Which lives a fairly big lead-time for the design, manufacturing, etc of iPods. You don't just come up with a magical design one day and then pop them off the shelves the next. My guess is that it would be the iPod design/manufacture process somewhere prior to Jan 2001. Hopefully Apple's got some records to show that their designs preceeded the lame-ass Creative patent.
They maintain their own updating over the internet, and sadly it's something the debian based distros haven't really kept up with well
You mean the dozen or so updaters that sit around, taking up room in the system tray, taking up memory, hogging bandwidth, and oftimes popping up to steal focus at inopportune moments (like when I'm in the middle of a game online). Oh yeah, gotta love those.
Or you could just have a central update authority, which is what apt is for. I've never had firefox update itself in 'nix, it's always been through apt, which helps to make sure that all the little intricacies that are tied to it and other apps don't get broken by a strange and unknown update.
As for the simplicity of things... well try installing GIMP (or perhaps another cross-platform piece of software) on Debian/w Synaptic or aptitude VS on windows...
While I've been extremely time-limited lately, I've always wanted to get back into playing with 3d development and I've been looking a lot at sci-fi space-based games. In terms of visuals, one of the biggest problems I've had with many of the ones currently available, is that space games generally tend to go with the "large and looming" aspect. You have these really big objects, such as starports, battlecruisers, or planets. Making a texture that would nicely cover them would be huge (especially the planets). Therefore, when you get close you start seeing lots of nasty pixellation. The same has held true for many games such as FPS's etc with wall-textures. Nice-at-a-distance, crappy up-close. But it's moreso in the space games.
Of course, having nice smooth textures is nice, but the next step would be better mesh-conversion from simple to complex based on distance. I've heard of this being worked on and/or possible used, but I've not yet seen a game that would use it. How about a space-game where you come up on a planet. You get close, textures go pixelly, and then you "crash." What if you could get in nice and close, and then not only do the textures increase in detail realistically, but you so does the mesh. So at this point, you can actually move right in to the 'ol planet and find a nice dock to land on as the round-ball-from-a-distance becomes more realistic with mountains and various human settlements/bases.
Alternately, my plan would be to use MextTextures until you get close, and then maybe use a cutscene where you break atmosphere before ending up nearer the surface (otherwise mapping the geography of a whole planet would be insanely time-consuming for a large space game).
The whole point of debian-based distros such as Ubuntu are the package-management features. Yes, the link you've showed would allow firefox to run faster (due to whatever differences between the globally compiled version that would be distro-included vs the source one)... but it's by no means necessary to get firefox. If you want the speed of a self-compiled verson then windows wouldn't likely help you either...
Ubuntu: Run synaptic. Reload lists. Search for firefox. Check off. Click apply. Done.
Windows: Find package website (in this case mozilla.com). Surf links. Download firefox from link. Figure out where you just saved the installed (I've seen many users choke at this, strangely). Run installer. Click next a bunch of times. Done
So really, with Ubuntu you're either just as easy, or even a bit easier. If you're using KDE (or I assume gnome) then the program will be on your menus after install. Of course, Ubuntu also comes with a fairly recent version of firefox anyways... so depending on how old your install discs were it might do you just fine anyhow.
And yet, here's the first link off google. And the second comment:
Any particular reason you want to use version 1.05? If not, then you can get the latest using synaptic.
My second link took me here, which doesn't mention firefox (probably because it's already installed) but does mention install instructions for a schwackload of other common software. It does use apt-get instead of the synaptic GUI, but the steps are simple enough.
Demonstrating one of the hardest ways to install software on linux as an example that it is "too hard" doesn't make you informative, it makes you a troll.
Intel publishes open source drivers for their latest integrated video chipsets.
Open-sourced drivers don't automagically make the hardware they run good. The performance of Intel graphics chips is considerably less than ATI/NVidia, with closed or open drivers. But the distribution is still good, I wonder why they open-source and the others don't (maybe less to steal?)
You know, in this case I almost wish you'd mention your employer. I've been looking at switching my ISP's recently and it would be nice to have one that is looking ahead rather than peering deep into their own asses...
I thought the same until I bought a 6600 VIVO (video in, video out)card. All the normal 3d/2d stuff works great, as expected from NVidia. However I haven't found any support for the encoder/capture functionality on this card. It still beats the pants off ATI for reliability in the output arena, but I haven't had much luck on input (perhaps somebody here can show me a working input driver and prove me wrong).
