What happens if the plane is off course and fly's directly into the no fly zone? Will the plane suddenly try to make a 90 degree left or right with no way for the pilot to correct?
And depending on whether the zone is programmed as a perimeter or an area... What happens if the plane somehow gets inside the perimeter? Does it circle untill it runs out of fuel? After all, there is no need for a landing strip in the no-fly zone.
No sir, I don't like it. I want the pilot flying the plane. Just keep EVERYONE away from them so they can do their job.
An external door for the pilots with no door to the other compartment would do the trick. Once in the air, you aren't getting in unless you're Superman.
I know it is hard to understand these days, but way back when the Amiga roamed the Earth, the customer asked developers for something, developers created said product, and were paid for their efforts.
Thankfully, The Company (not Kompany) came along and changed all that. Now the developer tells the customer what they want and either gets paid a lot, or nothing at all. It is much easier for the developer now.
More power to these guys. If more projects worked for donations, we might get a finished GUI app once in a while.
Selling a million of any new service in this short period of anything is impressive. What other service has had similar success?
So far, this is marketed to a group of people:
Who own a Mac AND Who own iPods AND live in North America
What is that, 1% of Apples 2% market share?
Once it hits PC's with other players, it could become huge overnight.
Even if the company "only" makes $30 million... What has happened to the world when making "only" $30 million is a bad thing?
Besides the service only just started last week, normally sales of a new service start out slow and grow as people test the waters and if it's safe, others jump in. There is little word-of-mouth advertising yet. And up till now, who needed an overpriced iPod? Now it seems like a better investment.
If the price of entry for unsigned artists is is the cost of studio time, plus paying Apple for server space there could be MORE alternative artists in the mix. This is assuming the labels haven't locked out the independents.
There is much more good potential in the service than you give it credit for.
My issue with Linux is that every time a new version of a library comes out, it breaks all prior apps. (usually)
The response is that compatibility slows progress by locking down the api. This is so short sighted that it is not even funny.
If programmers thought out how their libraries would be used it would be simple to add another call in a newer version. Instead they make short sighted decisions and ruin the use of a shared library.
IMHO any newer version of a library should work better than the previous version and be a 100% replacement.
This would fix a huge chunk of DLL hell and installer issues.
With SCO being closed source, who is to say that SCO didn't steal Linux code and then claim the opposite?
How do you defend against ANY closed source project doing the same?
It would be a very scary tactic that could kill OSS.
Re:Because the MPEG4 you know and love is dead
on
First HDTV Camcorder
·
· Score: 1
I like the detail you mention around edges. Those shots look great where the players uniforms meet the grass or other players.
However, the field looks terrible. It looks like they are composited over a background with a blur filter applied. In big splotches at that.
At that datarate, something has to be lost, but IMHO it would have to be disturbing watching a movie encoded with that algorithm. Depth of field is one thing, but an obvious blur on the background makes for an odd effect.
Get off your high-horse, artsy-fartsey soapboxes and enjoy a movie for a change!
This looks like it might be a fun movie. I don't want to pay to see what the real world looks like, I want action and fantasy.
Yes, like just about any movies produced in the next few years, it borrows from a few recent movies:
The Crow. Blade. Matrix. Queen of the Damned. And any other Goth/Vampire/Techno/Action flick.
But they were all a fun ride. If done well, this may be good too.
Re:$1300 Dual Xeon 2.4 GHz/533 System
on
Linux SMP Round-Up
·
· Score: 1
You are killing off much of your advantage by buying a dual system with 32bit PCI.
Unless you have absolutely no disk access, get something else with 64bit PCI for a good SCSI setup in the future.
If you are that tight for cash, get a dual AMD with real 64bit PCI. Don't get the MP chipset, those boards have only slightly better PCI and top out at much lower CPU speeds, get a MPX chipset with full 64bit PCI and better CPU support.
Don't get a crippled Xeon simply for bragging rights. You'll be cheating yourself.
