I see where you're going here, but it's not really true.
I was fortunate enough to use the CAVE at UIUC in early '97, just after Quake was first released. 4-walled VR environment where the user only needed to wear "polarized" glasses to see the 3D image. I assure you it was MUCH faster than 5 fps. And I can assure you that it was much more immersive than Quake.
But there were no texturemaps. Every object pretty much had a single color. Why? Because there was no reason for it to be more than that.
Quake looks good and VR looks bad because there are millions of PCs and handfuls of things like the CAVE. Developing a souped-up-graphics environment like you see in FPSs isn't HARD, it's just TIME CONSUMING.
The only thing that made FPSs look better than VR is that there was millions of dollars to be made selling video games and nothing to be made making texturemapped VR for the handful of CAVEs on the planet.
It seems silly to evaluate the success of an academic approach on commercial terms. At the end of the day, FPS's are more commercially successful because computers with monitors are cheap (widely available) and 3D displays are not. You can't sell a VR program to millions of people who don't have VR equipment.
Lucas brought in Rick Berman. Obi Wan's ship gets stuck in a temporal rift and gets hurled into the future, where he learns what Annakin turns into. Fortunately, Han Solo is able to rig R2D2's memory system to Obi Wan's ship's power drive and generate a relnaran field, sending the ship back in time so that Obi Wan can make sure to finish off Anakin, altering the timeline so that he never becomes Darth Vader at all.
There are three general things that will help you avoid obesity:
- Excercie, as you mentioned - Diet (or lack thereof) - Metabolism
Plenty of people can maintain a good body weight merely through metabolism or eating less. Excercise is certainly not required, and is actually probably the least likely of the three to be effective by itself.
Maybe they don't live longer because of health reasons - maybe they live longer because they're sedate, and you're much less likely to die while sitting on your couch watching TV than, say, goig outside.
The real problem is that an undergraduate CS degree is a fairly useless thing to have on it's own. People need to realize that IT (fixing networks) is not the same as software development. And people also need to realize that being good at CS is not good enough for software development - you sould be good at CS, *AND* good at whatever you're developing hte software for.
Does your software model chemical reactions? Then you should be someone who is good at chemistry who can also write software. Does your software lay out gates? Then you should be an electrical engineer who can also write sfotware. Does your software do people's taxes? Then you should be an accountant who also can write software.
Do you make sure the routers, print servers, and various computers all talk and play togetehr nicely, and that people's computers don't get infected with viruses? Then you're a network tech, and a CS degree was a waste of time. (Or you're a waste of a CS degree.)
The thing is, MOST people don't need a CS degree to be someone who is good at something else AND can write software. Many already know how to write software by the time the get to college, and those that don't would better spend their time becoming an expert in the field they're going to be writig software in than being an expert in software writing.
Might their software not be quite as fast as software written by a CS expert? Maybe not. But it will still probablybe overall better, as the person doing the programming will have a much ebtter understanding of what the program should do.
Anyway, if you're an IT worker (routers, printers, and no viruses) and you saw this article about CS majors and posted something about your job, you should be modded -1 Offtopic. This article isn't about you.
Didn't these people ever stop and think about how suspicious it will look when Intel sees the "property of Massachusetts Institute of Technology libraries" stamp?
Because there is no such stamp in magazines stolen from the UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS. Talk about dumb slashdot posters.
The shuttle is 1960's and 1970's technology. That's 40 years older than any present day efforts.
And the reason we're still using 1970's technology is that the cost of developing and deploying new technology has always been prohibatively more than the cost of making the 1970's technology continue to work.
It is only now that the cost of keeping the shuttle program going (or, more likely, not being able to keep it going with another loss of a shuttle) is beginning to appear prohibatively expensive in comparison to the cost of developing and deploying a new alternative.
The question is whether we can develop and deploy a new alternative before we're no longer able to maintain the current program.
I unintentionally muddled my point by bringing money into it - you're right, whether I charge for the source or not doesn't matter.
The point still stands though - normally, if I take GPL'd software, modify it, and then give it to someone else to run, I have to give them the source as well.
But if I take GPL'd code, modify it, and then let other people run the software on my server, I've accomplished the same thing that distribution accomplishes (allowing other people to use the program) without triggering the part of the license that would require me to also release my changes back to the community.