Not necessarily true. While dedicated cards for physics haven't existed, dedicated cards for other operations have, and much of the physics calculations themselves are still being done in games, just with an extra load on the CPU in software rather than a dedicated unit. As physics becomes a bigger focus in the realism of 3d games, perhaps it is in fact a foreseeable evolutionary step that specific devices would exist to process this.
Well, a keyboard and mouse don't really compare to a good gamepad device, though the opposite can also often be true (I'll forever be a fan of mouse-aiming vs with joystick). Flight games and many others are quite centric to the input device, but then a decent PC joystick or gamepad will make a big difference as well (I have one that was all of $15 and is quite similar to a Playstation 2 gamepad, works great). Of course, if you can't find a PC gamepad that suits you, one could always get the playstation-USB or Xbox-USB adaptors for PC.
Just for reference, many people who write or support OS software also have regular "day jobs" or other work. Should they then be expected to take their own time, unpaid, and create the software for those that can't?
This isn't always the case, but quite often the reasons that OS developers (or developers in general) get rather snitty is because you have 1000000 people who all have 1000000 features they want included. Moreover, as somebody who oftimes develops software myself, I'm not even sure where I would start in making my applications handicap-friendly (and in this case, we're talking about a format, which has very little to do with application friendliness/accessibility). One of the facts of life is - though I feel rather harsh to say it - that you are expected to do for yourself even with a handicap. If you want software that's handicap-friendly, perhaps the best way would be to get a large number of people with handicap to pitch in (either with time, money, or otherwise) to have it made. As in other industries, you pay for special features, even for disability-based ones... or do you think that a car that's been adjusted for handicap use costs the same as one for people without a handicap?
Yes, it sucks when a disability prevents you from doing something. But at least today you do have the option in most cases to gather together with people having a similar problem (in this case, lack of disability support) and put your resources together for a solution. Survival of the fittest was actually not that long ago the general rule of thumb, so really I'd be counting my blessings for what I can do rather than becoming irate that somebody else hasn't made me a special program to access my email...
Oh, and p.s.... before you flame me back. I've been both temporarily disabled, and due to the injury that caused said disability there are some various things I can't do normally anymore... so in some ways I do know what it's like
What if, in the efforts to stop a flood of bad patents, the USPTO runs astray of a patent themselves (likely on something commonly used). As the USPTO I suppose the could revoke the patent in question?
- Don't get the DVD
- Don't see it any sooner than normal
- Use up bandwidth to download
- Can't play on a different machine, or format-shift
Seems to me that people aren't going to go for this, but it would give WB the ammunition thereafter to say "see, we tried to make our movies available online, but people still prefer to pirate them"
So does photoshop (or equiv video software) and/or lense tricks and the old trick with vasaline rubbed over the lense.
One of the real problems with super high-definition video that I could see (for those that want the detail) would be getting equipment that can actually record at such a high depth or level of detail... not to mention the on-the-fly storage requirements.
If you're for some reason stuck on the idea of natural diamonds and want to avoid the blood-price associated with them, you could also look at the growing industry of Canadian "Polar Bear" diamonds
I'm sure my current employer or past employers could probably somewhat easily correlate my slashdot account with me, so I'm rather sure there are others for whom the connection could be made.Personally, for those posting personal views or opinions of their boss(es), I'd be more careful of what I write on slashdot than on a resume.
After all, having your boss ask you about "slashdot" and a certain comment involving "cranial-rectal inversion" is probably not a good way to start the day.
You know ISPs would love this, in fact back up the plan as they *hate* P2P users.
They don't like heavy P2P downloaders which use up bandwidth, but they do like having the extra % of their customers that joined on the premise that they want to download movies or music.
Trust me, I know a lot of people who think the primary use of the internet is for getting music and checking email.
For all the various issues I might have with my carrier (Telus), security isn't really one. For my home phone, for major changes they will verify against the PIN number than comes on my bills. For cellphone service, the last time I was having issues they asked me for my PIN code before applying major changes.
I guess not all carriers do that... but yes, they should.
Slashdot Mirror
Patent Filed: 2001/01/05
Ipod Release: 2001/10/23
Which lives a fairly big lead-time for the design, manufacturing, etc of iPods. You don't just come up with a magical design one day and then pop them off the shelves the next. My guess is that it would be the iPod design/manufacture process somewhere prior to Jan 2001. Hopefully Apple's got some records to show that their designs preceeded the lame-ass Creative patent.
They maintain their own updating over the internet, and sadly it's something the debian based distros haven't really kept up with well
/w Synaptic or aptitude VS on windows...
