Only retards think it is "illegal" to shuffle bits around without permission, i.e. lawyers. It is our civic duty to NOT follow idiotic and asinine laws.
If I paid for the DVD then I have the right to watch it. I don't need permission from a 3rd party that "allows" me a "license" to shuffles bits around (i.e. doing math) just to view content.
The FBI can go fuck themselves; they are not mommy or daddy even though they like to pretend they are.
If anyone thinks they can "own" a number, I have a bridge to sell you.
So laziness needs to be re-enforced with greed in order to motivate people to build a better mousetrap?
Now I understand that is the current reality, but methinks that is not a good long term strategy.
People/Companies [for the most part anymore] don't take pride in building a good, quality product, and to keep improving it. Capitalism re-enforces the idea that cheaper is better (i.e. more popular) because quality is to expensive.
Capitalism is the "Good Enough" mentality. Why spent the time and effort to build a cleaner, more efficient widget, when your competition will have it all made in China and sell it for half your cost. That that does is promote a "race to the bottom."
At some point money needs to be taken out of the equation.
1. Think you know everything. 2. Think you know nothing (or very little) 3. Realise that everyone else know nothing as well. 4. Realize you know something, and others may (or may not) know something/nothing about it.
Second there are _two_ types of knowledge: The first is intellectual knowledge, the second is experiential knowledge.
i.e. A person can tell you everything there is about drumming but you will _never_ be good at it unless you practice at it for hours.
i.e. As a man you will _never_ know what it is like to have a child.
I'm not sure how clearer you can get with "Open source won. We are pissing on our own victory parade by not allowing these technologies to flow between systems."
You _do_ realize who said them, right?
Bryan Cantrill (wrote dtrace) worked with Jeff Bonwick (designed/wrote ZFS.) They were both together at Sun for 14 and 20 years respectively. If you watch the "Fork Yeah!" video the impression I get is that it looks like they wanted to open source as much possible but was held back by legal.
The _only_ other two people who could weigh in would be the people who designed ZFS and the GPL.
* Jeff Bonwick, and * Richard Stallman
I don't know anyone else who _would_ actually have credibility in settling the question. Do you?
While I agree btrfs looks very interesting however, unfortunately, they are not taking a wholistic approach to the design so currently they will never match what ZFS has. Now IF they take a step back and incorporate ALL the layers like ZFS does then they will have a chance.
But do you really want another few years for btrfs to get it "right" when ZFS has already been debugged?
Why You Need ZFS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F9bscdqRpo @5:40 I just want to clarify you comment "It would be illegal to ship" @5:45 I think there is a perception issue that we need to tackle. @5:55 One point that I would like to make because I think said earlier that I think we have much more in common then that separates us. @5:58 One of the most important things we all have in common is we are all open source systems. @6:02 And we need to end this self inflicted madness of open source licensing compatibility. @6:12 I think that it is a boogey man and we letting it us hold us back. @6:19 You say it would be illegal to ship. I say no one has standing @6:24 The GPL was never ever designed to counter-act other open source licenses. @6:33 That is a complete rewrite of history to believe the GPL was designed to be at war with BSD or with Cuddle. @6:39 The GPL was at war with properiety softwware. And thank the GPL and Stallman open source won. @6:45 That is the whole point. Open source won. @6:49 We are pissing on our own victory parade by not allowing these technologies to flow between systems.
ZFS solves 3 problems by taking a wholistic approach:
* Volume Management * File System * Data Integrity
Instead of fragmenting the problem into 3 layers which only have limited access and knowledge by using a unified layer you have more meta-information available to make smarter decisions.
> Why do we have to have the one brand that rules them all?
Because wasting man-years to re-develop solutions is the height of stupidity, inefficiency, and waste. That is one of the biggest problems of Capitalism. Redundancy and Waste.
Microsoft and Sony spend billions on R&D just so that they can "win" ; because if they "lose" that means they won't be around. Instead of working together, and lowering their expenses they have their ego, pride, and greed so far up their ass that they would rather waste people's lives redeveloping the _same_ thing just so that the other guy is forced to "play the game."
