Re:Cedega will never get my money.
on
Cedega 5.0 Released
·
· Score: 1, Troll
You pay for a game. You also have to pay for Windows to run the game on! Damnit, why should you have to pay twice!?
I bought a car. I also need to keep buying oil and new tires and brake pads for my car! Damnit, why should I have to pay so many times!?
Cedega will continue to be necessary in future years. If nothing else, all the current Linux games will stop working as the glibc and kernel hackers continue going out of their way to screw users of proprietary software. Eventually some change to stack sizes or libc interfaces is going to effectively kill off your proprietary games. Cedega will be able to run the Windows versions of the games better than Linux will be able to run the Linxu versions of the games.:-/
Only if you're a computer nerd. The majority of the rest of the world only recognizes one kind of pirate, and that sort generally includes bloomers, parrots, ships, cutlasses, cannons, and/or Johny Depp.
They were a very, very small consumer in the PPC world. For every Mac that shipped, many many many embedded devices using PPC shipped in turn.
Why do you think Apple has such a hard time finding PPC manufacturers willing to keep up with their demands? There just isn't all that big of a profit to be had by supplying Apple compared to the embedded space.
You are not entitled to watch a TV program just because you feel like it. The producers of the show, the actors of the show, the tech guys working on the show, and hundreds to thousands of other "little guys" working on the show all do so to make money, which is sort of necessary for them to survive. That money comes in from the TV stations. Who only keep the show around if ratings stay high from people watching it on that station. And those stations only get picked up by the cable company if the stations have many highly rated shows. And cable companies make money off of ads and your subscriptions.
If you don't want to pay all of the people involved, then by downloading the show, you are screwing them _all_ over; the big producers and little guys working on sets or prop management alike. You might "stick it to the man," but you also stick it to Bob the prop grip who barely makes enough to get by as is.
You aren't entitled to watch the show. Your only ethical options are to (a) pay for the cable subscription and watch the show like everyone else, or (b) not watch the show.
I'm of the belief that it was far less the art style of Wind Waker which irritated people, and far more the fact that the Link incarnation was all of eight years old. Anyone with a passing familiarity with anime knows that most of it really isn't childish at all (or, at least, the Japanese versions aren't - Sailor Moon was made for teenage boys in Japan, but the American adaptation is geared for 4-year-old girls, for example).
When the main character is a little kid, however, that'll suck the macho out of the title no matter *what* graphics style is used.
My opinion has always been that it's better to aim for a less realistic graphics style and do it perfectly rather than aim for a realistic graphics style and still have huge holes. A favorite quote of mine from an old game design book (I forget which, sorry) goes something like: "Nobody ever complains that you can't go fishing in Mario 64. Yes, there are lakes, and yes, there are fish in the lakes, but the lack of the ability to go fishing doesn't even register in players' minds. The game's style, through its graphics and gameplay, focuses completely and perfectly on its intended play style, and everything else falls to the wayside."
Compare that to, say, Doom 3, where the graphics are very realistic, but people bitch about not being able to do all sorts of things, like affect certain parts of their environment or hold a flashlight and shoot at the same time. Mario64 had many more limitations than Doom3, yet nobody really notices those.
Your whole argument is based on the assumption that Windows would only allow use of locked formats.
Of course it won't work that way, it'd be corporate/product suicide.
However, only Windows will be able to use these locked formats. Which means that once locked formats come into circulation, you will always forever after have to use the Microsoft-mandated access method. Your old DVDs will still play on your new PC, and your new DVDs will still play on your new PC, but they won't play on your Linux box or your OS X box and so on.
Locked formats will be rare for years to come. It has to wait for market uptake. You won't see locked DVDs released right away, because that means that all existing electronics will be broken, which again would be corporate/product suicide. It'll be years after DRM is already integrated into those electronics, when a large quantity of the user base has those DRM-capable electronics, that you'll see locked formats released on a large scale. Years after people have seen no detriment form DRM and have already accepted their DRM-capable electronics has standard. Years after, for the vast majority of the populace, the DRM actually doesn't hurt them in any way, because it only stops the real thieves and the Free Software nerds.
"Can you imagine what Gimp would be like written on top of the EFLs?"
Ugly, inconsistent, unusable, gimmicky, and unprofessional?
The Englightenment libraries are certainly great as demos of what you can do with a graphics system, but they are *not* a replacement for Xegl. That is, the Enlightenment libraries have just as much to gain from Xegl as do any GTK/cairo-using apps or Qt/arthur-using apps.
