a proper time for everyone. If I get lucky and a wild grenade kills 10 enemies, am I ready to move on? A tough AI problem, for sure.
The idea of filtering by skill quickly gets reduced to filtering by score, or at best aggregate average scores. This can work if you have a game with uniqie id's and centralized tracking. But then you'll need to account for multiple player for the same game CD, which allows
for "cheating" the system by creating new "n00b" accounts.
Even if you work around the problems above, note that score is really not strongly related to player skill. Scores are more a combination of relative player skills, the maps, and playing styles used in each game. Bad players can get high scores and good players can gwet low scores, especially in team games, depending on the class and role they are playing.
In fact, some team-based mods are now actually not tracking individual player scores, but only team scores. This is to encourage more teamwork and less Rambo-style play. Some players get very high scores by baseraping with planes or whatever, yet still play poorly (by definition) because their team loses, and they don't help. If team victory is the goal, individual scores don't do well to promote it.
The above emphasise the problems with determining "skill" in terms of segregating servers and enforcing the segregation, and it also leads into my suggestion.
With class-based games, you have the option of focusing on 5 or 6 different skill sets / strategies. If you're not the best/fastest twitch finger in the West, consider playing classes other than assault/soldier and choosing not to run head-first into the front lines. Maybe you would be better playing medic, or engineer, or artillery support. I play a variety of classes (mostly in BF1942), and each one is a very different experience requiring totally different skills and play styles. Please consider trying them all a little and see what you may have a natural knack for, and enjoy.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me hold your hand as we stroll through it together, then:
This is not a robot (in the opinion of the original poster and me) because it is neither autonomous nor does it have the capacity to be made autonomous-ish by adding sensors and a brain (microcontroller). It can only perform canned macro-functions and sequences of these canned macro-functions. Micro-scale control of its functions is not available.
A programmable assembly-line robot is, however, a robot not because it's autonomous in itself (assuming you're talking about the arm / mechanical part), but because it could be autonomous if you grouped it with it's controller, which is a reasonable thing to do despite the fact that they tend to be seperated by some distance in practice, they key is they need not be. In most assembly lines, the robots are programmed to do repetitive tasks with minimal or no variation of behavior based on sensor inputs. But they could easily -- you just have to re-program the microcontroller (brain) and add sensors. So they are indeed robots -- micro-scale control of their behavior is available, and with inputs, a microcontroller, and some clever code, you can make an autonomous robot.
Well, strictly speaking everything in the real world is analog, of course. But, in the way we're using the terms here, analog means made from discrete analog components and feedback circuits with fixed values, which are distinctly unlike the human's (and other animals') unique ability to vary the analog operations in such widely varying and relatively precise ways.
Digital, as relevant here (like an Aibo), means able to be approximated by binary values and transformed by logical operations using digital circuits that drive digital-analog converters such as servos and motors with "digital" imputs and controls. This sort of thing lends itself very easily to programming that can be changed and modified easily, sensors added to the system with little impact or re-design needed, etc.
My point was that analog discrete devices, like the ones used in this toy, tend to be only cheap enough to warrant a system price of $80 when they are the plain old-fashioned fixed values, which means the circuit made of these that controls the behavior is not variable (its behavior depends on these fixed values). It does one thing, and has a few circuits that it can shunt in an out to do several canned things. But making it do a new thing, even a slight variation is hard and expensive, and adding a new input from a new sensor, something trivial in most digital control systems (like an Aibo), is nigh impossible.
So, again, the only way this sort of analog-circuit control system robot toy will help bring down the cost of other, digital processor-based robots, is if we find a way to make cheap discrete components with variable parameter values controllable by digital logic, and even then the savings would be pretty small. You still need the ASIC with the microcontroller in it. Maybe your servos and motors could be a bit cheaper -- maybe.
is this really programmable, or can you just choose the order of execution of canned actions with no sensor feedback or branching or looping possible?
If these motor skills can really be done at such a price, there's no reason why we shouldnt see pretty dramatic drops in the prices of the more expensive tech toys.