I trade in my hardware on a regular basis due to the R&D I do for the company I work for. Recently I turned in my dual AMD 1800 MP and have a stop gap single P4 2.4.
The systems use the same hardware other than the motherboard and CPU. They include RAIDed U320 SCSI Cheetah's, GF4 TI4400, etc.
With only 32bit/33Mhz PCI, the P4 can't keep up with the RAID, so obviously disk performance is much worse. I expected this.
The strange thing to me, was how much worse X "feels" than on the slower but dual CPU machine. Without disk access, simply dragging windows around, 3D apps, scrolling, and other normal X usage is not up to par on the faster single CPU.
I need the dual CPU's for what I do, but now I would reccomend dual CPU's for most anyone over a single when the CPU's are anywhere close to the same speed. With the difference in speed you mentioned, that is a wide gap. However my move from 1800 MP to 2.4 Ghz single was just about as large and a real downgrade.
Back in the 80's I participated in a Nielsen (sp?) survey.
I have yet to hear of ONE other person who has been asked to participate. It is such a tiny fraction of viewers that a decent representation is impossible.
Any Slashdotters who have participated, please post.
With a failing (failed?) ratings system, there is no way to tell which shows are actually grabbing viewers attention.
There are about 5000 families participating in ratings surveys at any given time. A fraction of those have subscription TV. A fraction of that fraction watch a niche network such as SciFi. I've heard that 6 families in the entire survey could have saved Farscape.
Unless these stations stop using a ratings system designed for national broadcast networks, expect more bad decisions.
I hope they do something about the audio issues in Linux. When playing an mp3 is a frustrating, skipping nightmare on even high-end systems, something is wrong.
Even a PentiumII 300Mhz running Windows has better audio capabilities than my P4 2.4Ghz running Linux.
Maybe the new patches the kernel developers are comming up with will help?
Define which is the best and which is the worst. There is half of the problem with this theory. There would never be a consensus on what is the best and the worst.
As long as a good solution was chosen from all available options, a single standard would have been better for the community.
The same is true for the current DE's. Someone is making the decisions for each DE but with different critics making different comments to each team, neither DE gets really polished.
No, there would only be developers for the included apps. I doubt that all the developers for application X would just jump to the "preferred" application if X wasn't chosen. Of course there is a pride thing, these people have put a lot of themselves into these projects. Why would they let them die off to go work on something they didn't contribute to?
As to the developers not jumping ship or dropping their project, what is done is done. We can only speculate what might have happened given a standard, however if a standard does emerge, there is plenty of good code available to reference and build upon.
There are plenty of competing projects on other OS's. Using the same GUI doesnt stop that. IMHO, a GUI, like the kernel defines an OS and needs a single point of reference for the OS to thrive.
I tried not to reply, but I hate to be told what I think. Especially when it is wrong.
No, I don't think that Linux is a corporation with one goal. However, I do believe that a lack of focus is a weakness.
The kernel is progressing well with one team leader, but then we don't have two to choose from with totally different api's. (Unless you want to count BSD)
How about those distros that actually WANT to get Linux on the desktop get together and decide on one DE like the one filesystem layout? (etc is always etc) This would improve matters and the "build a server from scratch" guys could do whatever they want. It isn't like those who want to can't add any DE to any distro anyway.
But guess what DE would most likely be chosen? Probably the slightly behind the usability curve GNOME.
When I last checked, the cost for writing even a $5 shareware closed source app in KDE/QT was a minimum of $1500. That is a steep cost to get commercial apps on your OS and without some commercial apps the OS isn't going to make it.
I'm not dictating to anyone, but I, like many others, want Linux on alot of desktops with a great GUI. I want to shed off the duplicate functionality KDE or GNOME libs and still have plenty of good apps to choose from. I want apps, both OSS and commercial, to be widely available.
Until there is more uniformity it isn't going to happen.
You can code whatever you want, but I don't have to use it.
I find it highly disturbing that they don't use Windows every so often. I mean, come on, Microsoft spends TONS of cash on usability studies and 99% of the world knows Windows.