You mean the dozen or so updaters that sit around, taking up room in the system tray, taking up memory, hogging bandwidth, and oftimes popping up to steal focus at inopportune moments (like when I'm in the middle of a game online). Oh yeah, gotta love those.
Or you could just have a central update authority, which is what apt is for. I've never had firefox update itself in 'nix, it's always been through apt, which helps to make sure that all the little intricacies that are tied to it and other apps don't get broken by a strange and unknown update.
As for the simplicity of things... well try installing GIMP (or perhaps another cross-platform piece of software) on Debian
While I've been extremely time-limited lately, I've always wanted to get back into playing with 3d development and I've been looking a lot at sci-fi space-based games. In terms of visuals, one of the biggest problems I've had with many of the ones currently available, is that space games generally tend to go with the "large and looming" aspect. You have these really big objects, such as starports, battlecruisers, or planets. Making a texture that would nicely cover them would be huge (especially the planets). Therefore, when you get close you start seeing lots of nasty pixellation. The same has held true for many games such as FPS's etc with wall-textures. Nice-at-a-distance, crappy up-close. But it's moreso in the space games.
Of course, having nice smooth textures is nice, but the next step would be better mesh-conversion from simple to complex based on distance. I've heard of this being worked on and/or possible used, but I've not yet seen a game that would use it. How about a space-game where you come up on a planet. You get close, textures go pixelly, and then you "crash." What if you could get in nice and close, and then not only do the textures increase in detail realistically, but you so does the mesh. So at this point, you can actually move right in to the 'ol planet and find a nice dock to land on as the round-ball-from-a-distance becomes more realistic with mountains and various human settlements/bases.
Alternately, my plan would be to use MextTextures until you get close, and then maybe use a cutscene where you break atmosphere before ending up nearer the surface (otherwise mapping the geography of a whole planet would be insanely time-consuming for a large space game).
The whole point of debian-based distros such as Ubuntu are the package-management features. Yes, the link you've showed would allow firefox to run faster (due to whatever differences between the globally compiled version that would be distro-included vs the source one)... but it's by no means necessary to get firefox. If you want the speed of a self-compiled verson then windows wouldn't likely help you either...
Ubuntu: Run synaptic. Reload lists. Search for firefox. Check off. Click apply. Done.
Windows: Find package website (in this case mozilla.com). Surf links. Download firefox from link. Figure out where you just saved the installed (I've seen many users choke at this, strangely). Run installer. Click next a bunch of times. Done
So really, with Ubuntu you're either just as easy, or even a bit easier. If you're using KDE (or I assume gnome) then the program will be on your menus after install. Of course, Ubuntu also comes with a fairly recent version of firefox anyways... so depending on how old your install discs were it might do you just fine anyhow.
And yet, here's the first link off google. And the second comment:
Any particular reason you want to use version 1.05? If not, then you can get the latest using synaptic.
My second link took me here, which doesn't mention firefox (probably because it's already installed) but does mention install instructions for a schwackload of other common software. It does use apt-get instead of the synaptic GUI, but the steps are simple enough.
Demonstrating one of the hardest ways to install software on linux as an example that it is "too hard" doesn't make you informative, it makes you a troll.
Intel publishes open source drivers for their latest integrated video chipsets.
Open-sourced drivers don't automagically make the hardware they run good. The performance of Intel graphics chips is considerably less than ATI/NVidia, with closed or open drivers. But the distribution is still good, I wonder why they open-source and the others don't (maybe less to steal?)
You know, in this case I almost wish you'd mention your employer. I've been looking at switching my ISP's recently and it would be nice to have one that is looking ahead rather than peering deep into their own asses...
There was some definate cheese in there, but...
"Scream my rank"
That had myself and all my buddies watching at the time in stitches.
Not sure if you were being specific to ATI (and not sure how this discussion came about otherwise), but I'll add
Doom 3 (natively even)
Battlefield 2
Half Life 2
and with some tweaking, GTA: Vice City, and various others.
I thought the same until I bought a 6600 VIVO (video in, video out)card. All the normal 3d/2d stuff works great, as expected from NVidia. However I haven't found any support for the encoder/capture functionality on this card. It still beats the pants off ATI for reliability in the output arena, but I haven't had much luck on input (perhaps somebody here can show me a working input driver and prove me wrong).
What I wonder if, if they employee had a list of customers, and emailed them from a personal server, would he have been convicted in the first place?