Greed is the root cause of companies to focus on profit at the expense of advancing society.
I'm not saying consumer choice is a bad thing, BUT it needs to be balanced with pragmatic utilitarian for the general society.
Just _how_ many devices/things do we _really_ _need_ ? i.e. How _many_ printers do we need to chose from? Cars? Game Consoles? Computers? Laptops? Tablets? etc.
> I don't see a downside to GPS tracking your kids.
No offense, but you can't see that because you are focusing on the symptom and not the solution. The problem is with _society_ in general. Using technology is great and all but it doesn't solve the _root_ problem.
What kind of society are we creating where we can't trust people to be nice to everyone?
The fact that we need locks on our houses, cars, gym lockers, etc. in our society shows that we have failed to teach children how to respect themselves and others.
Ideally, we should be addressing the root cause: human nature and shaming the ignorant who are still underdeveloped; not focusing on stop-gap solutions and crutches such as technology because the problem will never go away while we focus on the symptom.
Of course in practice, theory is never correct all the time. But in theory, it is.:-)
You've touched upon something that I think separates the novice "code monkeys" from the experienced developers. The experienced realize we (sometimes) write crap code and aren't afraid to learn how to do our job better. The novices *think* they are some hot-shot programmer but don't realize how much they have yet to learn.;-)
I guess the holy trinity never changes: "You can have it good, fast, or cheap. Pick two."
Although there are those that say scope is the 4th dimension; othere say in practicality there is only time vs features.
> Sony, like every other big corporation, doesn't understand how hackers think.
Exactly! The fastest way to motivate a hacker*/programmer is to Tell him/her that they can't do something!
* Using the orriginal definition of hacker not the bastardized media version -- Hacker, noun, Someone interested in exploring places they normally couldn't access for the sake of learning & acquiring knowledge - no malicious intent intended.
-- Any ideology taken to an extreme is never a good idea in the long run.
> Feedback vibrations are always a problem. You can feel this happen with a normal car and the gas pedal - first accelerate fairly hard (causes you to be pushed back in the seat) if you then reach your speed (a relatively low speed) you pull your foot back from the gas. At the same time your compressed seat expands. If it expands too quickly, you suddenly find yourself accelerating again...
That is correct. Games and gamepads do not provide ANY feedback on inertia:
When you go around a corner in real life you can tell if you are going to fast for the corner or if you are able to take it faster. The acceleration is towards the center of the corner and you feel that by feeling you are being "flinged out" from the corner
In a driving game you have no sense if your tires are about to lose traction nor the effects of suddenly accelerating or suddenly decelerating. In real-life you definitely feel these!
> In a real car do you always press your accelerator or brake as hard as you can? Because that's how most driving games are still set up these days
That's not actually true; your sentence is a little misleading so let me clarify your intent:
From the POV about controller input you are incorrect. Ever since the PS2 days gamepads have had the ability for analog input; almost all driving games (pardon the pun) shifted away digital inputs (full gas, full brake) to analog input (multiple levels) back then.
From the POV what you are referring is to the *game design* you are correct. Usually the most optimal choice is full gas or full brake.
> you won't see gaming controllers on cars is that they suck for fine control when driving. That is entirely correct.
The issue is (pardon the pun again) you need fine motor skills for turning. The granularity in games are "course" (large) for controlling the amount of degrees turned in a corner. The granularity for a wheel is "fine" (small) for controlling the amount of degrees turned in a corner.
The wheel is *thousands* of years old but yet we don't hear anyone complaining about that because the concept is sound; we don't need to replace it.
What we do is *refine* the implementation -- softer rubber, better grip, etc.
The same should be true in User Interfaces.
The ribbon was badly designed primarily because the amount of options/choices you could see was based on how wide your window was!? The old system of drop-down menus provided a couple of benefits:
1. The menu choices were *stationary* -- meaning you could memorize the relative spatial relationship with the others, and 2. They were drop down -- you could see ALL your choices/options. 3. The keyboard accelerators were LISTED _in_ the menu so you could see them learn them.
