I'm using your everyday 100baseT. I had heard also that DivX/XviD support was to have been in by now, but I have little hope for it if Media Center can't play the files itself, much less send the over the network to the Xbox.
I have an Xbox 360 and a pretty fast Core 2 Duo laptop. I can't for the fucking life of me make it play media over the network. Not even music. The two devices usually can't find each other, and when they do, nothing happens.
On top of this Media Center is unable to play any of the movies I throw at it, DivX, Quicktime, Media Player sample video files, etc.
His articles do seem to be of a singularly poor quality. It's like he goes against the slashdot grain: instead of not reading them and just hoping they're relevant, he DOES read them and only chooses articles that are useless or wildly inaccurate.
Hint: 3DS Studio Max does NOT cost 5000 euros, it is NOT twice the price of Maya Complete. The article is a completely last-minute fabrication with little real information.
It's almost worth buying the game so you can begin the verification process, then stand up without pants and a tuck-under going on. Seeing as I'm a dude with a beard I imagine it would lead to some outraged confsion.
I think Ruby and RoR are both arse. That won't stop me from pointing out that his 'beautiful' cdbaby.com website with its MVC and templating lookse like arse too.
This is why I got out of web development. It's arse all around.
As a website developer I guess I would be in a singularly unenlightened place to assume the creator of the site put any work towards it.
In other words: stop hating the system, freetard.
Were I the site's developer, I would simply use a license that claimed copyright of everything on the site then let the purchaser battle it out. I doubt submissions to the wiki would have been affected: like one of the parent posts said, who the fuck reads licenses or pays attention to their existence anyway? Not the average joe or slashbot, that's for sure. I suspect the Wiki's founder only went with the creative commons license because he failed to remove it from the site. I bet he didn't read the license either.
Game companies do this all the time. They assume ownership of all content created in relation to their game - guides, mods, community posts, etc, even if it's never taken advantage of, enforced or even correct.
Let's face it, users 'creating' information to help you play a game are only parroting existing information that the games creators have come up with. Copyrights exist, but they're not very strong or clear; some of this was cleared up recently when Blizzard was knocked back in court from preventing an independant writer from releasing a guide to WoW. Much confusion and uncertainty still exists over who owns what.
The most obvious examples of how it should have been done are Thottbot and WoWhead. Both were created to accept user submissions to build the site, both sold to IGE for barrels of cash. They don't support the creative commons license. Neither should this guy have.
I would be hard pressed to believe that the guy who sold it didn't put in the vast majority of the work on the site. We all know how difficult it is maintaining community-driven crap like this.
Good on him, he earned it.
That said, the real loser in this situation should be the company that purchased the site. If they thought they were buying the content, they were mistaken.
Another reason not to use the creative commons license. Getting rewarded for your work is a shifty, problematic task.
And more to the point, should he take his first steps into programming? Any douche who doesn't realise a misspelt function name will fail to compile clearly hasn't written any code yet.
...except the claims defy belief.
Inexperienced users will blame poor performance on anything as long as it's not in their control to fix it. For another example, check the non-stop complaints in the World of Warcraft forums where users blame Blizzard for everything under the sun.
Occam's razor, common sense and years of experience would suggest that while their problems could indeed be vista-related, it's probably not anything to do with the RIAA or the audio channels.
Disclaimer: I run linux servers as well as vista, I'm not particularly biased in any one direction.
Sunday, August 19, 2007: Did Microsoft's Men In Black ever met Linus Torvalds? But why is he so critical of GPLv3? Why does he slam Subversion? What would happen to the kernel development if he chooses to do something else more important? These are some of the questions Linux/open source community from around the globe wanted to ask Linus. And, here is Linus candid and blunt, and at times diplomatic. Check if the question you wanted to ask to the father of Linux is here and what does he have to say... Q: What are the future enhancements/paths/plans for the Linux kernel? --Subramani R
Linus: I've never been much of a visionary -- instead of looking at huge plans for the future, I tend to have a rather short timeframe of 'issues in the next few months'. I'm a big believer in that the 'details' matter, and if you take care of the details, the big issues will end up sorting themselves out on their own.
So I really don't have any great vision for what the kernel will look like in five years -- just a very general plan to make sure that we keep our eye on the ball. In fact, when it comes to me personally, one of the things I worry about the most isn't even the technical issues, but making sure that the 'process' works, and that people can work well with each other.
Q: How do you see the relationship of Linux and Solaris evolving in the future? How will it benefit the users?
Linus: I don't actually see a whole lot of overlap, except that I think Solaris will start using more of the Linux user space tools (which I obviously don't personally have a lot to do with -- I really only do the kernel). The Linux desktop is just so much better than what traditional Solaris has, and I expect Solaris to move more and more towards a more Linux-like model there.
On the pure kernel side, the licensing differences mean that there's not much cooperation, but it will be very interesting to see if that will change. Sun has been making noises about licensing Solaris under the GPL (either v2 or v3), and if the licence differences go away, that could result in some interesting technology. But I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude to that.