Don't be so sure. These are analog control circuits, not digital logic. So there' s no CPU or microcontroller to program with autonomous-ish behavior. And theres not an easy (or cheap) way to control the analog circuits even with add-on digital controller of some sort or add new response behavior based on new sensor inputs -- the discrete component operating ranges are to small to produce the wide variety of behavior you can do with digital logic.
So, if you want this toy to do something new, you can't just tweak some assembly code, or vary the pulse-code modulation signal to a servo, you have to design a new control circuit. There's the rub.
Still kinda cool to watch an $80 robot do a little jig with decent dexterity. It's a great achievement in low-cost analog feedback control systems. If we just knew how to make cheap resistors and capacitors with wide ranges of easily-controllable parameters, we'd be seeing some major advancements spawning from this.. .
The death of Bluetooth view is being advocated from a perspective that says Intel is in the driver's seat - a very PC centric view. Take a look from another perspective - device centred - and the picture looks much much different.
Cheap devices use ASICs and ASSPs to implement Bluetooth. IBM, NEC, Toshiba, LSI, and somewhere down the line Mitsubish are the major ASIC and ASSP players. Now, with that in mind re-read my post, especially this part:
IBM and NEC both just dropped support for Bluetooth in their ASIC core selection (which is key to cellphone, other cheap device, and mobo mfg'ers), LSI and Mitsubishi stopped development altogether after wasting some cash trying to figure out what the spec actually was and how to plug the holes in it safely.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you bought a phone with an ASIC inside that includes a core that is no longer supported. That means there will be nore updated models of your device, no big deal, but it also means no new Bluetooth support in that line either. Which is what we're discussing. As much as I hate to agree with that ferarri-licking laptop monkey, he's right.
Good one, except that Intel (and probably AMD as well) knows that CPU performance is no longer as important at bus performance and convenience. As the AC correctly pointed out:
Opteron is geared towards a completley different market than Itanium. Last week the Intel CEO said that Itanium sales are way ahead of schedule and said it was "gratifying" to see the product be accepted so much by the banking and scientific communities.
Or, said differently, Itanium is insignificantly small in the Intel portfolio. At least for the time being.
So register with a hotmail or yahoo account. That's no more traceable than your IP logs that follow you regardless. You don't have to make yourself any more traceable to post at +1 (or +2!) as opposed to -1.
It matters.
Bluetooth is here right now and it works.
Not well .
If all your Bluetooth chips are from the same vendor, you're OK. But try to miux, and nothing works reliably.
That is true, but therein lies the danger of blindly opposing (just as dangerous of blindly following!).
He's an idiot, for sure, but in this case he's right. Accidentally, I'm sure, but IBM and NEC both just dropped support for Bluetooth in their ASIC core selection (which is key to cellphone, other cheap device, and mobo mfg'ers), LSI and Mitsubishi stopped development altogether after wasting some cash trying to figure out what the spec actually was and how to plug the holes in it safely.
It's almost impossible to get a Bluetooth core from any IP dealer, much less an ASIC vendor. And that's mostly the fault of Bluetooth itself for not being sure what it is -- spec-compliant implementations just weren't playing together well.
IMHO, the spec never settled and was originated by under-qualified individuals. Some of the braver, more vocal persons involved agree. Googling would yield some interesting commentary pages from some of those involved/de-involved in Bluetooth, if you're really interested.
And, if you don't think Intel can affect such a thing, try standing on the back of InfiniBand and trying to see through the dust to catch a glimpse of PCI-express as it buzzes by when Intel switched from the former to the latter.
Wireless USB comes from the same group that spec'ed out USB 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0, and that managed to out-sell the arguably-superior firewire spec. I think wireless USB will last longer than Bluetooth.
Yes it does. Of course it does. Intel is the 800 lb. gorialla, and everyone watches intently to see where it will sit.
If you don't know that you haven't been paying attention, and you might not realizwe that intel is the #1 semiconductor manufacturer in the world, by a gargantuan margin, and has been for a long, long time.
Case in point: InfiniBand
Intel can kill any but the most amazingly advanced technology, which Bluetooth definitely is not. Case closed.
Sucks that you posted this AC as few will see it. It's relevant, smart, and well-written. Please consider registering and/or logging in in the future.