Office on OSX is golden -- it gives me BOTH options -- the menu bar AND the ribbon. As an user I can *pick* which is faster to use depending on the task. THAT is _good_ UI design: Leveraging the strengths of multiple input systems.
The perfect examples of Microsoft knowing crap about UI design is that in ALL the previous versions of windows it doesn't grok:
a) Stop moving the fricken home directory. Who was the retard at Microsoft that couldn't just pick _one_ directory. By Windows XP they _finally_ got a clue. b) Let the user move the darn Close window button AWAY from the minimize and maximize button. On Win8 you have to use task manager now?! Brilliant! NOT. (This is one area OSX still messes up too so I'm not cutting them any slack either.) c) Doesn't let the user tear-off the menu and optionally change it to be vertical instead of horizontal so that users can maximize THEIR screen real estate. d) Has never implemented "window shade" where you double click on a window bar title and the window is "rolled up" so that only the title bar remains. e) The importance of virtual desktops. f) The importance of spatial relationships including the SAME program. Some icons of the same app in the taskbar _should_ be grouped together, and some icons of the _same_ app should _not_ be grouped together. e.g. This lets a person have a few tabs of Firefox all grouped together on the left side, have a few apps in the middle, and have _separate_ Firefox tabs on the right side. g) WHY does the title bar take up the WHOLE window -- why isn't it a tab like in BeOS -- where it takes up minimal space IF the user wants that option? h) Attention to the _little_ details. On Win7's calculator if I enter a number, then press Alt-3 to switch to programmer mode it *clears* the number!?!? WHY?
Sure Microsoft *finally* implemented some of these things, but they didn't care on solving the general problem of making the UI better for BOTH novices and experienced users. THAT is what most people's gripe is about.
The problem with Win8 is that while it solves one problem ("How can I use touch as my primary mode of input with Windows") it ALSO asks us to toss out almost everything we have learned from the past 20 years of mouse/keyboard input, along with *those* strengths and adapt a whole new set of weaknesses. That is BAD UI design.
Win 8 works great. Unfortunately it _slows_ power users down because the system was designed exclusively, no offense intended, _for_ idiots. That is not a bad thing per se, as streamlining an UI is hard work. The problem is that advanced users SUFFER because they can't control the UI and streamline it FOR THEM. If the UI was *design* so that BOTH inputs (touch + keyboard/mouse) were _naturally_ supported, then there would be less bitching about Microsoft remaining clueless about how to design and implement an UI.
Slashdot Mirror
Only retards think it is "illegal" to shuffle bits around without permission, i.e. lawyers. It is our civic duty to NOT follow idiotic and asinine laws.
If I paid for the DVD then I have the right to watch it. I don't need permission from a 3rd party that "allows" me a "license" to shuffles bits around (i.e. doing math) just to view content.
The FBI can go fuck themselves; they are not mommy or daddy even though they like to pretend they are.
If anyone thinks they can "own" a number, I have a bridge to sell you.
or Glaive ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krull_(film)
So laziness needs to be re-enforced with greed in order to motivate people to build a better mousetrap?
Now I understand that is the current reality, but methinks that is not a good long term strategy.
People/Companies [for the most part anymore] don't take pride in building a good, quality product, and to keep improving it. Capitalism re-enforces the idea that cheaper is better (i.e. more popular) because quality is to expensive.
Capitalism is the "Good Enough" mentality. Why spent the time and effort to build a cleaner, more efficient widget, when your competition will have it all made in China and sell it for half your cost. That that does is promote a "race to the bottom."
At some point money needs to be taken out of the equation.
> ZFS didn't have a working fsck, partly for marketing reasons
If your File System (FS) needs fsck to recover from errors your FS _design_ is shoddy and incomplete.
Your FS should NEVER get in that STATE in the first place! That's like locking the barn door after the horses escaped.
Unfortunately people want to trade security for performance.
