Right. Most of slashdot is dead set against Yau without even having read his claims. But if you actually read his letter, his story is quite plausible and more importantly, verifiable. There are several factual claims in his letter -- that other impartial parties quoted in the article say their statements were misinterpreted, that false quotes were used, and that that Yau explicitly and in writing said the opposite of certain beliefs that were attributed to him. If these claims check out to be true (which shouldn't be very hard to verify to those with access to the documents and people in question), then Yau has a case.
At this point, all we can say for sure is that one of the two parties is lying and misrepresenting a lot. We can't say yet whether it's Yau or Nasar, but some pretty simple facts are at issue and the truth will come out soon enough. Until it does, stop attacking Yau guys.
I imagine if such a thing existed there would be considerable demand for it. However, I'm no expert in CPU design but somehow I doubt that Intel is able to just slap 100 Pentium 2s on one die and have it work just like that. There were no plans for the possibility of multiple cores when that CPU or its interface with the motherboard was designed. A new core would likely have to be engineered from the ground up -- which is pretty much what ATI is doing.
I can believe that you're getting acceptable mileage out of Win98 if you've got experience dealing with its quirks and don't install much third-party software. However, it's simply bogus to claim that it's faster (on modern hardware) or more reliable than XP. A few facts:
Win98 does not support NTFS. FAT32 is slow, errorprone, and wastes a tremendous amount of space in slack on large partitions.
Win98's swap algorithms suck. It keeps thrashing for no reason even under light load, and there's a clear performance improvement when you just give it a fixed swapfile size.
Win98 doesn't have proper memory protection. Runaway apps can crash the system, whereas this will normally only ever happen when hitting a driver bug in XP.
Win98 support is discontinued by Microsoft. It has well-known open security holes that are consciously not being patched.
Peer-to-peer discovery of SMB shares in Win98 is completely broken. It detects shares maybe 50% of the time.
More subjectively, Win98 just suffers from tons of general flakiness and just about anyone who's used it in a variety of situations and with a variety of hardware can attest to that. Drivers randomly fail to work and must be reinstalled repeatedly. The system requires regular reboots or will get unreliable and slow. And in many ways it just feels flaky. You know those phantom applications that appear in your taskbar with no title, and disappear when you click on them? Win98 is full of things like that.
In view of all this, it's irrational to choose to install Win98 on new systems. It sounds to me like you've become set in your ways and have convinced yourself Win98 is better against all evidence and the opinion of 90% of your peers.
Some of us couldn't afford MS's tax to upgrade to WinXP.
And most of you pirated XP instead of going to Linux. To Microsoft's glee, since they get to reap the benefit of network effects without actually losing anything.
I've been using Vim for years and I love it, but when I write C++ on large projects I've increasingly just been using the Visual Studio IDE with the Visual Assist plugin. The productivity gains from its integrated debugger and understanding of C++ syntax (so I can just leap to the function under my cursor by pressing alt-G) are usually much greater than what I get out of Vim's general text editing features. I only go back to Vim when either I'm only typing new code rather than browsing around, or I've got a repetitive task best done with regexps.
The technology is not just unimpressive, it's backwards
What? You're just completely ignoring the controller?
Frankly, the Xbox360 and PS3 are the ones that have unimpressive technology. The main difference with the last generation is vast amounts of additional processing power that most of the time serve only to render the same old graphics at HD resolution. Nintendo, meanwhile, is innovating where it counts.
Once you know these languages, it is trivial to pick up any other.
I call bullshit. How about SQL (navigational language) or Clik (parallel-programming oriented language)?
Anyway, putting aside the fact that you neglected several paradigms, in the real world it takes much longer to master all the minor technicalities of a language than the basic idea of it. You're like that linguist who claimed to have learned Japanese after watching a single subtitled movie. Yeah, he understood it was a subject-object verb language and its set of phonemes, but that doesn't amount to much in practice.
Great. And then when you want to put the project on your C.V. for employment in the game industry, you can't because it was pursued while known to be unauthorized. Also in addition to putting in lots of work during your free time, now you are putting yourself at risk of being sued, all for no personal benefit. Put yourself in their shoes a little.
These dedicated cards are an order of magnitude more powerful at their intended task than a general-purpose CPU core. You can't just take a core designed for serial computation and expect it to be good at a massively parallel task like AI or physics.
Current core #1 will run the game and core #2 will run the physics and eventually core #3 will be the AI, #4 will run the procedural graphics, #5 will do the 12.1 audio etc.
Exactly, and since the tasks are different why should core #2 and #3 have the same architecture as core #1? That's all these extra cards are, asymmetric cores optimized for specific problems. I don't understand why you're claiming they're unnecessary; your scenario makes them more necessary than ever.
So I take it you never factor past good experiences, aesthetics or recommendations from friends when making a purchase? If true (which I doubt), I'm not quite seeing how this makes you superior to the "masses".
It's not my problem if you're not aware of all the meanings of "non sequitur" (also, you can't spell it properly), and your own sentence is equally run-on. Attempted insult fails.