Everyone is being really cute & funny and all, but I'm truly shocked that no one has mentioned this:
/.? I am so disillusioned now.
TiVo holds four design patents on the remote's basic shape and key layout.
Patents? On a remote shape and layout? Four of them? And zero comments about this astonishing fact on
Excuse me -- I've something in my eye . . .
Since it is possible to post and meta-moderate in the same thread, I just wanted to take this opportunity to tell you that I just meta-moderated one of your (ill-warranted) +1 informative mods as Unfair.
Please, let this be a lesson to you and everyone else reading: if you post a mirror (hopefully a real one, unlike this turd) do it as AC, otherwise you incur the wrath of the anti-Karma-whore (me).
They have not clearly stated that they would not attack a clean room effort.
Hmm, sounds to me like they just did, but you'd have to have actually read the article to know that:
'The question he should really be asking is why has no-one else offered to create an Open Source version of Java. Maybe because it's on the 'too hard' list. Sun would support an Open Source version of Java, but it need a lot of money and time to do so. You can't just flick a switch. Right now Sun has higher priorities in the form of Java 1.5,' he said.
Now what are you waiting for, Sun to make it for you? Don't hold your breath. But don't waste it complaining about a threat from Sun that doesn't exist, either.
It is not possible to lie without knowing it. A lie is a knowingly untruthful statement made with the intent of deceiving.
I'll second that. On the other hand:
perhaps he just got side-swiped by SCOX's falling share price??
Maybe, if that were true. You know, like if SCOX was falling and all, which it isn't.
SCO GROUP INC (SCOX) On Feb 17: 13.754 +0.123 (0.90%) Reuters
Too bad though. Would've been a good one. And would've made me happy and reinforced my justice fantasy. But, alas, it's sucking in favor of the SCOundrels.
The site itself is too FLASH-y to translate entirely, but here's the FAQ from the site, roughly translated by the fish. Very interesting.
//www.phlab.ecl.ntt.co.jp/theme/2003/2003_12_01.pd f
---
The information mica (Info-MICA) with it is some abbreviation?
The abbreviation of Information Multi-layered Imprinted CArd. The mica of the ore (mica) it is designation from the meaning, memory medium which had the stratified structure the way.
---
It is operational principle of the information mica, general "cubic measure hologram" being how to be different, it does "thin film hologram"?
As for thin film hologram, thickness of hologram wave length of light, is hologram when it is thinner than that. Vis-a-vis the reference beam which has wave length and the incident direction where the condition for causing diffraction is loose, differs, you can obtain diffracted light. It is hologram when on the one hand, as for cubic measure hologram, thickness of hologram is sufficiently thicker than wave length of light. Diffraction condition is harsh, generates diffracted light only vis-a-vis the wave length of specification and the reference beam which has incident direction. Until recently, if you mention hologram memory of bulk, those which are based on this cubic measure hologram principle were main current.
---
Information mica medium has, is "laminating guided wave road structure" some kind of ones?
The layer whose refractive index is high (core layer) with low layer (the clad layer), it means the thing of the structure which is laminated alternately. When laser light incidence is done in this, light being shut in the same way as the optical fiber near core layer, it keeps being spread. With the information mica, unevenness pattern is provided in each core layer, light disperses with this. As for this unevenness pattern, with the thin film hologram which beforehand can soak information, scattered light forms the picture, in order for it to be possible to recover information from this picture, is designed. In addition, by the fact that the layer which incidence it can point laser light is selected, the information which is remembered in each stratum can be recovered individually.
---
The computer hologram which is used in the optical design of the information mica (CGH: Computer-Generated Hologram) With it is what?
In order for the playback image of desire to be formed, it is the hologram which is synthesized in the calculation of the computer.
---
You have adopted with the information mica, is "opening multiple" some kind of data multiplex access method?