Switching from GTK to the Enlightenment libraries really bugs you nothing. If, and *only* if, the Enlightenment libraries offered *all* of the features of GTK, including the extensive accessibility support, advanced multi-lingual support, and so on would the Enlightenment libraries even be good enough for GIMP, or any serious application for that matter. Even then, if you already have something running on GTK/cairo, what do you hope to gain? The Enlightenment libraries pretty much give you nothing noteworth except for some optimized rendering (which really can and should be done in GTK/cairo, removing the need to recode the entire damn application for a likely imperceptible speed boost) and some funky theming options, which likewise will probably be seen in forthcoming GTK releases now that the Cairo integration is underway. (Check out Seth's blogs on Cairo-GTK themes, his mockups/examples do many of the things that the Enlightment libraries do, but do it without needing to rewrite your application or lose vital functionality provided by GTK/Qt.)
Enlightenment is a lot like the graphics demo scene: they are *really* cool looking, but not paticularly practical or useful. They could have spent the time writing all those new Enlightenment libraries as new GTK/Qt theme plugins and patches and had a usable, complete, functional desktop and set of development libraries today, or they could, well, spend 5+ years implementing a still incredibly incomplete environment that has little to no mindshare. Oops.
Rewriting is usually not the answer, especially not at a high level. Xegl can be installed on your machine and all your old apps will continue to work with no changes. Drop in a new GTK theme or GTK library that uses cairo and all your existing apps get the new functionality (like rendering over GL and anti-aliasing and such) for free. Even if you have to extend the GTK API to get things like funky animated themes, it's much easier to port a GTK app to a new GTK version than it would be to port it to a totally new set of libraries.
Summarizing with a popular phrase among engineers: "evolution, not revolution."
First, a note: I am not religious. Just wanted to clarify that so you know my position isn't biased in this rebuttal.
"Religious persons acts differently, they beleive in a certain religion because their parents did."
While this is indeed true for the vast majority of people all through-out history, it isn't _always_ true. Jonathan's responses even explicitly state that he hadn't heard of Jesus until much later in his life.
"Also, religion doesn't evolve, science does. The catholic church once stated"
Religion has evolved *tons*. Christianity today looks very little like what it was 2000 years ago, and even the Catholic church is different. The simple fact that we *have* multiple versions of Christianity is only a couple hundred years old. The Church (which was never called "Catholic" until after the Reformation) has had many changes in its beliefs. The belief that the Son is of the Father (ie, that Jesus is divine, more than a man) didn't come about until several hundred years after the Church had formed. That's but one of many, many examples.
"the same than it was 1.7k years ago, science changes daily,"
What's wrong with not changing? If it changes, that would mean that it was wrong. Likewise, when science changes, that means that it was, previously, wrong. 2000 year old scientific facts are impressive. This week's hot scientific theory is really no different than the nut-jobs jumping on the latest fad religion. (Kids with black lipstick calling themselves Wiccans: I'm refering to you.)
If you clarify "change" to mean "refine," then we once again come back to the fact that Christianity has refined itself greatly over the last two millenia, not to mention the refinements that Judaism likely underwent long before it branched into Christianity. Any major religion undergoes refinements in its beliefs and tenants, and simply studying history and works of antiquity will make that evolution (forgive the pun) of the religions clear.
"religion doesn't change, and doesn't add new knowledge."
Religion isn't about knowledge. If all you are interested in is being smart, then sure, a religion like Christianity isn't for you. That doesn't mean Religion is wrong. Science has not disproven God. It has not disproven Creation. It has not disproven anything in the Christian religion, and likewise many other religions have elements which have not been proven nor disproven by science.
I would say that the real purpose of religion is to make up for what knowledge can't give you.
It is key to keep knowledge in mind, though. For a personal pet peeve, I don't care what the book says, the Bible *is not* the word of God. That's something you can prove, I might note - just pick up two editions of the Bible and note the differences. There are in fact many factual discrepencies. Perhaps, long long long ago, some particular stories were the word of God, but they have been retold, transcribed, edited, translated, and artistically recast so many times that whatever copy of the Bible you have access to now cannot be wholly and firmly trusted to be true. In many cases, slight changes of wording can make a phrase still say the same thing, yet mean something new. There are known and documented errors in most popular versions of the Bible, and many more documented passages of the modern Bible eidtions which are believed to be flat out incorrect. Many of today's versions of various Bible passages which may have once been analogies could now be considered literal truth due to poor translation or simply a loss of contextual understanding since the passages' original inception. I.e., is the "seven days" of the creation a measure of actual time as we perceive it, or an unclear translation of a literary device used to explain the passing of seven units of time of unknown size? You can't be sure, and there are no original manuscripts of the Bible to study; indeed, there never were original manuscripts of most of it, as much of the Bi
The site's YOU MORON page could be made a hell of a lot more useful. It is using terms like URL, IP, and so on with no further explanation (in truth, you don't even need to use those terms to explain them). After who-knows-how-many support calls with my grandmother, she still has no idea what a URL or location bar is; she just knows it as "the place you type in next to the Back button."
