With the rapid expansion of relatively high-end (5|6|7).1 surround sound stereo equipment in homes that is beginning to be joined by HDTV, could a technology like this bring a new option to table? Could we have something like omnimax theatres in our homes?
The minor tweaks, fixes, and changes that made the old version work so well can only go so far. Such is often the nature of code. Tiny fixes and patches are (sometimes haphazardly) hacked on to the code.
Perhaps if true extensive software engineering and documentation techniques were followed, a full rewrite may not be necessary. However, as long as quick fixes continue to pollute the code and make it more and more difficult to work with, an eventual total rewrite will always be necessary.
...you can't modify parts of the car and suddenly start duplicating engines/mufflers/alternators/wheels/etc...
With a modchipped X-Box, you can feasibly start making copies (even if archival backups) of the games.
I can almost guarantee you that if you could buy a Mustang, mod it a little, and start producing new Mustang parts, that Ford would be knocking on your door _very_ soon.
Isn't it interesting how much importance we place on quote unquote "true" randomness of numbers? We expect (or at least hope that) a computer can generate random numbers time and time again without fail...
But any human being would prove horrible at such a task... In fact, if you ask a human being for 3 random numbers, odds are very good that they will give you at least two sequential ones...such as 7 6 2...or 5 9 8...
I guess that's the point of computers though...if we could all calculate as fast as a computer, process data as fast as a computer, and perform other tasks as fast and as well as a computer, we wouldn't need computers, now would we?
Random number generation is an interesting topic though because it is often seen as a fault of computers... People claim that computers are "incapable" of generating random numbers. So are human beings... I can understand a computer not being able to store a floating point number with a hundred digits after the decimal point being considered a fault, because FEASIBLY a human being COULD perform the operations and have the value exact out to a hundred decimal places. But with random numbers...a human couldn't do it even remotely as well a computer can, so why is it considered such a weakness of computers? Maybe the power of computers to break their own codes because numbers aren't truly random is the reason they are sought after in the first place.
It's really a Dvorak keyboard...but Microsoft's pre-release Palladium is intercepting the graphic and changing it to a picture of a QERTY keyboard.
Competence of Slashdot Readers
on
Legacy-Free PCs
·
· Score: 1
I've only read through about half of the comments (threshold 1) and I see just about as many complaints about the links in the article as actual comments on the article itself.
Isn't Slashdot supposed to be "News for Nerds"??? Aren't Slashdot readers supposed to be among the more technically-inclined people out there? Supposedly so, yet they cannot even read one of MULTIPLE COMMENTS giving the solution or fixed link to the article (or heaven forbid figure it out on their own).
We often rant about Linux needing to be more simplified before taking over the desktop...but if a simple website can defeat the technically-inclined of our society, how is the layman ever to comprehend anything other than "[START] -- Click here to start".
...when you open up Google, you don't wait even a single second for the page to load, and it fits on the screen without scrollbars (at any decent resolution). When you do a search on Google, the search is quick and the results are good.
...when you open up Yahoo!, god only knows what you'll be bombarded with. Also, the searches are pre-destined to try to filter you into the various other sections of Yahoo!, such as Yahoo!Health, Yahoo!Maps, or even Yahooligans! The page is slower, less organized, more spam-a-licious, and just generally less useful than Google.
The only way to beat Google is to be simpler, faster, and/or more useful than Google, and that is a very tough goal to meet. People don't google because they want to sign up for GoogleMail and play GoogleGames... People Google because they want results, and Google give them exactly that.
And the Google title logo having a life of its own as it transforms to the various holidays or other events is almost as exciting as the newest stories on Slashdot:-)
"The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from..."
One possible reason MS could be pushing standards for C# is that if there is a standard, they can blame errors in C# code on non-compliance rather than the inherent faults of the language.
OMFG you cannot be serious....150MS ping my freaking arse. Try 10000. I've never seen a 56Ker ping any lower than around 300, and that is with good 56K, not crappy 56K...
In the area of games, below some point (which is well above the 56K mark) it isn't about ping anymore but about bandwith...who cares if you can ping 25ms to a game server if you can't transfer enough data to play the game.
