"The probability of a successful demo is inversely proportional to the number of people watching it."
We've got one coming up on Friday.
Shit, why am I replying to SlashDot? I have bugs to fix...
Hmm, not really, PS 1.4 is fairly different to PS 1.3. The architecture has changed. Many of the instructions are the same but they're applied in a different way.
OK, I would agree with the statement "Nintendo are doing better now than Sony were at this time last year." But it is all just talk. Anything could happen between now and Christmas.
Well at least the PS2 is "perspective correct"... Unlike you... "Tyranically abuses it's (sic) customers"... Heh.
I didn't admit to being a moron. It doesn't matter if they're a big corporation or not. I didn't say i would believe anything they ever said. What I did say is right up there for everyone to see.
OK, why do I believe them? Last Christmas you could not buy a PS2 unless you were already on a waiting list. The demand was there. They could easily have sold more. They didn't sell more because they couldn't make them fast enough. How would they win by not meeting existing demand? They could still have kept the illusion of limited supply, because sales were only through preorder, and as a customer you had no way of knowing how many consoles were available... You just stuck your name down, and you were lucky or you weren't. When a kid wants a PS2 for Christmas, it's no good letting them have one for next March. Sony must have known this. What could they possibly have gained by artificially limiting supply?
My point, in case you missed it, was that last Christmas Sony sold some PS2s, however as of today, Nintendo has sold precisely zero. Hence, the statement "They're doing a whole lot better than Sony did last Christmas." is bullshit.
Now some people subscribe to the idea that Sony limited production on purpose, and others believe that it was due to problems with production. Personally I'm inclined to believe Sony, but there you go.
"They're doing a whole lot better than Sony did last Christmas."
Er, well, they haven't sold any yet!
I seem to remember Sony saying they were going to have loads available too.
Wouldn't it be wise to wait until Christmas before making a comment like that?
Yeah, for about five minutes until they figured it out.
At which point, they get some of their 0wned boxes to connect to your servers, hence wasting *your* cycles.
In the meantime, they have figured out which ports on your machine do *not* behave the same way, and hmm, you're 0wned too...
Just because Linus Torvalds doesn't think he can keep the NT kernel in his head, doesn't mean that no-one else can.
Remember, NT has a modified *microkernel* architecture.
And, remember that Dave Cutler and his team implemented RSX-11 in 32KB, in fact 16KB with the other half for overlaid utility programs. He is smarter than you give him credit for.
You appear to have calculated: 1.8*pi*150 ~=848.
Would the following be more accurate?
0.9*0.9*pi*150*2 ~=763
(area of a circle is pi*r^2, and both sides of the platter are in use)
I have already explained my point, but for your benefit, it goes something like this. In all of the cases you mentioned, the MS product was *better* than the competition. Competition is *good*, right? Right? Only it sucks to lose doesn't it?
If you want to compete, you have to *make a better product*. That's what your first concern is. Not what happens to the other guy. What are *you* going to do to make Joe Punter buy your shit instead of the other man's?
OpenOffice is trying to compete with MS Office, and good luck to them. My point was about good and bad reasons. Hopefully I have clarified this for anyone who might have been confused.
ps. OK, maybe not Access. Whatever, it's pretty user friendly, but I am not a database expert.
OK, I think there are cheaper ways of not giving money to Microsoft, but whatever floats your boat...
The point is, that for Microsoft to lose market share, someone else must gain it. It would seem a bit wrong for OpenOffice to gain market share for some other reason than being a good product. I mean, it clearly isn't at this point, unless you want to run it on a platform on which MS Office is not supported, or if you're too tight to pay for it.
And there's the fact that OpenOffice is clearly copying MS Office. If there's going to be competition, is it competition between features? Ease of use? Different paradigms? Or is it just "use this, because we wrote it and it's open source and you should be sticking it to the man"?
Blah blah hidden APIs blah blah.
OK, so Office runs under Wine, right? So why don't you look at the debugging logs to see which functions it's calling in which DLLs, then you can disassemble them (like the Winers have obviously been doing) and see what they do. Then you can download the source to OpenOffice, and take advantage of the super hidden APIs! And stop whining!