I don't want an XP clone (although the thought is not that bad) but if you are creating a new UI, XP should be required study. Both for it's good AND bad points.
They should also use OSX, MacOS9, Be, and any other OS worth mentioning on a regular basis. XP is not the be-all-end-all.
Unix is the ONLY OS without a standard GUI.
IMHO, the KDE vs. GNOME battle hurts Linux on the desktop more than it helps. Great, we have choices. But really, if there was a LINUX GUI, not two half-assed UI's, we could be much further along on our way to a really good UI. Red Hat 8.0 is the only distro to "get" this and they were crucified for trying it.
1. The best code from each would have been used and the worst would have been dropped. 2. There would be twice as many developers. 3. Users would not have to choose their problems. 4. Tech support would be possible. 5. Graphical tools could be made for system configuration and packaging if they did not have to support a multitude of OS's.
Too many options is good for a technical individual, too many options is NOT a good thing for a group. If they can't get together, I hope they both fail or lose mindshare. The Linux community would be better off with it's own standard GUI.
It's not the packaging, the number of distro's or X Windows holding Linux back as I hear so often. It's the desktop. The other problems can be solved with a standard GUI.
How will this effect the balance between Apple computers (Steve&Steve Co) and Apple Music (Beatles, etc.)
I thought that the ability to use the name "Apple" for the company was only allowed because a computer company could not be mistaken for Apple, the music company?
Microsoft bought MANY of SGI's key 3D patents a year or two ago. SGI had allowed the use of these patents in OpenGL.
This means that they may decide that we have to pay for those features or withhold them altogether.
The screws could get really tight for 3D on anything but Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
What happens if the plane is off course and fly's directly into the no fly zone?
Will the plane suddenly try to make a 90 degree left or right with no way for the pilot to correct?
And depending on whether the zone is programmed as a perimeter or an area...
What happens if the plane somehow gets inside the perimeter? Does it circle untill it runs out of fuel?
After all, there is no need for a landing strip in the no-fly zone.
No sir, I don't like it. I want the pilot flying the plane. Just keep EVERYONE away from them so they can do their job.
An external door for the pilots with no door to the other compartment would do the trick.
Once in the air, you aren't getting in unless you're Superman.
I know it is hard to understand these days, but way back when the Amiga roamed the Earth, the customer asked developers for something, developers created said product, and were paid for their efforts.
Thankfully, The Company (not Kompany) came along and changed all that. Now the developer tells the customer what they want and either gets paid a lot, or nothing at all. It is much easier for the developer now.
More power to these guys. If more projects worked for donations, we might get a finished GUI app once in a while.
I need to go donate a few bucks...
Selling a million of any new service in this short period of anything is impressive. What other service has had similar success?
So far, this is marketed to a group of people:
Who own a Mac
AND Who own iPods
AND live in North America
What is that, 1% of Apples 2% market share?
Once it hits PC's with other players, it could become huge overnight.
Even if the company "only" makes $30 million...
What has happened to the world when making "only" $30 million is a bad thing?
Besides the service only just started last week, normally sales of a new service start out slow and grow as people test the waters and if it's safe, others jump in. There is little word-of-mouth advertising yet. And up till now, who needed an overpriced iPod? Now it seems like a better investment.
If the price of entry for unsigned artists is is the cost of studio time, plus paying Apple for server space there could be MORE alternative artists in the mix. This is assuming the labels haven't locked out the independents.
There is much more good potential in the service than you give it credit for.
My issue with Linux is that every time a new version of a library comes out, it breaks all prior apps. (usually)
The response is that compatibility slows progress by locking down the api. This is so short sighted that it is not even funny.
If programmers thought out how their libraries would be used it would be simple to add another call in a newer version. Instead they make short sighted decisions and ruin the use of a shared library.
IMHO any newer version of a library should work better than the previous version and be a 100% replacement.
This would fix a huge chunk of DLL hell and installer issues.