You missed the 4th group:
1. Think you know everything.
2. Think you know nothing (or very little)
3. Realise that everyone else know nothing as well.
4. Realize you know something, and others may (or may not) know something/nothing about it.
Second there are _two_ types of knowledge: The first is intellectual knowledge, the second is experiential knowledge.
i.e. A person can tell you everything there is about drumming but you will _never_ be good at it unless you practice at it for hours.
i.e. As a man you will _never_ know what it is like to have a child.
> Your quotes do not support that statement.
I'm not sure how clearer you can get with "Open source won. We are pissing on our own victory parade by not allowing these technologies to flow between systems."
You _do_ realize who said them, right?
Bryan Cantrill (wrote dtrace) worked with Jeff Bonwick (designed/wrote ZFS.) They were both together at Sun for 14 and 20 years respectively. If you watch the "Fork Yeah!" video the impression I get is that it looks like they wanted to open source as much possible but was held back by legal.
The _only_ other two people who could weigh in would be the people who designed ZFS and the GPL.
* Jeff Bonwick, and
* Richard Stallman
I don't know anyone else who _would_ actually have credibility in settling the question. Do you?
> Hopefully BTRFS will conquer this.
While I agree btrfs looks very interesting however, unfortunately, they are not taking a wholistic approach to the design so currently they will never match what ZFS has. Now IF they take a step back and incorporate ALL the layers like ZFS does then they will have a chance.
But do you really want another few years for btrfs to get it "right" when ZFS has already been debugged?
> Blame SUN, they choose a license for ZFS to ensure it never had proper in kernel linux support.
That's a myth / blatant lie.
Fork Yeah! The Rise and Development of illumos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-zRN7XLCRhc#t=1460s
Why You Need ZFS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F9bscdqRpo
@5:40 I just want to clarify you comment "It would be illegal to ship"
@5:45 I think there is a perception issue that we need to tackle.
@5:55 One point that I would like to make because I think said earlier that I think we have much more in common then that separates us.
@5:58 One of the most important things we all have in common is we are all open source systems.
@6:02 And we need to end this self inflicted madness of open source licensing compatibility.
@6:12 I think that it is a boogey man and we letting it us hold us back.
@6:19 You say it would be illegal to ship. I say no one has standing
@6:24 The GPL was never ever designed to counter-act other open source licenses.
@6:33 That is a complete rewrite of history to believe the GPL was designed to be at war with BSD or with Cuddle.
@6:39 The GPL was at war with properiety softwware. And thank the GPL and Stallman open source won.
@6:45 That is the whole point. Open source won.
@6:49 We are pissing on our own victory parade by not allowing these technologies to flow between systems.
I have to agree with you. This is one of the best demos of ZFS around :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGIwg6ye1gE
ZFS solves 3 problems by taking a wholistic approach:
* Volume Management
* File System
* Data Integrity
Instead of fragmenting the problem into 3 layers which only have limited access and knowledge by using a unified layer you have more meta-information available to make smarter decisions.
Some interesting essays:
https://blogs.oracle.com/bonwick/entry/raid_z
https://blogs.oracle.com/bonwick/en_US/entry/rampant_layering_violation
> Why do we have to have the one brand that rules them all?
Because wasting man-years to re-develop solutions is the height of stupidity, inefficiency, and waste. That is one of the biggest problems of Capitalism. Redundancy and Waste.
Microsoft and Sony spend billions on R&D just so that they can "win" ; because if they "lose" that means they won't be around. Instead of working together, and lowering their expenses they have their ego, pride, and greed so far up their ass that they would rather waste people's lives redeveloping the _same_ thing just so that the other guy is forced to "play the game."
Greed is the root cause of companies to focus on profit at the expense of advancing society.
I'm not saying consumer choice is a bad thing, BUT it needs to be balanced with pragmatic utilitarian for the general society.
Just _how_ many devices/things do we _really_ _need_ ? i.e. How _many_ printers do we need to chose from? Cars? Game Consoles? Computers? Laptops? Tablets? etc.