I live in Missouri, USA...the population center of the nation is in this state (unless it has shifted since I last looked) and the geographic center is in a bordering state...right smack in the middle and I can't get anything but 56K that works at about 28.8K speeds...so take your "high latency" satellite elsewhere to complain...:-)
I wasn't saying that you are lazy... I was simply stating a possible alternative to the problem based on a proper interpretation of the (now shown to be badly worded) error message. No offense intended.
Like anybody can successfully download it anyway.... It's downloading at like 1-3KB/s if that, and for me the downloads all stall out and die around 3-6MB downloaded.
Sounds like another successful/.
This is true in most DVD players that I have seen in stores and online. VCD and SVCD support seems to be built into nearly all players by default. The more important thing to look for was always the ability to read burned discs. Before the rave of MP3 support in DVD players, many of them did not have the ability to read burned CDs. Even without burned CD support, they could play VCDs...where you find stamped VCDs I don't know...I guess it is the Asian carryover.:-)
"
Briefly said: this is an MPEG2 and MPEG4 player (hence DivX 4 and 5; old DivX 3 is out of question), and as of now just MPEG4 Simple Profile features are supported (thus it won't play everything out there, as of now: be warned)."
Desktop players will just never be computers...they may have computers parts in them and run computer software, but they won't ever have the adapting support of a real computer.
I've never tried it, but how is the video quality of these players (or a standard DVD player playing SVCDs) compare to just using the S-video out on a graphics card? Computers are more than capable of supplying 5.1 or better sound to a home theatre system (or simply playing it on higher-quality computer speakers being used for home theatre purposes).
Re:Tried to View their On-line Slide Show...
on
Eclipse 2.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
"
This presentation was optimized for more recent versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer."
This error message seems to indicate that you are using IE...just a version that is too old to view their slide show. If this is so, it may be incorrect to call the documentation single-platform.
There is a difference between supporting multiple platforms and supporting those too lazy to upgrade.
Considering even the cheapest PoS DVD player that redneck billy bob bought at Wal-Mart will play both VCDs and SVCDs that are burned on plain ordinary CD-Rs using any run-of-the-mill burner found in your HP Desktop that redneck billy bob also bought at Wal-Mart, the real question is:
Why? Why need support to play DivX format in a DVD player?
Is the DivX format any better quality than SVCD? Using standard CD-Rs, you are going to use close to the same amount of discs to get the same amount of video at the same quality.
DivX may have better audio than SVCD...but nothing will ever provide the DD 5.1, DTS, and 6.1(7.1???) sound quality of real DVDs.
Slashdot Mirror
FAQ and "What is this?" links also included...
...an Ask Slashdot question about how to turn a perfectly happy web server into a pile of molten rubble?
With the rapid expansion of relatively high-end (5|6|7).1 surround sound stereo equipment in homes that is beginning to be joined by HDTV, could a technology like this bring a new option to table? Could we have something like omnimax theatres in our homes?
The minor tweaks, fixes, and changes that made the old version work so well can only go so far. Such is often the nature of code. Tiny fixes and patches are (sometimes haphazardly) hacked on to the code.
Perhaps if true extensive software engineering and documentation techniques were followed, a full rewrite may not be necessary. However, as long as quick fixes continue to pollute the code and make it more and more difficult to work with, an eventual total rewrite will always be necessary.
With a modchipped X-Box, you can feasibly start making copies (even if archival backups) of the games.
I can almost guarantee you that if you could buy a Mustang, mod it a little, and start producing new Mustang parts, that Ford would be knocking on your door _very_ soon.
Isn't it interesting how much importance we place on quote unquote "true" randomness of numbers? We expect (or at least hope that) a computer can generate random numbers time and time again without fail...
But any human being would prove horrible at such a task... In fact, if you ask a human being for 3 random numbers, odds are very good that they will give you at least two sequential ones...such as 7 6 2...or 5 9 8...
I guess that's the point of computers though...if we could all calculate as fast as a computer, process data as fast as a computer, and perform other tasks as fast and as well as a computer, we wouldn't need computers, now would we?