I doubt the grandparent is actually that clever, considering that his grammar is poor, his post was a non sequitur, and the idea that people vote Republican because they have less cognitive ability is itself moronic.
You're right, let's just shoot anyone with an IQ below 120.
You haven't quite thought this through. As median cognitive ability goes up as a result of all this shooting, more and more people will drop under the 120 IQ line until we finally end up killing everybody.
Re:More like a creative way to get work for free..
on
Google Image Labeler
·
· Score: 1
If you're going to argue in favor of an economic structure which is different from the common understanding of the word "communism", you would be better off avoiding the term entirely. Seeing as communism is completely discredited in most people's minds, you'd have better luck convincing people of your ideas if you present them as an adjustment to capitalism.
Er, sorry to burst your bubble, but my current record is 15 matches in one 90-second session and I regularly do above 10. I mean, if there are people in the picture you type "people" and if there are trees you type "trees". No deep philosophy of language issues here.
And Google regularly does the inverse and abuses the term "beta" for software which has already been released to the public. Really, so what? Outside of internal usage, these terms always mean whatever the marketing dept. decides they mean.
Even if Wikipedia didn't exist, reference information is still becoming democratised. For the people who don't "stop to think about it" and get carefully checked sources, the de facto reference on a topic is whatever website Google turned up as its first result. And it's pretty clear that Wikipedia usually has less errors than Joe Random Webpage. (Or, for that matter, Joe Random Reporter for almost any middlebrow news source.)
The problem with all of Wikipedia's critics is that they view it as potentially replacing traditional reference material, when really it mainly just replaces a bunch of even less reliable material. As an additional benefit, its open model even leads most people to be more careful and skeptical of what they read there, which they might not be with other sources. Wikipedia is a net win for propagation of accurate information.
Subtle modification of article facts is what is really dangerous (like changing a birthdate by a few days, etc).
I've done some vandalism patrol, and actually changes like what you describe from anonymous or new users immediately raise a red flag. Think about it: what are the chances that the original author(s) somehow got this simple, easily-looked-up fact wrong? It actually takes a huge amount of effort and intelligence to come up with plausible-sounding false statements: most people can't do it. And if a single one of someone's contributions is flagged as vandalism, their entire edit history comes under close scrutiny. For this reason, I don't believe "sneaky vandalism" poses much more of a problem for Wikipedia than blatant vandalism.
The real problem, of course, is good-faith edits from people who are ignorant or biased.
That's all true, but when you do surveys and market analyses you need to divide people into simple categories for statistical purposes. With your vague approach there's no way to make estimates about how many sales you can expect for a given type of game.
I'm afraid you can't do that with this method. You can kill the insert key dead but then no combinations will work either. You'd need to download some kind of program to do it, but I'm not sure what's out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. Most of slashdot is dead set against Yau without even having read his claims. But if you actually read his letter, his story is quite plausible and more importantly, verifiable. There are several factual claims in his letter -- that other impartial parties quoted in the article say their statements were misinterpreted, that false quotes were used, and that that Yau explicitly and in writing said the opposite of certain beliefs that were attributed to him. If these claims check out to be true (which shouldn't be very hard to verify to those with access to the documents and people in question), then Yau has a case.
At this point, all we can say for sure is that one of the two parties is lying and misrepresenting a lot. We can't say yet whether it's Yau or Nasar, but some pretty simple facts are at issue and the truth will come out soon enough. Until it does, stop attacking Yau guys.
I imagine if such a thing existed there would be considerable demand for it. However, I'm no expert in CPU design but somehow I doubt that Intel is able to just slap 100 Pentium 2s on one die and have it work just like that. There were no plans for the possibility of multiple cores when that CPU or its interface with the motherboard was designed. A new core would likely have to be engineered from the ground up -- which is pretty much what ATI is doing.
More subjectively, Win98 just suffers from tons of general flakiness and just about anyone who's used it in a variety of situations and with a variety of hardware can attest to that. Drivers randomly fail to work and must be reinstalled repeatedly. The system requires regular reboots or will get unreliable and slow. And in many ways it just feels flaky. You know those phantom applications that appear in your taskbar with no title, and disappear when you click on them? Win98 is full of things like that.
In view of all this, it's irrational to choose to install Win98 on new systems. It sounds to me like you've become set in your ways and have convinced yourself Win98 is better against all evidence and the opinion of 90% of your peers.
And most of you pirated XP instead of going to Linux. To Microsoft's glee, since they get to reap the benefit of network effects without actually losing anything.
I've been using Vim for years and I love it, but when I write C++ on large projects I've increasingly just been using the Visual Studio IDE with the Visual Assist plugin. The productivity gains from its integrated debugger and understanding of C++ syntax (so I can just leap to the function under my cursor by pressing alt-G) are usually much greater than what I get out of Vim's general text editing features. I only go back to Vim when either I'm only typing new code rather than browsing around, or I've got a repetitive task best done with regexps.