With SCO being closed source, who is to say that SCO didn't steal Linux code and then claim the opposite?
How do you defend against ANY closed source project doing the same?
It would be a very scary tactic that could kill OSS.
I like the detail you mention around edges. Those shots look great where the players uniforms meet the grass or other players.
However, the field looks terrible. It looks like they are composited over a background with a blur filter applied. In big splotches at that.
At that datarate, something has to be lost, but IMHO it would have to be disturbing watching a movie encoded with that algorithm. Depth of field is one thing, but an obvious blur on the background makes for an odd effect.
Get off your high-horse, artsy-fartsey soapboxes and enjoy a movie for a change!
This looks like it might be a fun movie. I don't want to pay to see what the real world looks like, I want action and fantasy.
Yes, like just about any movies produced in the next few years, it borrows from a few recent movies:
The Crow.
Blade.
Matrix.
Queen of the Damned.
And any other Goth/Vampire/Techno/Action flick.
But they were all a fun ride. If done well, this may be good too.
You are killing off much of your advantage by buying a dual system with 32bit PCI.
Unless you have absolutely no disk access, get something else with 64bit PCI for a good SCSI setup in the future.
If you are that tight for cash, get a dual AMD with real 64bit PCI. Don't get the MP chipset, those boards have only slightly better PCI and top out at much lower CPU speeds, get a MPX chipset with full 64bit PCI and better CPU support.
Don't get a crippled Xeon simply for bragging rights. You'll be cheating yourself.
I trade in my hardware on a regular basis due to the R&D I do for the company I work for. Recently I turned in my dual AMD 1800 MP and have a stop gap single P4 2.4.
The systems use the same hardware other than the motherboard and CPU. They include RAIDed U320 SCSI Cheetah's, GF4 TI4400, etc.
With only 32bit/33Mhz PCI, the P4 can't keep up with the RAID, so obviously disk performance is much worse. I expected this.
The strange thing to me, was how much worse X "feels" than on the slower but dual CPU machine. Without disk access, simply dragging windows around, 3D apps, scrolling, and other normal X usage is not up to par on the faster single CPU.
I need the dual CPU's for what I do, but now I would reccomend dual CPU's for most anyone over a single when the CPU's are anywhere close to the same speed. With the difference in speed you mentioned, that is a wide gap. However my move from 1800 MP to 2.4 Ghz single was just about as large and a real downgrade.
Hope this helps.
Back in the 80's I participated in a Nielsen (sp?) survey.
I have yet to hear of ONE other person who has been asked to participate. It is such a tiny fraction of viewers that a decent representation is impossible.
Any Slashdotters who have participated, please post.
Thanks
With a failing (failed?) ratings system, there is no way to tell which shows are actually grabbing viewers attention.
There are about 5000 families participating in ratings surveys at any given time. A fraction of those have subscription TV. A fraction of that fraction watch a niche network such as SciFi. I've heard that 6 families in the entire survey could have saved Farscape.
Unless these stations stop using a ratings system designed for national broadcast networks, expect more bad decisions.
Farscape R.I.P.
I hope they do something about the audio issues in Linux. When playing an mp3 is a frustrating, skipping nightmare on even high-end systems, something is wrong.
Even a PentiumII 300Mhz running Windows has better audio capabilities than my P4 2.4Ghz running Linux.
Maybe the new patches the kernel developers are comming up with will help?
and mention REBOL.
Cool alternative to Perl or Python.
www.REBOL.com
Define which is the best and which is the worst. There is half of the problem with this theory. There would never be a consensus on what is the best and the worst.
As long as a good solution was chosen from all available options, a single standard would have been better for the community.
The same is true for the current DE's. Someone is making the decisions for each DE but with different critics making different comments to each team, neither DE gets really polished.
No, there would only be developers for the included apps. I doubt that all the developers for application X would just jump to the "preferred" application if X wasn't chosen. Of course there is a pride thing, these people have put a lot of themselves into these projects. Why would they let them die off to go work on something they didn't contribute to?