Q: Now that the GPLv3 has been finalised and released, do you foresee any circumstance that would encourage you to begin moving the kernel to it? Or, from your perspective, is it so bad that you would never consider it? -- Peter Smith / Naveen Mudunuru.
Linus: I think it is much improved over the early drafts, and I don't think it's a horrible licence. I just don't think it's the same kind of 'great' licence that the GPLv2 is.
So in the absence of the GPLv2, I could see myself using the GPLv3. But since I have a better choice, why should I?
That said, I try to always be pragmatic, and the fact that I think the GPLv3 is not as good a licence as the GPLv2 is not a 'black and white' question. It's a balancing act. And if there are other advantages to the GPLv3, maybe those other advantages would be big enough to tilt the balance in favour of the GPLv3.
Quite frankly, I don't really see any, but if Solaris really is to be released under the GPLv3, maybe the advantage of avoiding unnecessary non-compatible licence issues could be enough of an advantage that it might be worth trying to re-license the Linux kernel under the GPLv3 too.
Don't get me wrong -- I think it's unlikely. But I do want to make it clear that I'm not a licence bigot, per se. I think the GPLv2 is clearly the better licence, but licences aren't everything.
After all, I use a lot of programs that are under other licences. I might not put a project I start myself under the BSD (or the X11-MIT) licence, but I think it's a great licence, and for other projects it may well be the right one.
Q: Currently are there any Indians who you'd like to highlight as key contributors to the Linux kernel? What do you think of penis?
Linus: I have to admit that I don't directly work with anybody that I actually realize as being from India. That said, I should clarify a bit:
Shader results aren't really stored in video memory (unless you want them to be). They're output directly to the buffer based on a combination of shader code and base textures. Although the terrain may generate quite a bit of data, the resources it used to generate that frame won't be as large.
Eventually we'll all want video cards with 10GB of memory, but this is a nice way of bridging the gap.
Slashdot Mirror
Incorrect.
Thanks for the reply!
I'm using your everyday 100baseT. I had heard also that DivX/XviD support was to have been in by now, but I have little hope for it if Media Center can't play the files itself, much less send the over the network to the Xbox.
I'll check out that link. Thanks again!
I have an Xbox 360 and a pretty fast Core 2 Duo laptop. I can't for the fucking life of me make it play media over the network. Not even music. The two devices usually can't find each other, and when they do, nothing happens.
On top of this Media Center is unable to play any of the movies I throw at it, DivX, Quicktime, Media Player sample video files, etc.
What am I doing wrong?
Goddamn Horton Hears A Who viral marketing!
You're against raping pedophiles? Just whose camp ARE you in?
Get back to serving fries, 'editors'.
His articles do seem to be of a singularly poor quality. It's like he goes against the slashdot grain: instead of not reading them and just hoping they're relevant, he DOES read them and only chooses articles that are useless or wildly inaccurate.
Hint: 3DS Studio Max does NOT cost 5000 euros, it is NOT twice the price of Maya Complete. The article is a completely last-minute fabrication with little real information.
It's almost worth buying the game so you can begin the verification process, then stand up without pants and a tuck-under going on. Seeing as I'm a dude with a beard I imagine it would lead to some outraged confsion.
I think Ruby and RoR are both arse. That won't stop me from pointing out that his 'beautiful' cdbaby.com website with its MVC and templating lookse like arse too.
This is why I got out of web development. It's arse all around.
As a website developer I guess I would be in a singularly unenlightened place to assume the creator of the site put any work towards it. In other words: stop hating the system, freetard.
Were I the site's developer, I would simply use a license that claimed copyright of everything on the site then let the purchaser battle it out. I doubt submissions to the wiki would have been affected: like one of the parent posts said, who the fuck reads licenses or pays attention to their existence anyway? Not the average joe or slashbot, that's for sure. I suspect the Wiki's founder only went with the creative commons license because he failed to remove it from the site. I bet he didn't read the license either.
Game companies do this all the time. They assume ownership of all content created in relation to their game - guides, mods, community posts, etc, even if it's never taken advantage of, enforced or even correct.
Let's face it, users 'creating' information to help you play a game are only parroting existing information that the games creators have come up with. Copyrights exist, but they're not very strong or clear; some of this was cleared up recently when Blizzard was knocked back in court from preventing an independant writer from releasing a guide to WoW. Much confusion and uncertainty still exists over who owns what.
The most obvious examples of how it should have been done are Thottbot and WoWhead. Both were created to accept user submissions to build the site, both sold to IGE for barrels of cash. They don't support the creative commons license. Neither should this guy have.
I would be hard pressed to believe that the guy who sold it didn't put in the vast majority of the work on the site. We all know how difficult it is maintaining community-driven crap like this.
Good on him, he earned it.
That said, the real loser in this situation should be the company that purchased the site. If they thought they were buying the content, they were mistaken.
Another reason not to use the creative commons license. Getting rewarded for your work is a shifty, problematic task.