What? You're just completely ignoring the controller?
Frankly, the Xbox360 and PS3 are the ones that have unimpressive technology. The main difference with the last generation is vast amounts of additional processing power that most of the time serve only to render the same old graphics at HD resolution. Nintendo, meanwhile, is innovating where it counts.
Wait, forget about my mention of Clik, reading up on it I see Erlang is also a concurrent-based programming language.
Once you know these languages, it is trivial to pick up any other.
I call bullshit. How about SQL (navigational language) or Clik (parallel-programming oriented language)?
Anyway, putting aside the fact that you neglected several paradigms, in the real world it takes much longer to master all the minor technicalities of a language than the basic idea of it. You're like that linguist who claimed to have learned Japanese after watching a single subtitled movie. Yeah, he understood it was a subject-object verb language and its set of phonemes, but that doesn't amount to much in practice.
Great. And then when you want to put the project on your C.V. for employment in the game industry, you can't because it was pursued while known to be unauthorized. Also in addition to putting in lots of work during your free time, now you are putting yourself at risk of being sued, all for no personal benefit. Put yourself in their shoes a little.
Yeah! I also recommend switching to GM's electric car prototype for all your driving needs. Alternatively, try a Model T Ford.
These dedicated cards are an order of magnitude more powerful at their intended task than a general-purpose CPU core. You can't just take a core designed for serial computation and expect it to be good at a massively parallel task like AI or physics.
Current core #1 will run the game and core #2 will run the physics and eventually core #3 will be the AI, #4 will run the procedural graphics, #5 will do the 12.1 audio etc.
Exactly, and since the tasks are different why should core #2 and #3 have the same architecture as core #1? That's all these extra cards are, asymmetric cores optimized for specific problems. I don't understand why you're claiming they're unnecessary; your scenario makes them more necessary than ever.
Well that came out of nowhere. Forgot to take your Valium?
So I take it you never factor past good experiences, aesthetics or recommendations from friends when making a purchase? If true (which I doubt), I'm not quite seeing how this makes you superior to the "masses".
The 40% of people who use Yahoo, Microsoft or Ask search?
It's not my problem if you're not aware of all the meanings of "non sequitur" (also, you can't spell it properly), and your own sentence is equally run-on. Attempted insult fails.
I doubt the grandparent is actually that clever, considering that his grammar is poor, his post was a non sequitur, and the idea that people vote Republican because they have less cognitive ability is itself moronic.
You haven't quite thought this through. As median cognitive ability goes up as a result of all this shooting, more and more people will drop under the 120 IQ line until we finally end up killing everybody.
If you're going to argue in favor of an economic structure which is different from the common understanding of the word "communism", you would be better off avoiding the term entirely. Seeing as communism is completely discredited in most people's minds, you'd have better luck convincing people of your ideas if you present them as an adjustment to capitalism.
Er, sorry to burst your bubble, but my current record is 15 matches in one 90-second session and I regularly do above 10. I mean, if there are people in the picture you type "people" and if there are trees you type "trees". No deep philosophy of language issues here.
And Google regularly does the inverse and abuses the term "beta" for software which has already been released to the public. Really, so what? Outside of internal usage, these terms always mean whatever the marketing dept. decides they mean.
Even if Wikipedia didn't exist, reference information is still becoming democratised. For the people who don't "stop to think about it" and get carefully checked sources, the de facto reference on a topic is whatever website Google turned up as its first result. And it's pretty clear that Wikipedia usually has less errors than Joe Random Webpage. (Or, for that matter, Joe Random Reporter for almost any middlebrow news source.)
The problem with all of Wikipedia's critics is that they view it as potentially replacing traditional reference material, when really it mainly just replaces a bunch of even less reliable material. As an additional benefit, its open model even leads most people to be more careful and skeptical of what they read there, which they might not be with other sources. Wikipedia is a net win for propagation of accurate information.
Subtle modification of article facts is what is really dangerous (like changing a birthdate by a few days, etc).
I've done some vandalism patrol, and actually changes like what you describe from anonymous or new users immediately raise a red flag. Think about it: what are the chances that the original author(s) somehow got this simple, easily-looked-up fact wrong? It actually takes a huge amount of effort and intelligence to come up with plausible-sounding false statements: most people can't do it. And if a single one of someone's contributions is flagged as vandalism, their entire edit history comes under close scrutiny. For this reason, I don't believe "sneaky vandalism" poses much more of a problem for Wikipedia than blatant vandalism.
The real problem, of course, is good-faith edits from people who are ignorant or biased.
That's all true, but when you do surveys and market analyses you need to divide people into simple categories for statistical purposes. With your vague approach there's no way to make estimates about how many sales you can expect for a given type of game.
Indeed. Let's have the FDA schedule a review of this additive every 200 million years and we should be in the clear.
I'm afraid you can't do that with this method. You can kill the insert key dead but then no combinations will work either. You'd need to download some kind of program to do it, but I'm not sure what's out there.