Open source works because you're supposed to give as well as take. GPL is what forces you to give (or at least, prevents you from taking too much without giving.)
10 million spam emails a day is worse than killing someone. How much did all of those emails cost other people? How many lives could have been saved with that money?
This is the same mentality that says CEOs who blow billions of other people's retirement savings shouldn't serve sentences longer than a violent offender. They absolutely should - they may not have killed anybody, but they ruined the lives of thousands.
The existing payment model is fine, and does not need to be changed: The only payment required for GPL'd software is providing the source if you distribute the software.
The change should be to require that the source must be provided whenever you allow someone else to RUN the software.
What if your customers are paying for a search of internet websites?
If you take open source software and adapt it to provide searches of websites, and allow your customer to actually run the program (they send a query to your server, your server processess the query, and sends the result back to the customer) - it seems like the only difference between that and sending a CD so they could run it on their own computer is one of where the processing power comes from.
I agree that requiring companies to pay is the wrong solution however. The correct solution is to require companies that do this to provide the source code.
Slashdot Mirror
I was going for +1 Funny, not +1 Informative.
Which explains why I was modded +1 Informative.
I see where you're going here, but it's not really true.
I was fortunate enough to use the CAVE at UIUC in early '97, just after Quake was first released. 4-walled VR environment where the user only needed to wear "polarized" glasses to see the 3D image. I assure you it was MUCH faster than 5 fps. And I can assure you that it was much more immersive than Quake.
But there were no texturemaps. Every object pretty much had a single color. Why? Because there was no reason for it to be more than that.
Quake looks good and VR looks bad because there are millions of PCs and handfuls of things like the CAVE. Developing a souped-up-graphics environment like you see in FPSs isn't HARD, it's just TIME CONSUMING.
The only thing that made FPSs look better than VR is that there was millions of dollars to be made selling video games and nothing to be made making texturemapped VR for the handful of CAVEs on the planet.
It seems silly to evaluate the success of an academic approach on commercial terms. At the end of the day, FPS's are more commercially successful because computers with monitors are cheap (widely available) and 3D displays are not. You can't sell a VR program to millions of people who don't have VR equipment.
would slam the traveller against the wall at 30km/sec
The wall slams into the traveller.
I live in Alabama, you insensitive clod!
If that's true, how do you post to slashdot without an internet connection?
"Today at 16:59 GMT (8:58 AM PST) ..."
The 50 millionth download went to Britain. The mismatch is due to the network latency when the file was transfered to GMT.
Lucas brought in Rick Berman. Obi Wan's ship gets stuck in a temporal rift and gets hurled into the future, where he learns what Annakin turns into. Fortunately, Han Solo is able to rig R2D2's memory system to Obi Wan's ship's power drive and generate a relnaran field, sending the ship back in time so that Obi Wan can make sure to finish off Anakin, altering the timeline so that he never becomes Darth Vader at all.
What is the tonnage price for tin foil?
There are three general things that will help you avoid obesity:
- Excercie, as you mentioned
- Diet (or lack thereof)
- Metabolism
Plenty of people can maintain a good body weight merely through metabolism or eating less. Excercise is certainly not required, and is actually probably the least likely of the three to be effective by itself.
Maybe they don't live longer because of health reasons - maybe they live longer because they're sedate, and you're much less likely to die while sitting on your couch watching TV than, say, goig outside.
If he doesn't want to be killed by high cholesterol, he just needs to smoke more.
The real problem is that an undergraduate CS degree is a fairly useless thing to have on it's own. People need to realize that IT (fixing networks) is not the same as software development. And people also need to realize that being good at CS is not good enough for software development - you sould be good at CS, *AND* good at whatever you're developing hte software for.
Does your software model chemical reactions? Then you should be someone who is good at chemistry who can also write software. Does your software lay out gates? Then you should be an electrical engineer who can also write sfotware. Does your software do people's taxes? Then you should be an accountant who also can write software.
Do you make sure the routers, print servers, and various computers all talk and play togetehr nicely, and that people's computers don't get infected with viruses? Then you're a network tech, and a CS degree was a waste of time. (Or you're a waste of a CS degree.)