Or were you trolling?
support in getting a Mac OS-X port out for OpenOffice is critical to keeping a Microsoft dominance of yet another operating system's office suite to a minimum Does anyone actually want to make a good product any more? Or do they just want to ensure that Microsoft loses market share? What about the fact that Open/StarOffice are pretty much rip-offs of MS office anyway?
We have a few gigs of binaries in a SourceSafe database. It still works, although it's not blindingly quick.
If you know of a cheap/free version control system that works well with binaries, I'd be interested to hear about it. (It needs to be automatable)
Re:This has been mentioned before, but...
on
Why not Ruby?
·
· Score: 1
This is basically the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and it is not generally accepted to be true in its strong form (which you appear to be using).
Learning another language makes you understand your native tongue better because of the *similarities* in grammar, much more than the differences. I learned about English grammar at school, but of course I was more interested in looking out of the window... Then while learning Japanese I rediscovered subjects, objects, transitive and intransitive verbs, and all the rest. After that I started on Hungarian, and I was much faster learning it because I instinctively knew when to mark objects etc.
You don't really *need* to know why you form sentences the way you do, unless you want to learn another language!
Re:1995: Who needs Java when we have C?
on
Why not Ruby?
·
· Score: 1
Xenix was running on PCs eight years earlier, although it wasn't free. Perhaps you used the wrong boolean operator?
He made the claim, the burden of proof is his, not mine. Why can't he quote the relevant parts? It would be fair use. I don't own the books. I would guess that most readers of this forum don't own the books either.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The guy claimed that Microsoft Office was using undocumented APIs to gain a "massive advantage" over competitors. Show me the DLL and function names.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, are you the guy in charge of defining what phrases mean?
Seriously, a distributed system doesn't have to be fully connected to be "true".
Why is the parameter to malloc only 32 bit? This is a 64 bit architecture, you should be able to allocate more than 4GB.
"The probability of a successful demo is inversely proportional to the number of people watching it."
We've got one coming up on Friday.
Shit, why am I replying to SlashDot? I have bugs to fix...
Hmm, not really, PS 1.4 is fairly different to PS 1.3. The architecture has changed. Many of the instructions are the same but they're applied in a different way.
Yeah OK, Mr. Nitpick. It was a joke... I have a PS2 devkit sitting next to me, by the way. Lots of chipsets behave the same way. Which sucks.
OK, I would agree with the statement "Nintendo are doing better now than Sony were at this time last year." But it is all just talk. Anything could happen between now and Christmas.
Well at least the PS2 is "perspective correct"... Unlike you... "Tyranically abuses it's (sic) customers"... Heh.
I didn't admit to being a moron. It doesn't matter if they're a big corporation or not. I didn't say i would believe anything they ever said. What I did say is right up there for everyone to see.
OK, why do I believe them? Last Christmas you could not buy a PS2 unless you were already on a waiting list. The demand was there. They could easily have sold more. They didn't sell more because they couldn't make them fast enough. How would they win by not meeting existing demand? They could still have kept the illusion of limited supply, because sales were only through preorder, and as a customer you had no way of knowing how many consoles were available... You just stuck your name down, and you were lucky or you weren't. When a kid wants a PS2 for Christmas, it's no good letting them have one for next March. Sony must have known this. What could they possibly have gained by artificially limiting supply?
My point, in case you missed it, was that last Christmas Sony sold some PS2s, however as of today, Nintendo has sold precisely zero. Hence, the statement "They're doing a whole lot better than Sony did last Christmas." is bullshit.
Now some people subscribe to the idea that Sony limited production on purpose, and others believe that it was due to problems with production. Personally I'm inclined to believe Sony, but there you go.
There are some here.
It's essentially a PowerPC. I believe Linux runs on PowerPC.
"They're doing a whole lot better than Sony did last Christmas."
Er, well, they haven't sold any yet!
I seem to remember Sony saying they were going to have loads available too.