> I don't see a downside to GPS tracking your kids.
No offense, but you can't see that because you are focusing on the symptom and not the solution. The problem is with _society_ in general. Using technology is great and all but it doesn't solve the _root_ problem.
What kind of society are we creating where we can't trust people to be nice to everyone?
The fact that we need locks on our houses, cars, gym lockers, etc. in our society shows that we have failed to teach children how to respect themselves and others.
Ideally, we should be addressing the root cause: human nature and shaming the ignorant who are still underdeveloped; not focusing on stop-gap solutions and crutches such as technology because the problem will never go away while we focus on the symptom.
Of course in practice, theory is never correct all the time. But in theory, it is. :-)
Stay classy.
--
Pity your mother didn't teach you any manners or how to spell ad hominem.
Ah, those crashes when running 5770 in Crossfire with BF:BC2 were just figments of my imagination. Oh wait, it was a real problem. https://www.google.com/search?q=5770+crossfire+bfbc2+crashes
Mod parent +interesting.
I nominate this story is (almost) destined to become a classic as Mel the programmer is:
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~elb/folklore/mel.html
You've touched upon something that I think separates the novice "code monkeys" from the experienced developers. The experienced realize we (sometimes) write crap code and aren't afraid to learn how to do our job better. The novices *think* they are some hot-shot programmer but don't realize how much they have yet to learn. ;-)
I guess the holy trinity never changes:
"You can have it good, fast, or cheap. Pick two."
Although there are those that say scope is the 4th dimension; othere say in practicality there is only time vs features.
Interesting References:
* http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2008/10/engineering-managers-lament.html
* http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/project-help/the-project-triangle-HA010351692.aspx
Looks like this one is pretty comprehensive ;-)
http://www.ps3devwiki.com/wiki/Keys
> Sony, like every other big corporation, doesn't understand how hackers think.
Exactly! The fastest way to motivate a hacker*/programmer is to Tell him/her that they can't do something!
* Using the orriginal definition of hacker not the bastardized media version -- Hacker, noun, Someone interested in exploring places they normally couldn't access for the sake of learning & acquiring knowledge - no malicious intent intended.
--
Any ideology taken to an extreme is never a good idea in the long run.
> Have you ever used a drawing table
Gee, why are most drawing tables at a ~ 30 degree angle then?
You don't know any artists do you?
> Feedback vibrations are always a problem. You can feel this happen with a normal car and the gas pedal - first accelerate fairly hard (causes you to be pushed back in the seat) if you then reach your speed (a relatively low speed) you pull your foot back from the gas. At the same time your compressed seat expands. If it expands too quickly, you suddenly find yourself accelerating again...
That is correct. Games and gamepads do not provide ANY feedback on inertia:
When you go around a corner in real life you can tell if you are going to fast for the corner or if you are able to take it faster. The acceleration is towards the center of the corner and you feel that by feeling you are being "flinged out" from the corner
In a driving game you have no sense if your tires are about to lose traction nor the effects of suddenly accelerating or suddenly decelerating. In real-life you definitely feel these!
> In a real car do you always press your accelerator or brake as hard as you can? Because that's how most driving games are still set up these days
That's not actually true; your sentence is a little misleading so let me clarify your intent:
From the POV about controller input you are incorrect. Ever since the PS2 days gamepads have had the ability for analog input; almost all driving games (pardon the pun) shifted away digital inputs (full gas, full brake) to analog input (multiple levels) back then.
From the POV what you are referring is to the *game design* you are correct. Usually the most optimal choice is full gas or full brake.
> you won't see gaming controllers on cars is that they suck for fine control when driving.
That is entirely correct.
The issue is (pardon the pun again) you need fine motor skills for turning. The granularity in games are "course" (large) for controlling the amount of degrees turned in a corner. The granularity for a wheel is "fine" (small) for controlling the amount of degrees turned in a corner.
There is a time and a place for innovation.
