...is that when this is all over, all we will remember is that 'SCO were a bunch of scumbags'. Nobody'll say, 'Misters Such And Such formerly from SCO are a bunch of scumbags'. They'd virtually get off scott free as far as their reputation with the general (Slashdot) goes.
They could set up a new company that does something that gets a headline and we're all full of praise, without even knowing it's the same people.
Isn't there a program that will record a copy of whatever is displayed on the screen? And a virtual loopback program for the audio? This would bypass any DRM-like restriction.
Oh no, you looked at a website and saw that it was using something to trade files illegally! Burn it! Burn it all! I don't suppose you happened to look at File Rush or BitTorrent Files For Slashdot Effect victims, did you?
A good idea is a good idea, and it should be encouraged. End of story.
That sounds absolutely amazing, the lengths they went to. I'd like to know how they know when they've found some DNA. Is it like dusting for fingerprints? Do they have Star Trek-like scanners?
Calling it a demo (when it's obviously a beta) kind of implies that what you see here, you get later. To put together a demo implies that you have already finished the product and are releasing a taster to show it off. That would be the purpose, in my eyes, of a demonstration.
You didn't just step out of a time machine, did you? You're not a visitor from the past, are you? You do realize that multiplayer demos of first person shooters have been pretty standard fare ever since Quake, right?
Yes? Not sure what your point is.
There's just no better way to test multiplayer code than to release a demo to the public and see what bugs crop up. The fact that the demo helps give the game publicity is really just a nice side effect -- they're probably primarily interested in working the kinks out of the multiplayer system.
I'm sorry but 'demo' is just that - a demonstration. Bugs should have been worked out in earlier stages. If one wants to see what bugs crop up by releasing code to the public, one should not call it a demo. Any bugs that people see in a demonstration are expected to be present in the 'final' product (it is a demonstration of this, after all). This was true for Will Rock. I do realise that it is good that companies release patches to fix bugs after release dates, but it is a sorry state of affairs that the bugs got past their QA stage at all.
Imagine if Ford made a car whose right rear electric window didn't work. Software is massively complicated and impossible to work out every bug? So are cars, and Ford seems to manage it.
Slashdot Mirror
The paper is saying that the car might be almost 70% efficient?
...it uses anti-aliased fonts by default, without recompiling it.
Imagine a Beowulf one of these >:-)
I don't like how they have introduced it to slavery.
Gameplay does.
Make a game with good gameplay. You shouldn't need to bribe people to play your stinking game.
It's just one writer's opinion. How does this get on Slashd... ooooh, I remember.
You built a 3GHz, 100GB, 256DDR machine two years ago for $300?
It would be easier to gather statistics on who's running it on what if you separate the products.
It's a bit of a non-story. He could have been doing anything - watching a movie, reading a book, having a wank...
...is that when this is all over, all we will remember is that 'SCO were a bunch of scumbags'. Nobody'll say, 'Misters Such And Such formerly from SCO are a bunch of scumbags'. They'd virtually get off scott free as far as their reputation with the general (Slashdot) goes. They could set up a new company that does something that gets a headline and we're all full of praise, without even knowing it's the same people.
Yet?
...going to take a [stab] at the [submitter]'s use of [square brackets]?
Isn't there a program that will record a copy of whatever is displayed on the screen? And a virtual loopback program for the audio? This would bypass any DRM-like restriction.
Wait a minute: didn't they create one?
Never heard of it.
Why don't we simply take out the code that SCO put in, and replace it with our own? Or is it not as simple as that?
NOTICE=TO_WHOM_IT_MAY_CONCERN_Do_not_send_me_any_c opyrighted_information_other_than_the_document_tha t_I_am_requesting_or_any_of_its_necessary_componen ts._In_particular_do_not_send_me_any_cookies_that_ are_subject_to_a_claim_of_copyright_by_anybody._Ta ke_notice_that_I_refuse_to_be_bound_by_any_license _condition_(copyright_or_otherwise)_applying_to_an y_cookie.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to add one that says, "By sending me data that I requested, you forfeit your right to legal action..." or something?
A good idea is a good idea, and it should be encouraged. End of story.
That sounds absolutely amazing, the lengths they went to. I'd like to know how they know when they've found some DNA. Is it like dusting for fingerprints? Do they have Star Trek-like scanners?
It wants to know whether the apparent decline in the number of bees, ladybirds, moths and other insects has anything to do with this.
I am wondering what the likelihood of insects being killed by vehicles and having any affect on bird populations is, too...
Calling it a demo (when it's obviously a beta) kind of implies that what you see here, you get later. To put together a demo implies that you have already finished the product and are releasing a taster to show it off. That would be the purpose, in my eyes, of a demonstration.
You didn't just step out of a time machine, did you? You're not a visitor from the past, are you? You do realize that multiplayer demos of first person shooters have been pretty standard fare ever since Quake, right? Yes? Not sure what your point is. There's just no better way to test multiplayer code than to release a demo to the public and see what bugs crop up. The fact that the demo helps give the game publicity is really just a nice side effect -- they're probably primarily interested in working the kinks out of the multiplayer system. I'm sorry but 'demo' is just that - a demonstration. Bugs should have been worked out in earlier stages. If one wants to see what bugs crop up by releasing code to the public, one should not call it a demo. Any bugs that people see in a demonstration are expected to be present in the 'final' product (it is a demonstration of this, after all). This was true for Will Rock. I do realise that it is good that companies release patches to fix bugs after release dates, but it is a sorry state of affairs that the bugs got past their QA stage at all. Imagine if Ford made a car whose right rear electric window didn't work. Software is massively complicated and impossible to work out every bug? So are cars, and Ford seems to manage it.
Perhaps these could be made into cheaper UPSs?