Multiple doing the information every of opening in 1 inside layer of medium, it means the thing of the system which you remember. With thin film hologram, incidence it just can point to laser light to 1 layer of specification, it is possible to play back the picture which instantly has mass information. But, the fine picture which was played back from hologram medium and the pixel pitch where the cheap general-purpose image pickup element of CCD and the like is rough there was density difference of 2 columns between, it was difficult to take in image at one time with the general-purpose image pickup element. With the information mica, because high density memory is actualized making use of the cheap image pickup element of marketing, the filter which possesses plural opening between medium and the image pickup element is provided, from midst of plural opening one of desire is consecutively selected and the method of keeping recovering the information of 1 inside layer in the time series by it keeps opening, is adopted. (Reference link) Http:
---
Is mass production commercial business conversion of the information mica when around?
You have aimed towar
That's great news and its about time.
Eh? "About time?" The spec was just completed late last year (and that's arguable, even, since we're still finding bugs and problems in the spec even this year). What is it that makes you imply that PCI-E is somehow late or even strongly needed in the consumer market?
But if boards are going for the big speed upgrade, then it's time for the home networks to step up a notch too.
Why, exactly, does network speed need to increase because system bus speed increases? Just because you can cram 2.5Gbps from CPU to your video card (per link) you suddenly need more than 100Mbps on your LAN? I don't get it.
Are you the AC who posted almost exactly the same thing here? I ignored the AC post, despite the fact that it has (rather undeservedly) been modded up, but this is getting silly. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about ("rendering glitches could possibly be fixed on the fly" wtf?), so please stop spreading this nonsense.
PCI-E is about performance -- particularly higher bandwidth (scalable) and lower latency. I (and I suspsect you as well) have no idea what you're trying to say with regard to "allows data to be communicated back to the system after it has been processed on the card" (since both PCI and AGP are biderectional as well), but if there's a PCI-E "feature" to herald in addition to performance, it's the cost reduction allowed by the the use of high-speed differential serial links.
If you meant something else, please do explain.
No, using multiple PCI-Express serial links (lanes) doesn't introduce any of the complexity of parallel buses because each lane is still independent -- you don't have to worry about bit skew between them, and you don't have to "sync the timing" of the two lanes in any way (the upper layers of the protocol handle this).
Did you RTFA? I did, and failed to find anything untoward or even mildly "sensational" about the spylog section. There is no mention of any "Russian spyware site(s)" anywhere, and exactly one reference to Russia, which says:
Despite its malicous sounding name, all this file contains is the tracking code provided by a russian company, spylog.com. I couldn't figure out how to view the stats that are being compiled by spylog, but the author no doubt has access to these stats and can use them to figure out how many computers he has hijacked.
Exaclt what part of the above (benign) description do you think you "corrected" via your post?
I use the same system, and sometimes I get spam, sometimes I don't. I can usually guess whether I will be spammed or not by the apparent sliminess or lack thereof of the site.
I've also signed up using an encoded name (random string, really, that I just link to thier site name in a text file). The 20 or so sites I tested either spammed both (sold the emails) or neither. I didn't find any sites that spammed a random name but didn't spam a name including their name.
Hey, that's great -- we need more shops like that, not fewer. I'm touched and moved by that sort of small, mom & pop, know everyone by name and face service. Plus, that's much better than having to carry the card around (I have too many already).
I just can't wait until we figure out a way to use technology to enhance the storage and recall capacity of those kind owners' brains so that we can scale their service up to work in actual civilizations, you know, like cities with more than a few thousand customer for them to remember? And, of course, link them all up so that when I shop at the store owned by their clones in another city, they still recognize me and give me that warm down-home service.
So, I say scrap all this development of ways to give me better service via technology and computers! Instead, we should work on ways to genetically modify and enhance the mental capabilities of the existing clerks and tellers so that they are just as convenient and useful even in large-scale settings, you know? That way, they get to keep thier menial, easily-automated jobs wth the relatively minor inconvenience of some minor genetic enhancedments. I'm sure you'd agree that's far more desireable than having to learn to adapt and overcome or retrain in a new skill or occupation.
Heck, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that nothing slows down evolution like removing all trace of pressures to adapt, and that's what we need: Less evolution and progress! More stagnation! W00t!
Well, "fast" was sort of in the spec (hop in, play 30 min, log out), unless you mean fast gameplay (which is really common only on airplane-heavy maps in my experience). AA doesn't really work well as a "fast" games in either sense.