You'd probably be surprised how many users use the Internet without ever typing in a URL. Which is one reason why phishing works; people barely know what a URL is, if they even know that they exist.
The site would also be a lot better off by using non-derogatory wording; calling someone a moron or idiot simply because they were not educated in safe Internet usage is not productive - it's more likely to piss them off than it is to get them to really learn what you're trying to teach them. That whole "tact" thing is genuinely useful.
The page also (erroneously, at least for my quick test) claims that the URL is an IP. I've been thinking... how often does a normal user need to use an IP for a URL? Practically never, I'd think. It would be interesting to see what would happen if you disabled using IPs in URLs (with a hidden option somewhere for techies that actually require the functionality) and seeing if that adversely affected normal users.
Additionally, it would be cool to try doing a domain trust system for web-access, similar to what's being done for email. Real banks and known safe organizations would have absolute trust, and sites they links too would have trust, etc. (Would be necessary for forums to use the newish nofollow attribute to avoid polluting the trust system.) Known bad sites would have explicit no-trust. Browsers then can check the trust level of any site visited. By default, for average users, sites without trust would be flatly denied (sorry, but warning dialogs *do not work* - users just click through them). Alternate behavior could be to allow non-trusted sites to be viewed but to disable form submission/javascript/downloads/etc. (So Aunt Tillie's brand new personal page she had her grandson put online will be viewable, but the methods allowing theft of data on the grandson's new phishing site he just put up would be disabled.)
This could actually be developed as a Firefox extension, I believe. Although I could already think of a few ways for clever sites to hack around it (not sure how much power Firefox extensions can have, especially in terms of not allowing a site to, say, use DOM to recreate form fields after the extension disabled them, and use more javascript to copy the form field values into a url for a GET request using location.href to avoid the extension from stopping a POST or general form submission).
Separation is great if all you're looking to do is separate privileges. That's not what Xen or VMware are really about, though. Virtualization gives you features that Separation does not.
A big one is being able to run two completely different OSes on a single machine at the same time.
Another is that you can kernel development a lot easier using virtualization than if you had to develop *on* your development kernel and constantly reboot/crash/fix/etc. This also holds true for security when using virtualization as a form of privilege separation, as kernels can have security holes and bugs, too.
A third is the ability to take snapshots of a running system and saving, transferring, and restoring that state.
Sure, virtualization is a _little_ slower than separation, but that's the price you have to pay if you want those features.
Emulation also brings some other advantages in addition to virtualization, at the cost of even worse performance. Once again, you can't just say that virtualization or separation are better than emulation, because that isn't really true in all cases; if you have a need to run some binaries made for one architecture on another, only emulation is going to help you.
I was unaware of their participation in OASIS.. does this mean we will see the Office suite utilize OASIS in the future or atleast provide the ability to easily import/export OASIS documents?
OASIS isn't a standard, it's a standards organization. OASIS controls a lot more standards than just the recent Open Office Standard. DocBook, for example, is an OASIS standard (iirc).
Loose confederation of individuals rallying under a common name, a head-figure that's just a spokesperson, using the Internet to communicate and plan... SCO was right, the terrorists *do* sound just like Free Software hackers!
I believe, from the text and examples shown, that that is exactly what this thing is supposed to do. The keys show in real-time what their function is.
That isn't strictly true. There are tons of people, myself included (to my shame), who find alternative technologies attractive. I mean, let's face it, Windows _would_ let me do everything I need to, but I use Linux because of basically irrelevant technological advantages it has. The same goes with PPC. Sure, it might not *really* matter, but PPC is sexy, PPC is "cool," and PPC is a selling point for Apple machines.
To be quite honest, I think OS X is the worst of the three OSes I use regularly. It's really polished appearing so long as you only do a certain limited set of things, but I constantly run into its limitations and vastly annoying bugs. Apple sold its hardware to me because the hardware was better; perhaps not technically better, but better by my own standards.