Not necessarily true. While dedicated cards for physics haven't existed, dedicated cards for other operations have, and much of the physics calculations themselves are still being done in games, just with an extra load on the CPU in software rather than a dedicated unit. As physics becomes a bigger focus in the realism of 3d games, perhaps it is in fact a foreseeable evolutionary step that specific devices would exist to process this.
I've heard that diebold is sueing for unauthorized use of the code that was produced by smashing his head into the keyboard... :-)
Well, a keyboard and mouse don't really compare to a good gamepad device, though the opposite can also often be true (I'll forever be a fan of mouse-aiming vs with joystick). Flight games and many others are quite centric to the input device, but then a decent PC joystick or gamepad will make a big difference as well (I have one that was all of $15 and is quite similar to a Playstation 2 gamepad, works great). Of course, if you can't find a PC gamepad that suits you, one could always get the playstation-USB or Xbox-USB adaptors for PC.
Just for reference, many people who write or support OS software also have regular "day jobs" or other work. Should they then be expected to take their own time, unpaid, and create the software for those that can't?
This isn't always the case, but quite often the reasons that OS developers (or developers in general) get rather snitty is because you have 1000000 people who all have 1000000 features they want included. Moreover, as somebody who oftimes develops software myself, I'm not even sure where I would start in making my applications handicap-friendly (and in this case, we're talking about a format, which has very little to do with application friendliness/accessibility). One of the facts of life is - though I feel rather harsh to say it - that you are expected to do for yourself even with a handicap. If you want software that's handicap-friendly, perhaps the best way would be to get a large number of people with handicap to pitch in (either with time, money, or otherwise) to have it made. As in other industries, you pay for special features, even for disability-based ones... or do you think that a car that's been adjusted for handicap use costs the same as one for people without a handicap?
Yes, it sucks when a disability prevents you from doing something. But at least today you do have the option in most cases to gather together with people having a similar problem (in this case, lack of disability support) and put your resources together for a solution. Survival of the fittest was actually not that long ago the general rule of thumb, so really I'd be counting my blessings for what I can do rather than becoming irate that somebody else hasn't made me a special program to access my email...
Oh, and p.s.... before you flame me back. I've been both temporarily disabled, and due to the injury that caused said disability there are some various things I can't do normally anymore... so in some ways I do know what it's like
What if, in the efforts to stop a flood of bad patents, the USPTO runs astray of a patent themselves (likely on something commonly used). As the USPTO I suppose the could revoke the patent in question?
Let's see, so for about the same price you:
- Don't get the DVD
- Don't see it any sooner than normal
- Use up bandwidth to download
- Can't play on a different machine, or format-shift
Seems to me that people aren't going to go for this, but it would give WB the ammunition thereafter to say "see, we tried to make our movies available online, but people still prefer to pirate them"
So does photoshop (or equiv video software) and/or lense tricks and the old trick with vasaline rubbed over the lense.
One of the real problems with super high-definition video that I could see (for those that want the detail) would be getting equipment that can actually record at such a high depth or level of detail... not to mention the on-the-fly storage requirements.
If you're for some reason stuck on the idea of natural diamonds and want to avoid the blood-price associated with them, you could also look at the growing industry of Canadian "Polar Bear" diamonds
I'm sure my current employer or past employers could probably somewhat easily correlate my slashdot account with me, so I'm rather sure there are others for whom the connection could be made.Personally, for those posting personal views or opinions of their boss(es), I'd be more careful of what I write on slashdot than on a resume.
After all, having your boss ask you about "slashdot" and a certain comment involving "cranial-rectal inversion" is probably not a good way to start the day.
You know ISPs would love this, in fact back up the plan as they *hate* P2P users.
They don't like heavy P2P downloaders which use up bandwidth, but they do like having the extra % of their customers that joined on the premise that they want to download movies or music.
Trust me, I know a lot of people who think the primary use of the internet is for getting music and checking email.
Won't somebody please think of my children
...because I'm too busy with cocktail parties and late meetings to bother myself. Thanks!
One does question, however, why it is even necessary to have such scenes if it doesn't add to the plot of the game (especially the sex-counter part).
Which would still give credit for the ad counters, no?
I really couldn't say. I do know the CRTC can be rather strict at times, but that's not to say they haven't done stupid things before either...
For all the various issues I might have with my carrier (Telus), security isn't really one. For my home phone, for major changes they will verify against the PIN number than comes on my bills. For cellphone service, the last time I was having issues they asked me for my PIN code before applying major changes.
I guess not all carriers do that... but yes, they should.