Random number generation is an interesting topic though because it is often seen as a fault of computers... People claim that computers are "incapable" of generating random numbers. So are human beings... I can understand a computer not being able to store a floating point number with a hundred digits after the decimal point being considered a fault, because FEASIBLY a human being COULD perform the operations and have the value exact out to a hundred decimal places. But with random numbers...a human couldn't do it even remotely as well a computer can, so why is it considered such a weakness of computers? Maybe the power of computers to break their own codes because numbers aren't truly random is the reason they are sought after in the first place.
It's really a Dvorak keyboard...but Microsoft's pre-release Palladium is intercepting the graphic and changing it to a picture of a QERTY keyboard.
I've only read through about half of the comments (threshold 1) and I see just about as many complaints about the links in the article as actual comments on the article itself.
Isn't Slashdot supposed to be "News for Nerds"??? Aren't Slashdot readers supposed to be among the more technically-inclined people out there? Supposedly so, yet they cannot even read one of MULTIPLE COMMENTS giving the solution or fixed link to the article (or heaven forbid figure it out on their own).
We often rant about Linux needing to be more simplified before taking over the desktop...but if a simple website can defeat the technically-inclined of our society, how is the layman ever to comprehend anything other than "[START] -- Click here to start".
Mock us, do we not cry?
Slashdot us, do we not fail?
Tickle us, do we not laugh?
Spam us, do we not RETALIATE?
...when you open up Google, you don't wait even a single second for the page to load, and it fits on the screen without scrollbars (at any decent resolution). When you do a search on Google, the search is quick and the results are good.
...when you open up Yahoo!, god only knows what you'll be bombarded with. Also, the searches are pre-destined to try to filter you into the various other sections of Yahoo!, such as Yahoo!Health, Yahoo!Maps, or even Yahooligans! The page is slower, less organized, more spam-a-licious, and just generally less useful than Google.
:-)
The only way to beat Google is to be simpler, faster, and/or more useful than Google, and that is a very tough goal to meet. People don't google because they want to sign up for GoogleMail and play GoogleGames... People Google because they want results, and Google give them exactly that.
And the Google title logo having a life of its own as it transforms to the various holidays or other events is almost as exciting as the newest stories on Slashdot
"The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from..." One possible reason MS could be pushing standards for C# is that if there is a standard, they can blame errors in C# code on non-compliance rather than the inherent faults of the language.
OMFG you cannot be serious....150MS ping my freaking arse. Try 10000. I've never seen a 56Ker ping any lower than around 300, and that is with good 56K, not crappy 56K... In the area of games, below some point (which is well above the 56K mark) it isn't about ping anymore but about bandwith...who cares if you can ping 25ms to a game server if you can't transfer enough data to play the game.
I live in Missouri, USA...the population center of the nation is in this state (unless it has shifted since I last looked) and the geographic center is in a bordering state...right smack in the middle and I can't get anything but 56K that works at about 28.8K speeds...so take your "high latency" satellite elsewhere to complain... :-)
I wasn't saying that you are lazy... I was simply stating a possible alternative to the problem based on a proper interpretation of the (now shown to be badly worded) error message. No offense intended.
Like anybody can successfully download it anyway.... It's downloading at like 1-3KB/s if that, and for me the downloads all stall out and die around 3-6MB downloaded. Sounds like another successful /.
Considering even the cheapest PoS DVD player that redneck billy bob bought at Wal-Mart will play both VCDs and SVCDs that are burned on plain ordinary CD-Rs using any run-of-the-mill burner found in your HP Desktop that redneck billy bob also bought at Wal-Mart, the real question is:
Why? Why need support to play DivX format in a DVD player?
Is the DivX format any better quality than SVCD? Using standard CD-Rs, you are going to use close to the same amount of discs to get the same amount of video at the same quality.
DivX may have better audio than SVCD...but nothing will ever provide the DD 5.1, DTS, and 6.1(7.1???) sound quality of real DVDs.
Yeahamirrorwouldbenice...thedownloadnever getspastaboutfivepercentformewithoutstalli ngout.:-(