I'm not in the least alone on this, either. Alternatives are "in." Some people dye their hair blue, some people pierce every part of their body, some people wear black fishnet stockings on their arms, and some people buy Apple products.;-)
How would a new VM architecture be useful? What do you imagine it would be capable of that.NET is not? How much use would such an architecture get when it has no compatibility with anything else in the world? Why does Microsoft get slammed for creating a new proprietary technology and calling it 'innovating' while Open Source projects that reuse existing systems are slammed for not 'innovating'? How quickly do you think a VM as complete, efficient, and powerful as Mono's could have be written if they didn't have the Microsoft CLR to target during development (it was a year or two before Mono was self-hosting, yet during those initial years it was still developed at breakneck speeds) ?
It can use the existing proprietary drivers. If you actually listened to the interview, Nat even explicitly says that the best driver to use right now with XGL is the NVIDIA drivers.
Why is it that religious leaders can always incite their zealot followers to violence against those who are different, but they can never incite their zealot followers to embrace the tranquillity, harmony, sanctity of life, forgiveness, mercy, tolerance, and passiveness that pretty much all of the major religions are based on?
I've never believed religion to be anything more than a crutch. It's a crutch for the immoral to have a reason to stay moral, just like law and prosecution are reasons for the criminally-minded to avoid crime. It's too bad that the crutch can be used both ways, and can facilitate the very thing the crutch was invented to stop.
It's pretty naive and foolish to think that people are going to somehow instantly get morals when a bigger disaster strikes. The kind of people that abuse a small disaster will just abuse a bigger one even more so. Post-holocaust those same people that rob and fraud survivors of "minor" disasters will be the ones taking and stealing everything they can for their own survival, uncaring of whether that theft and brutality affects anyone other than themselves.
How will putting people in deep habitable mines protect our "way of life" ?
Last I checked, my way of life definitely does *not* include deep habitable mines. It doesn't even have any shallow habitable mines. I can't remember any kind of mine, actually. Pretty mine-free over here.
First, that doesn't work in real life, where even the "real" UNIX systems don't follow the various UNIX standards perfectly.
Second, SUS and other UNIX standards don't cover binary portability at all, which is usually far more interesting to _users_ than source compatibility. I haven't and never will look at the source of most the apps I run, but I _do_ know that I want to be able to run them. I don't want to have to compile things myself, wait for others to compile and package them, and/or hunt through hundreds of packages for the same software to find the one that works on my systme. I want to go to the upstream software's site, click Install Software, and have it work. And that's 100% feasible, assuming the apps sticks to a standard like the LSB and your distro is LSB compliant.
Third, there's also then the issue of proprietary apps which don't even have the option of making users compile the source. Unfortunately, there are proprietary apps out there, there are people who _want_ to use proprietary apps even in the face of existing OSS alternatives, and that's that. The LSB largely exists to serve those apps, in fact.
You are confusing centralized management with centralized servers. P2P would decentralize the servers, and not solve the management problem - if anything, it would -cause- problems.
I register FooCompany.com. Some guy on his server publishes FooCompany.com to his IP. Which server has the correct IP? You need a way to verify authenticity. Maybe SSL certs? Oops, those are centralized under a small handful of companies... Maybe GPG keys? We can see how all the other web-of-trust security systems have just taken the 'net by storm...
No, ICANN's purpose is to provide management of the namespace and make sure that someone can't just use FooCompany without having gone through a central source to do it. You can't have two FooCompany's in existance. (Aside from server hacking. Which, btw, becomes so, so much easier in a P2P resolution system.) The DNS system itself is already highly distributed in technical terms - a hierarchy where each level is distributed between several (or more) servers.
You can't turn something like ICANN into a global shared responsibility. You need some real management. If you pull that management out of DNS, you just push it somewhere else - making all 'net traffic require SSL certs or GPG keys or somethign else, which is still going to require a central authority. (Sorry guys, even GPG will have central authority's, since 95% of users would much rather pay $100 to a company to sign their keys than have to track down, call, and meet in person with a handful of 'net uber-geeks to get keys signed, and have to do that over and over everytime they get a new key.)
Slashdot Mirror
You pay for a game.
:-/
You also have to pay for Windows to run the game on!
Damnit, why should you have to pay twice!?
I bought a car.
I also need to keep buying oil and new tires and brake pads for my car!
Damnit, why should I have to pay so many times!?