I think BF1942 has one of the smallest gaps between best/worst players of all FPS games I've played, probably because the vehicles are good equalizers, and no class or firearm is excessively powerful or abusable -- the all-too-commonly-annoying sniper is pretty well nerfed). This makes it a good n00b game and very easy to get started in.
AA, on the other hand, has a built-in entry barrier (training mission and honor-building stuff that does less to improve your skills than it does to hassle you and delay your fun). And the gap between best and worst players, although somewhat mitigated by the high-honor servers, is huge.
There are also very few hard-to-learn "tricks" in BF1942 that advanced players can use to taunt and bewilder n00bs. Not that there are such tricks in AA (unless you count learning to sit really still for a long time and move very slowly, which was indeed hard for me to master), but there are in most FPS games (rocket jumping, conc jumping, wall walking, speed-hopping, etc.)
I played Tribes, and liked it for (1) big maps and (2) vehicles. I disliked it for everything else (boring sparse maps, bad netcode, jumpy prediction, mediocre graphics, lack of mods). I even witnessed the suckathon that was Tribes2, for a short while. While Tribes1/2 certainly included vehicles, the variety (a few sizes of the same personnel-carrier in Tribes vs BF's battleships, carriers, tanks, jeeps, planes, artillery, submarines, . . . ) and number of variatons (4-5 in Tribes vs. 32+ in BF) really didn't make vehicles as integral to the gameplay of Tribes as they do in BF. Nor were they particularly "cool" or "fun" vehicles that one might tweak one's skill with in order to become an awe-inspiring expert at the controls. They were utilitatian and plain. IMHO.
Now, in the Really Has Vehicles list I also know about: Codename Eagle and HALO. (Many omitted because vehicles must be (1) freely driveable and (2) armed.)
And for the record, these are the upcoming titles that I believe plan to include vehicles: Unreal2k4, HalfLife2.
So, unless you know of more, compared to the hundreds of FPS games out there, I'd say true vehicle support is very rare.
You have a good point, but I think you're jumping too quickly to a solution in the wrong direction, IMHO. You want servers filtered and segregated by skill level. I don't think this will work. Here's why:
Intermediate-to-advanced players will surely occasionally hop onto a n00b server to shoot some fish in a barrel, take out some frustration, test a new tecchnique, or whatever. This will annoy and discourage players who are "expecting" to do well because of server skill settings.
Some new players may even incorrectly assume that they don't have to bother with the (relatively high) learning curve of the controls and coordination required for most FPS games.
A sort of Peter principle kicks in: as soon as you have one or a few games where you start to do much better than the preset skill level for that server, you have to move on. It would be hard to tune the system to choose the "break-point" at a proper time for everyone. If I get lucky and a wild grenade kills 10 enemies, am I ready to move on? A tough AI problem, for sure.
The idea of filtering by skill quickly gets reduced to filtering by score, or at best aggregate average scores. This can work if you have a game with uniqie id's and centralized tracking. But then you'll need to account for multiple player for the same game CD, which allows for "cheating" the system by creating new "n00b" accounts.
Even if you work around the problems above, note that score is really not strongly related to player skill. Scores are more a combination of relative player skills, the maps, and playing styles used in each game. Bad players can get high scores and good players can gwet low scores, especially in team games, depending on the class and role they are playing.
In fact, some team-based mods are now actually not tracking individual player scores, but only team scores. This is to encourage more teamwork and less Rambo-style play. Some players get very high scores by baseraping with planes or whatever, yet still play poorly (by definition) because their team loses, and they don't help. If team victory is the goal, individual scores don't do well to promote it.
The above emphasise the problems with determining "skill" in terms of segregating servers and enforcing the segregation, and it also leads into my suggestion.
With class-based games, you have the option of focusing on 5 or 6 different skill sets / strategies. If you're not the best/fastest twitch finger in the West, consider playing classes other than assault/soldier and choosing not to run head-first into the front lines. Maybe you would be better playing medic, or engineer, or artillery support. I play a variety of classes (mostly in BF1942), and each one is a very different experience requiring totally different skills and play styles. Please consider trying them all a little and see what you may have a natural knack for, and enjoy.