The wheel is *thousands* of years old but yet we don't hear anyone complaining about that because the concept is sound; we don't need to replace it.
What we do is *refine* the implementation -- softer rubber, better grip, etc.
The same should be true in User Interfaces.
The ribbon was badly designed primarily because the amount of options/choices you could see was based on how wide your window was!? The old system of drop-down menus provided a couple of benefits:
1. The menu choices were *stationary* -- meaning you could memorize the relative spatial relationship with the others, and
2. They were drop down -- you could see ALL your choices/options.
3. The keyboard accelerators were LISTED _in_ the menu so you could see them learn them.
Office on OSX is golden -- it gives me BOTH options -- the menu bar AND the ribbon. As an user I can *pick* which is faster to use depending on the task. THAT is _good_ UI design: Leveraging the strengths of multiple input systems.
The perfect examples of Microsoft knowing crap about UI design is that in ALL the previous versions of windows it doesn't grok:
a) Stop moving the fricken home directory. Who was the retard at Microsoft that couldn't just pick _one_ directory. By Windows XP they _finally_ got a clue.
b) Let the user move the darn Close window button AWAY from the minimize and maximize button. On Win8 you have to use task manager now?! Brilliant! NOT. (This is one area OSX still messes up too so I'm not cutting them any slack either.)
c) Doesn't let the user tear-off the menu and optionally change it to be vertical instead of horizontal so that users can maximize THEIR screen real estate.
d) Has never implemented "window shade" where you double click on a window bar title and the window is "rolled up" so that only the title bar remains.
e) The importance of virtual desktops.
f) The importance of spatial relationships including the SAME program. Some icons of the same app in the taskbar _should_ be grouped together, and some icons of the _same_ app should _not_ be grouped together. e.g. This lets a person have a few tabs of Firefox all grouped together on the left side, have a few apps in the middle, and have _separate_ Firefox tabs on the right side.
g) WHY does the title bar take up the WHOLE window -- why isn't it a tab like in BeOS -- where it takes up minimal space IF the user wants that option?
h) Attention to the _little_ details. On Win7's calculator if I enter a number, then press Alt-3 to switch to programmer mode it *clears* the number!?!? WHY?
Sure Microsoft *finally* implemented some of these things, but they didn't care on solving the general problem of making the UI better for BOTH novices and experienced users. THAT is what most people's gripe is about.
The problem with Win8 is that while it solves one problem ("How can I use touch as my primary mode of input with Windows") it ALSO asks us to toss out almost everything we have learned from the past 20 years of mouse/keyboard input, along with *those* strengths and adapt a whole new set of weaknesses. That is BAD UI design.
Win 8 works great. Unfortunately it _slows_ power users down because the system was designed exclusively, no offense intended, _for_ idiots. That is not a bad thing per se, as streamlining an UI is hard work. The problem is that advanced users SUFFER because they can't control the UI and streamline it FOR THEM. If the UI was *design* so that BOTH inputs (touch + keyboard/mouse) were _naturally_ supported, then there would be less bitching about Microsoft remaining clueless about how to design and implement an UI.
Of course with such the varying opinions people have about Win 7 and/or the Ribbon you also have:
* Rated m for minors
* Rated M for moronic
* Rated M for myopic
. /me ducks ;-)
--
"Any ideology taken to an extreme is never a good idea in the long run."
That's never going to happen due to Microsoft's pride and ego.
Give an OS away for free? AND the source?! That's ludicrous !! :-)
> programs to acquire permission from each state where they did business.
In this case how is it business when the course if free??
> The universe must have a beginning,
That is your fallacy. Why? Because what is your proof?
In contradistinction I will provide a counter-proof:
Energy can not be created, nor destroyed.
All matter is energy.
Ergo, The universe has _always_ existed.
That is indeed true -- the differences is that companies (tend) to go out of business if they don't value their product, i.e. fix bugs.
Maybe the point is open is just as bad as closed but open has one small advantage: transparency.
In the end, that is what will eventually win out.
That, and sharing of software / algorithms.