Cedega will continue to be necessary in future years. If nothing else, all the current Linux games will stop working as the glibc and kernel hackers continue going out of their way to screw users of proprietary software. Eventually some change to stack sizes or libc interfaces is going to effectively kill off your proprietary games. Cedega will be able to run the Windows versions of the games better than Linux will be able to run the Linxu versions of the games.
Only if you're a computer nerd. The majority of the rest of the world only recognizes one kind of pirate, and that sort generally includes bloomers, parrots, ships, cutlasses, cannons, and/or Johny Depp.
They were a very, very small consumer in the PPC world. For every Mac that shipped, many many many embedded devices using PPC shipped in turn.
Why do you think Apple has such a hard time finding PPC manufacturers willing to keep up with their demands? There just isn't all that big of a profit to be had by supplying Apple compared to the embedded space.
You are not entitled to watch a TV program just because you feel like it. The producers of the show, the actors of the show, the tech guys working on the show, and hundreds to thousands of other "little guys" working on the show all do so to make money, which is sort of necessary for them to survive. That money comes in from the TV stations. Who only keep the show around if ratings stay high from people watching it on that station. And those stations only get picked up by the cable company if the stations have many highly rated shows. And cable companies make money off of ads and your subscriptions.
If you don't want to pay all of the people involved, then by downloading the show, you are screwing them _all_ over; the big producers and little guys working on sets or prop management alike. You might "stick it to the man," but you also stick it to Bob the prop grip who barely makes enough to get by as is.
You aren't entitled to watch the show. Your only ethical options are to (a) pay for the cable subscription and watch the show like everyone else, or (b) not watch the show.
"but Topher Grace as Venom?"
Seriously, that's as lame as having a goofy nerd like Toby McGuire as Spider-... er, damn.
Let them attack us, then. _WE_ know how to fling asteroids at them, after all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvorak_Simplified_Key board
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Dvorak
I'm of the belief that it was far less the art style of Wind Waker which irritated people, and far more the fact that the Link incarnation was all of eight years old. Anyone with a passing familiarity with anime knows that most of it really isn't childish at all (or, at least, the Japanese versions aren't - Sailor Moon was made for teenage boys in Japan, but the American adaptation is geared for 4-year-old girls, for example).
When the main character is a little kid, however, that'll suck the macho out of the title no matter *what* graphics style is used.
My opinion has always been that it's better to aim for a less realistic graphics style and do it perfectly rather than aim for a realistic graphics style and still have huge holes. A favorite quote of mine from an old game design book (I forget which, sorry) goes something like: "Nobody ever complains that you can't go fishing in Mario 64. Yes, there are lakes, and yes, there are fish in the lakes, but the lack of the ability to go fishing doesn't even register in players' minds. The game's style, through its graphics and gameplay, focuses completely and perfectly on its intended play style, and everything else falls to the wayside."
Compare that to, say, Doom 3, where the graphics are very realistic, but people bitch about not being able to do all sorts of things, like affect certain parts of their environment or hold a flashlight and shoot at the same time. Mario64 had many more limitations than Doom3, yet nobody really notices those.
Your whole argument is based on the assumption that Windows would only allow use of locked formats.
Of course it won't work that way, it'd be corporate/product suicide.
However, only Windows will be able to use these locked formats. Which means that once locked formats come into circulation, you will always forever after have to use the Microsoft-mandated access method. Your old DVDs will still play on your new PC, and your new DVDs will still play on your new PC, but they won't play on your Linux box or your OS X box and so on.
Locked formats will be rare for years to come. It has to wait for market uptake. You won't see locked DVDs released right away, because that means that all existing electronics will be broken, which again would be corporate/product suicide. It'll be years after DRM is already integrated into those electronics, when a large quantity of the user base has those DRM-capable electronics, that you'll see locked formats released on a large scale. Years after people have seen no detriment form DRM and have already accepted their DRM-capable electronics has standard. Years after, for the vast majority of the populace, the DRM actually doesn't hurt them in any way, because it only stops the real thieves and the Free Software nerds.
"Can you imagine what Gimp would be like written on top of the EFLs?"
Ugly, inconsistent, unusable, gimmicky, and unprofessional?
The Englightenment libraries are certainly great as demos of what you can do with a graphics system, but they are *not* a replacement for Xegl. That is, the Enlightenment libraries have just as much to gain from Xegl as do any GTK/cairo-using apps or Qt/arthur-using apps.