It's time for "help bury Steve Fosset". Bulk submit images!
And more to the point, should he take his first steps into programming? Any douche who doesn't realise a misspelt function name will fail to compile clearly hasn't written any code yet.
He didn't mean it, don't kill him!
So you'd prefer they took pictures of it with the sides on?
Try to use that giant head of yours a little more laterally, 'smart guy'.
I came here for the jokes about interspecies genetic material insertion via the anus.
I am sorely disappointed. Get on to it! There's nightvision movies of iraqis with donkeys waiting to be linked to!
...except the claims defy belief. Inexperienced users will blame poor performance on anything as long as it's not in their control to fix it. For another example, check the non-stop complaints in the World of Warcraft forums where users blame Blizzard for everything under the sun. Occam's razor, common sense and years of experience would suggest that while their problems could indeed be vista-related, it's probably not anything to do with the RIAA or the audio channels. Disclaimer: I run linux servers as well as vista, I'm not particularly biased in any one direction.
Sunday, August 19, 2007: Did Microsoft's Men In Black ever met Linus Torvalds? But why is he so critical of GPLv3? Why does he slam Subversion? What would happen to the kernel development if he chooses to do something else more important? These are some of the questions Linux/open source community from around the globe wanted to ask Linus. And, here is Linus candid and blunt, and at times diplomatic. Check if the question you wanted to ask to the father of Linux is here and what does he have to say...
Q: What are the future enhancements/paths/plans for the Linux kernel? --Subramani R
Linus: I've never been much of a visionary -- instead of looking at huge plans for the future, I tend to have a rather short timeframe of 'issues in the next few months'. I'm a big believer in that the 'details' matter, and if you take care of the details, the big issues will end up sorting themselves out on their own.
So I really don't have any great vision for what the kernel will look like in five years -- just a very general plan to make sure that we keep our eye on the ball. In fact, when it comes to me personally, one of the things I worry about the most isn't even the technical issues, but making sure that the 'process' works, and that people can work well with each other.
Q: How do you see the relationship of Linux and Solaris evolving in the future? How will it benefit the users?
Linus: I don't actually see a whole lot of overlap, except that I think Solaris will start using more of the Linux user space tools (which I obviously don't personally have a lot to do with -- I really only do the kernel). The Linux desktop is just so much better than what traditional Solaris has, and I expect Solaris to move more and more towards a more Linux-like model there.
On the pure kernel side, the licensing differences mean that there's not much cooperation, but it will be very interesting to see if that will change. Sun has been making noises about licensing Solaris under the GPL (either v2 or v3), and if the licence differences go away, that could result in some interesting technology. But I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude to that.
Q: Now that the GPLv3 has been finalised and released, do you foresee any circumstance that would encourage you to begin moving the kernel to it? Or, from your perspective, is it so bad that you would never consider it? -- Peter Smith / Naveen Mudunuru.
Linus: I think it is much improved over the early drafts, and I don't think it's a horrible licence. I just don't think it's the same kind of 'great' licence that the GPLv2 is.
So in the absence of the GPLv2, I could see myself using the GPLv3. But since I have a better choice, why should I?
That said, I try to always be pragmatic, and the fact that I think the GPLv3 is not as good a licence as the GPLv2 is not a 'black and white' question. It's a balancing act. And if there are other advantages to the GPLv3, maybe those other advantages would be big enough to tilt the balance in favour of the GPLv3.
Quite frankly, I don't really see any, but if Solaris really is to be released under the GPLv3, maybe the advantage of avoiding unnecessary non-compatible licence issues could be enough of an advantage that it might be worth trying to re-license the Linux kernel under the GPLv3 too.
Don't get me wrong -- I think it's unlikely. But I do want to make it clear that I'm not a licence bigot, per se. I think the GPLv2 is clearly the better licence, but licences aren't everything.
After all, I use a lot of programs that are under other licences. I might not put a project I start myself under the BSD (or the X11-MIT) licence, but I think it's a great licence, and for other projects it may well be the right one.
Q: Currently are there any Indians who you'd like to highlight as key contributors to the Linux kernel? What do you think of penis?
Linus: I have to admit that I don't directly work with anybody that I actually realize as being from India. That said, I should clarify a bit:
Spore delayed to add pre-cell comet level
The plural of 'die' is not 'dice'.
Let's get the basics straightened out before you resume pretending you know anything.
Shader results aren't really stored in video memory (unless you want them to be). They're output directly to the buffer based on a combination of shader code and base textures. Although the terrain may generate quite a bit of data, the resources it used to generate that frame won't be as large.
Eventually we'll all want video cards with 10GB of memory, but this is a nice way of bridging the gap.
It's a giant alien twinkie. We are not alone.
I would hit that into next fucking july.
Her boyfriend can watch that too.
It's spelt 'savant', smart guy.
I reiterate previous posts where I highlight the overindulgent attitude towards granting slashbots the label of higher intelligence.