As to the developers not jumping ship or dropping their project, what is done is done. We can only speculate what might have happened given a standard, however if a standard does emerge, there is plenty of good code available to reference and build upon.
There are plenty of competing projects on other OS's. Using the same GUI doesnt stop that. IMHO, a GUI, like the kernel defines an OS and needs a single point of reference for the OS to thrive.
I tried not to reply, but I hate to be told what I think. Especially when it is wrong.
No, I don't think that Linux is a corporation with one goal. However, I do believe that a lack of focus is a weakness.
The kernel is progressing well with one team leader, but then we don't have two to choose from with totally different api's. (Unless you want to count BSD)
How about those distros that actually WANT to get Linux on the desktop get together and decide on one DE like the one filesystem layout? (etc is always etc) This would improve matters and the "build a server from scratch" guys could do whatever they want. It isn't like those who want to can't add any DE to any distro anyway.
But guess what DE would most likely be chosen? Probably the slightly behind the usability curve GNOME.
When I last checked, the cost for writing even a $5 shareware closed source app in KDE/QT was a minimum of $1500. That is a steep cost to get commercial apps on your OS and without some commercial apps the OS isn't going to make it.
I'm not dictating to anyone, but I, like many others, want Linux on alot of desktops with a great GUI. I want to shed off the duplicate functionality KDE or GNOME libs and still have plenty of good apps to choose from. I want apps, both OSS and commercial, to be widely available.
Until there is more uniformity it isn't going to happen.
You can code whatever you want, but I don't have to use it.
I find it highly disturbing that they don't use Windows every so often. I mean, come on, Microsoft spends TONS of cash on usability studies and 99% of the world knows Windows.
I don't want an XP clone (although the thought is not that bad) but if you are creating a new UI, XP should be required study. Both for it's good AND bad points.
They should also use OSX, MacOS9, Be, and any other OS worth mentioning on a regular basis. XP is not the be-all-end-all.
Unix is the ONLY OS without a standard GUI.
IMHO, the KDE vs. GNOME battle hurts Linux on the desktop more than it helps. Great, we have choices. But really, if there was a LINUX GUI, not two half-assed UI's, we could be much further along on our way to a really good UI. Red Hat 8.0 is the only distro to "get" this and they were crucified for trying it.
1. The best code from each would have been used and the worst would have been dropped.
2. There would be twice as many developers.
3. Users would not have to choose their problems.
4. Tech support would be possible.
5. Graphical tools could be made for system configuration and packaging if they did not have to support a multitude of OS's.
Too many options is good for a technical individual, too many options is NOT a good thing for a group. If they can't get together, I hope they both fail or lose mindshare. The Linux community would be better off with it's own standard GUI.
It's not the packaging, the number of distro's or X Windows holding Linux back as I hear so often. It's the desktop. The other problems can be solved with a standard GUI.
Say I OWN a trash can that looks like the one Apple uses.
I take a digital photo of it in a similar position and use it as an icon in a theme I use for my new Linux distro.
Am I legally screwed, or does it have to be a perfect duplicate?
How will this effect the balance between Apple computers (Steve&Steve Co) and Apple Music (Beatles, etc.)
I thought that the ability to use the name "Apple" for the company was only allowed because a computer company could not be mistaken for Apple, the music company?
run a time server?
;-)
I'll make my computer watch time fly
Microsoft bought MANY of SGI's key 3D patents a year or two ago. SGI had allowed the use of these patents in OpenGL. This means that they may decide that we have to pay for those features or withhold them altogether. The screws could get really tight for 3D on anything but Windows.
Have you seen ONE comment posted that didn't complain about heat, how their XP is faster than a Sparc or how x86-64 will kick Itaniums ass?
If you don't care about the FACTS, but only the speculation, go read the tabloids.
Look at all the non-reading fools posting...
These are the notebook AMD XP-M CPU's.
That means low power and heat.
It also means no 64bit support.