Switching from GTK to the Enlightenment libraries really bugs you nothing. If, and *only* if, the Enlightenment libraries offered *all* of the features of GTK, including the extensive accessibility support, advanced multi-lingual support, and so on would the Enlightenment libraries even be good enough for GIMP, or any serious application for that matter. Even then, if you already have something running on GTK/cairo, what do you hope to gain? The Enlightenment libraries pretty much give you nothing noteworth except for some optimized rendering (which really can and should be done in GTK/cairo, removing the need to recode the entire damn application for a likely imperceptible speed boost) and some funky theming options, which likewise will probably be seen in forthcoming GTK releases now that the Cairo integration is underway. (Check out Seth's blogs on Cairo-GTK themes, his mockups/examples do many of the things that the Enlightment libraries do, but do it without needing to rewrite your application or lose vital functionality provided by GTK/Qt.)
Enlightenment is a lot like the graphics demo scene: they are *really* cool looking, but not paticularly practical or useful. They could have spent the time writing all those new Enlightenment libraries as new GTK/Qt theme plugins and patches and had a usable, complete, functional desktop and set of development libraries today, or they could, well, spend 5+ years implementing a still incredibly incomplete environment that has little to no mindshare. Oops.
Rewriting is usually not the answer, especially not at a high level. Xegl can be installed on your machine and all your old apps will continue to work with no changes. Drop in a new GTK theme or GTK library that uses cairo and all your existing apps get the new functionality (like rendering over GL and anti-aliasing and such) for free. Even if you have to extend the GTK API to get things like funky animated themes, it's much easier to port a GTK app to a new GTK version than it would be to port it to a totally new set of libraries.
Summarizing with a popular phrase among engineers: "evolution, not revolution."
First, a note: I am not religious. Just wanted to clarify that so you know my position isn't biased in this rebuttal.
"Religious persons acts differently, they beleive in a certain religion because their parents did."
While this is indeed true for the vast majority of people all through-out history, it isn't _always_ true. Jonathan's responses even explicitly state that he hadn't heard of Jesus until much later in his life.
"Also, religion doesn't evolve, science does. The catholic church once stated"
Religion has evolved *tons*. Christianity today looks very little like what it was 2000 years ago, and even the Catholic church is different. The simple fact that we *have* multiple versions of Christianity is only a couple hundred years old. The Church (which was never called "Catholic" until after the Reformation) has had many changes in its beliefs. The belief that the Son is of the Father (ie, that Jesus is divine, more than a man) didn't come about until several hundred years after the Church had formed. That's but one of many, many examples.
"the same than it was 1.7k years ago, science changes daily,"
What's wrong with not changing? If it changes, that would mean that it was wrong. Likewise, when science changes, that means that it was, previously, wrong. 2000 year old scientific facts are impressive. This week's hot scientific theory is really no different than the nut-jobs jumping on the latest fad religion. (Kids with black lipstick calling themselves Wiccans: I'm refering to you.)
If you clarify "change" to mean "refine," then we once again come back to the fact that Christianity has refined itself greatly over the last two millenia, not to mention the refinements that Judaism likely underwent long before it branched into Christianity. Any major religion undergoes refinements in its beliefs and tenants, and simply studying history and works of antiquity will make that evolution (forgive the pun) of the religions clear.
"religion doesn't change, and doesn't add new knowledge."
Religion isn't about knowledge. If all you are interested in is being smart, then sure, a religion like Christianity isn't for you. That doesn't mean Religion is wrong. Science has not disproven God. It has not disproven Creation. It has not disproven anything in the Christian religion, and likewise many other religions have elements which have not been proven nor disproven by science.
I would say that the real purpose of religion is to make up for what knowledge can't give you.
It is key to keep knowledge in mind, though. For a personal pet peeve, I don't care what the book says, the Bible *is not* the word of God. That's something you can prove, I might note - just pick up two editions of the Bible and note the differences. There are in fact many factual discrepencies. Perhaps, long long long ago, some particular stories were the word of God, but they have been retold, transcribed, edited, translated, and artistically recast so many times that whatever copy of the Bible you have access to now cannot be wholly and firmly trusted to be true. In many cases, slight changes of wording can make a phrase still say the same thing, yet mean something new. There are known and documented errors in most popular versions of the Bible, and many more documented passages of the modern Bible eidtions which are believed to be flat out incorrect. Many of today's versions of various Bible passages which may have once been analogies could now be considered literal truth due to poor translation or simply a loss of contextual understanding since the passages' original inception. I.e., is the "seven days" of the creation a measure of actual time as we perceive it, or an unclear translation of a literary device used to explain the passing of seven units of time of unknown size? You can't be sure, and there are no original manuscripts of the Bible to study; indeed, there never were original manuscripts of most of it, as much of the Bi
The site's YOU MORON page could be made a hell of a lot more useful. It is using terms like URL, IP, and so on with no further explanation (in truth, you don't even need to use those terms to explain them). After who-knows-how-many support calls with my grandmother, she still has no idea what a URL or location bar is; she just knows it as "the place you type in next to the Back button."