Wouldn't it be wise to wait until Christmas before making a comment like that?
It blue screens W2K.
Bug report submitted...
Yeah, for about five minutes until they figured it out.
At which point, they get some of their 0wned boxes to connect to your servers, hence wasting *your* cycles.
In the meantime, they have figured out which ports on your machine do *not* behave the same way, and hmm, you're 0wned too...
Just because Linus Torvalds doesn't think he can keep the NT kernel in his head, doesn't mean that no-one else can.
Remember, NT has a modified *microkernel* architecture.
And, remember that Dave Cutler and his team implemented RSX-11 in 32KB, in fact 16KB with the other half for overlaid utility programs. He is smarter than you give him credit for.
So, what, are you saying that Dave Cutler doesn't understand NT?
Well, you were pretty close...
Either way, it's a metric buttload of pr0n!
You appear to have calculated: 1.8*pi*150 ~=848.
Would the following be more accurate?
0.9*0.9*pi*150*2 ~=763
(area of a circle is pi*r^2, and both sides of the platter are in use)
I have already explained my point, but for your benefit, it goes something like this. In all of the cases you mentioned, the MS product was *better* than the competition. Competition is *good*, right? Right? Only it sucks to lose doesn't it?
If you want to compete, you have to *make a better product*. That's what your first concern is. Not what happens to the other guy. What are *you* going to do to make Joe Punter buy your shit instead of the other man's?
OpenOffice is trying to compete with MS Office, and good luck to them. My point was about good and bad reasons. Hopefully I have clarified this for anyone who might have been confused.
ps. OK, maybe not Access. Whatever, it's pretty user friendly, but I am not a database expert.
OK, I think there are cheaper ways of not giving money to Microsoft, but whatever floats your boat...
The point is, that for Microsoft to lose market share, someone else must gain it. It would seem a bit wrong for OpenOffice to gain market share for some other reason than being a good product. I mean, it clearly isn't at this point, unless you want to run it on a platform on which MS Office is not supported, or if you're too tight to pay for it.
And there's the fact that OpenOffice is clearly copying MS Office. If there's going to be competition, is it competition between features? Ease of use? Different paradigms? Or is it just "use this, because we wrote it and it's open source and you should be sticking it to the man"?
Blah blah hidden APIs blah blah.
OK, so Office runs under Wine, right? So why don't you look at the debugging logs to see which functions it's calling in which DLLs, then you can disassemble them (like the Winers have obviously been doing) and see what they do. Then you can download the source to OpenOffice, and take advantage of the super hidden APIs! And stop whining!
Or were you trolling?
support in getting a Mac OS-X port out for OpenOffice is critical to keeping a Microsoft dominance of yet another operating system's office suite to a minimum
Does anyone actually want to make a good product any more? Or do they just want to ensure that Microsoft loses market share? What about the fact that Open/StarOffice are pretty much rip-offs of MS office anyway?
We have a few gigs of binaries in a SourceSafe database. It still works, although it's not blindingly quick.
If you know of a cheap/free version control system that works well with binaries, I'd be interested to hear about it. (It needs to be automatable)
This is basically the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and it is not generally accepted to be true in its strong form (which you appear to be using).
Learning another language makes you understand your native tongue better because of the *similarities* in grammar, much more than the differences. I learned about English grammar at school, but of course I was more interested in looking out of the window... Then while learning Japanese I rediscovered subjects, objects, transitive and intransitive verbs, and all the rest. After that I started on Hungarian, and I was much faster learning it because I instinctively knew when to mark objects etc.
You don't really *need* to know why you form sentences the way you do, unless you want to learn another language!
Xenix was running on PCs eight years earlier, although it wasn't free. Perhaps you used the wrong boolean operator?
Show me the DLL and function names.
He made the claim, the burden of proof is his, not mine. Why can't he quote the relevant parts? It would be fair use. I don't own the books. I would guess that most readers of this forum don't own the books either.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The guy claimed that Microsoft Office was using undocumented APIs to gain a "massive advantage" over competitors. Show me the DLL and function names.