The thing is, MOST people don't need a CS degree to be someone who is good at something else AND can write software. Many already know how to write software by the time the get to college, and those that don't would better spend their time becoming an expert in the field they're going to be writig software in than being an expert in software writing.
Might their software not be quite as fast as software written by a CS expert? Maybe not. But it will still probablybe overall better, as the person doing the programming will have a much ebtter understanding of what the program should do.
Anyway, if you're an IT worker (routers, printers, and no viruses) and you saw this article about CS majors and posted something about your job, you should be modded -1 Offtopic. This article isn't about you.
Didn't these people ever stop and think about how suspicious it will look when Intel sees the "property of Massachusetts Institute of Technology libraries" stamp?
Because there is no such stamp in magazines stolen from the UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS. Talk about dumb slashdot posters.
If google tracks search terms, they've been hiding it very well.
So you're 0/2. ...he's an ornithopter?
Whether Congress will provide funding based on the obvious is another matter entirely.
$200 million to secure the *FIRST* 1 million users.
The series was obviously foiled by unflattering uniforms.
Actually, this is a good way to predict of a Star Trek series will be any good. What is the token hot chick wearing?
TOS: Short skirt and knee-high boots: SUCCESS!
Next Generation: Cleavage Top: SUCCESS!
DS9: Jump suits with intermittent out-of-unifrom scenes: Average.
Voyager: High-neck jump suit: FAILURE!
Enterprise: High-neck jump suit: FAILURE!
Clearly, the success of a star trek series rests primarily with the wardrobe department.
Or maybe it is the writers:
Long-haired human female: SUCCESS!
Long-haired empathic human-looking female: SUCCESS!
Long-haired spotted human now-recently-female: Average
Short-haired near-robot: FAILURE!
Short-haired, asexual Vulcan: FAILURE!
Rick Berman is so bad he can even screw up pandering.
The shuttle is 1960's and 1970's technology. That's 40 years older than any present day efforts.
And the reason we're still using 1970's technology is that the cost of developing and deploying new technology has always been prohibatively more than the cost of making the 1970's technology continue to work.
It is only now that the cost of keeping the shuttle program going (or, more likely, not being able to keep it going with another loss of a shuttle) is beginning to appear prohibatively expensive in comparison to the cost of developing and deploying a new alternative.
The question is whether we can develop and deploy a new alternative before we're no longer able to maintain the current program.
It's looking pretty bleak.
My plan:
1. Use gun to stop train.
2. Use gun to hold hostages.
3. ???
4. Profit!
To prove it, I am making all trains 3 to 30 minutes late.
Unless I'm having a really bad morning, in which case your train may not come at all.
That has nothing to do with the word processor.
That has to do with a lack of standards applied to the submitted paper.
And, this is college level. The assumption would be that you're grading on content because whoever it is already knows how to write correctly.
Right.
I unintentionally muddled my point by bringing money into it - you're right, whether I charge for the source or not doesn't matter.
The point still stands though - normally, if I take GPL'd software, modify it, and then give it to someone else to run, I have to give them the source as well.
But if I take GPL'd code, modify it, and then let other people run the software on my server, I've accomplished the same thing that distribution accomplishes (allowing other people to use the program) without triggering the part of the license that would require me to also release my changes back to the community.
Open source works because you're supposed to give as well as take. GPL is what forces you to give (or at least, prevents you from taking too much without giving.)
10 million spam emails a day is worse than killing someone. How much did all of those emails cost other people? How many lives could have been saved with that money?
This is the same mentality that says CEOs who blow billions of other people's retirement savings shouldn't serve sentences longer than a violent offender. They absolutely should - they may not have killed anybody, but they ruined the lives of thousands.
The existing payment model is fine, and does not need to be changed: The only payment required for GPL'd software is providing the source if you distribute the software.
The change should be to require that the source must be provided whenever you allow someone else to RUN the software.
What if your customers are paying for a search of internet websites?
If you take open source software and adapt it to provide searches of websites, and allow your customer to actually run the program (they send a query to your server, your server processess the query, and sends the result back to the customer) - it seems like the only difference between that and sending a CD so they could run it on their own computer is one of where the processing power comes from.
I agree that requiring companies to pay is the wrong solution however. The correct solution is to require companies that do this to provide the source code.