You'd probably be surprised how many users use the Internet without ever typing in a URL. Which is one reason why phishing works; people barely know what a URL is, if they even know that they exist.
The site would also be a lot better off by using non-derogatory wording; calling someone a moron or idiot simply because they were not educated in safe Internet usage is not productive - it's more likely to piss them off than it is to get them to really learn what you're trying to teach them. That whole "tact" thing is genuinely useful.
The page also (erroneously, at least for my quick test) claims that the URL is an IP. I've been thinking... how often does a normal user need to use an IP for a URL? Practically never, I'd think. It would be interesting to see what would happen if you disabled using IPs in URLs (with a hidden option somewhere for techies that actually require the functionality) and seeing if that adversely affected normal users.
Additionally, it would be cool to try doing a domain trust system for web-access, similar to what's being done for email. Real banks and known safe organizations would have absolute trust, and sites they links too would have trust, etc. (Would be necessary for forums to use the newish nofollow attribute to avoid polluting the trust system.) Known bad sites would have explicit no-trust. Browsers then can check the trust level of any site visited. By default, for average users, sites without trust would be flatly denied (sorry, but warning dialogs *do not work* - users just click through them). Alternate behavior could be to allow non-trusted sites to be viewed but to disable form submission/javascript/downloads/etc. (So Aunt Tillie's brand new personal page she had her grandson put online will be viewable, but the methods allowing theft of data on the grandson's new phishing site he just put up would be disabled.)
This could actually be developed as a Firefox extension, I believe. Although I could already think of a few ways for clever sites to hack around it (not sure how much power Firefox extensions can have, especially in terms of not allowing a site to, say, use DOM to recreate form fields after the extension disabled them, and use more javascript to copy the form field values into a url for a GET request using location.href to avoid the extension from stopping a POST or general form submission).
Because that feature wouldn't be useful to the vast majority of consumers and would be a waste of R&D and transistor costs.
Mainframes aren't obsolete, by the way. You can buy modern mainframe systems from IBM and others, which tout the virtualization features.
Separation is great if all you're looking to do is separate privileges. That's not what Xen or VMware are really about, though. Virtualization gives you features that Separation does not.
A big one is being able to run two completely different OSes on a single machine at the same time.
Another is that you can kernel development a lot easier using virtualization than if you had to develop *on* your development kernel and constantly reboot/crash/fix/etc. This also holds true for security when using virtualization as a form of privilege separation, as kernels can have security holes and bugs, too.
A third is the ability to take snapshots of a running system and saving, transferring, and restoring that state.
Sure, virtualization is a _little_ slower than separation, but that's the price you have to pay if you want those features.
Emulation also brings some other advantages in addition to virtualization, at the cost of even worse performance. Once again, you can't just say that virtualization or separation are better than emulation, because that isn't really true in all cases; if you have a need to run some binaries made for one architecture on another, only emulation is going to help you.
I was unaware of their participation in OASIS .. does this mean we will see the Office suite utilize OASIS in the future or atleast provide the ability to easily import/export OASIS documents?
OASIS isn't a standard, it's a standards organization. OASIS controls a lot more standards than just the recent Open Office Standard. DocBook, for example, is an OASIS standard (iirc).
Loose confederation of individuals rallying under a common name, a head-figure that's just a spokesperson, using the Internet to communicate and plan... SCO was right, the terrorists *do* sound just like Free Software hackers!
(For the slow of wit, yes, that was just a joke.)
I believe, from the text and examples shown, that that is exactly what this thing is supposed to do. The keys show in real-time what their function is.
no one uses an Apple because it has a PPC.
;-)
That isn't strictly true. There are tons of people, myself included (to my shame), who find alternative technologies attractive. I mean, let's face it, Windows _would_ let me do everything I need to, but I use Linux because of basically irrelevant technological advantages it has. The same goes with PPC. Sure, it might not *really* matter, but PPC is sexy, PPC is "cool," and PPC is a selling point for Apple machines.
To be quite honest, I think OS X is the worst of the three OSes I use regularly. It's really polished appearing so long as you only do a certain limited set of things, but I constantly run into its limitations and vastly annoying bugs. Apple sold its hardware to me because the hardware was better; perhaps not technically better, but better by my own standards.
I'm not in the least alone on this, either. Alternatives are "in." Some people dye their hair blue, some people pierce every part of their body, some people wear black fishnet stockings on their arms, and some people buy Apple products.
How would a new VM architecture be useful? What do you imagine it would be capable of that .NET is not? How much use would such an architecture get when it has no compatibility with anything else in the world? Why does Microsoft get slammed for creating a new proprietary technology and calling it 'innovating' while Open Source projects that reuse existing systems are slammed for not 'innovating'? How quickly do you think a VM as complete, efficient, and powerful as Mono's could have be written if they didn't have the Microsoft CLR to target during development (it was a year or two before Mono was self-hosting, yet during those initial years it was still developed at breakneck speeds) ?
It can use the existing proprietary drivers. If you actually listened to the interview, Nat even explicitly says that the best driver to use right now with XGL is the NVIDIA drivers.
Why is it that religious leaders can always incite their zealot followers to violence against those who are different, but they can never incite their zealot followers to embrace the tranquillity, harmony, sanctity of life, forgiveness, mercy, tolerance, and passiveness that pretty much all of the major religions are based on?
I've never believed religion to be anything more than a crutch. It's a crutch for the immoral to have a reason to stay moral, just like law and prosecution are reasons for the criminally-minded to avoid crime. It's too bad that the crutch can be used both ways, and can facilitate the very thing the crutch was invented to stop.
Behold, mankind.
It's pretty naive and foolish to think that people are going to somehow instantly get morals when a bigger disaster strikes. The kind of people that abuse a small disaster will just abuse a bigger one even more so. Post-holocaust those same people that rob and fraud survivors of "minor" disasters will be the ones taking and stealing everything they can for their own survival, uncaring of whether that theft and brutality affects anyone other than themselves.
How will putting people in deep habitable mines protect our "way of life" ?
Last I checked, my way of life definitely does *not* include deep habitable mines. It doesn't even have any shallow habitable mines. I can't remember any kind of mine, actually. Pretty mine-free over here.
First, that doesn't work in real life, where even the "real" UNIX systems don't follow the various UNIX standards perfectly.
Second, SUS and other UNIX standards don't cover binary portability at all, which is usually far more interesting to _users_ than source compatibility. I haven't and never will look at the source of most the apps I run, but I _do_ know that I want to be able to run them. I don't want to have to compile things myself, wait for others to compile and package them, and/or hunt through hundreds of packages for the same software to find the one that works on my systme. I want to go to the upstream software's site, click Install Software, and have it work. And that's 100% feasible, assuming the apps sticks to a standard like the LSB and your distro is LSB compliant.
Third, there's also then the issue of proprietary apps which don't even have the option of making users compile the source. Unfortunately, there are proprietary apps out there, there are people who _want_ to use proprietary apps even in the face of existing OSS alternatives, and that's that. The LSB largely exists to serve those apps, in fact.
You are confusing centralized management with centralized servers. P2P would decentralize the servers, and not solve the management problem - if anything, it would -cause- problems.
I register FooCompany.com. Some guy on his server publishes FooCompany.com to his IP. Which server has the correct IP? You need a way to verify authenticity. Maybe SSL certs? Oops, those are centralized under a small handful of companies... Maybe GPG keys? We can see how all the other web-of-trust security systems have just taken the 'net by storm...
No, ICANN's purpose is to provide management of the namespace and make sure that someone can't just use FooCompany without having gone through a central source to do it. You can't have two FooCompany's in existance. (Aside from server hacking. Which, btw, becomes so, so much easier in a P2P resolution system.) The DNS system itself is already highly distributed in technical terms - a hierarchy where each level is distributed between several (or more) servers.
You can't turn something like ICANN into a global shared responsibility. You need some real management. If you pull that management out of DNS, you just push it somewhere else - making all 'net traffic require SSL certs or GPG keys or somethign else, which is still going to require a central authority. (Sorry guys, even GPG will have central authority's, since 95% of users would much rather pay $100 to a company to sign their keys than have to track down, call, and meet in person with a handful of 'net uber-geeks to get keys signed, and have to do that over and over everytime they get a new key.)