This article makes it unclear if WGF 1.0 is basically DirectX 10.0 or a Longhorn-specific system. If it isn't available to users of older versions of Windows, there is little incentive to rewrite code specifically for it. I think the adoption of Longhorn will be slow as I haven't heard any really compelling reasons to shell out the money for the upgrade.
I got into FreeBSD about 6 months ago and have not looked back. I was frustrated with RedHat and heard good things about the BSDs.
I have been tempted to check out OpenBSD, because of the networking. This FreeBSD 5.3 status announcement mentions work being done integrating PF (updates?) and ALTQ (new to FreeBSD?)
I'm working towards a site-to-site VPN deployment (hubs and spokes, of course) and am debating FreeBSD vs. OpenBSD. IPSec, queueing and redundancy (dynamic routing, perhaps DBU, and something like CARP) are requirements. Managability is important. "Room for growth" (transparent proxies, accounting, file/print services) would be icing on the cake.
I figure it all could be made to work either way. Is FreeBSD's IPSec and firewall (IPFW/PF) as solid os OpenBSD? How about queueing? I'm a "seasoned newbee" on BSD... My experience is with the FreeBSD 5.x branch, but I'm not sure what all is changing with 5.3. I figure on diving into OpenBSD someday, it's just that time can be hard to come by.
Any advice out there? Am I giving anything up if I commit to Free vs. Open BSD?
I've been interested in these devices for a while now. As a design engineer, I don't see much how these new intelligent fasteners will differ much from today's dumb fasteners. Since they are mechanical fasteners, the joint strength considerations remain the same. All fasteners still have to transfer a force, and the concepts of tension, shear, and clamp load don't change with the addition of an embedded system. I suppose that any joint strength you can achieve with a traditional fastener, you can achieve with an intelligent fastener.
There will be differences, of course. On the plus side, they promise to provide additional design freedom. Tool access and assembly sequences often dictate the fastener locations as much as joint strength does. Now you can put a joint anywhere you want because of the built-in actuation, which can also eliminate some of the tolerance or orientation issues associated with assembly tools. Cross threading could be a thing of the past.
They also shouldn't present any packaging difficulties, despite their onboard electronics. These fasteners tap into a product's existing wiring and electronics. Digital commands take up far less space than a physical tool. I think that smart fasteners can attain much smaller sizes than conventional mechanical fasteners--in part because they overcome traditional spacing constraints and in part because smart materials will allow them to be smaller, perhaps even down to the nanotechnology scale. Cool stuff indeed.
I've driven and worked on passenger car diesels exclusively for the past ten years. They're robust and reliable, but you can't just fuel them on anything. They run terribly on gasoline!
The most critical part of the diesel is the fuel pump and injectors. They run at 3000-5000 psi with very low volume per stroke, so leakage cannot be tolerated. The fuel has to be filtered extremely well (sub micron). My worry with biodiesel is that it might plug filters due to microbial growth [always a problem in diesel], or the vegatable oil hydrolyze into organic acid plus glycerol. The organic acids will cause corrosion of the injector pump plungers and injector tips. Not good at all. The fuel will also have different rubber swell characteristics, so you may get fuel leaks. I'd try this first on a imetal-to-metal Mercedes with simple to replace rubber rather than a Peugeot or VW with a fuel-lubricated pump and that main O ring soaking in fuel.
I expect vegatable oil could be made to work with additives: a biostat, acid neutralizer plus seal swell control. But it would have to remain a separate product becauase petroleum oil and vegatable oils aren't miscible. If you wanted a blend, you'd need an emulsifier, and the results might be too viscous.
If Sony (or any other company) releases free development environments then they should be applauded because at least it gives anyone the opportunity of turning a good idea into a tangible game or piece of software.
The problem I have is with the game companies themselves because making money from games and having a constant supply of good quality games are mutually exclusive.
For starters, I don't understand why there is a necessity to constantly re-invent the wheel and create gaming engines from scratch just about each time a new game is released. Surely it would be better to throw out the source code to current gaming engines to the Internet community to see what enhancements get added as a result - sure, keep the level design, textures, etc. for a specific commercial game that uses that engine under wraps so that, as a game company, you can make money from it.
One advantage that consoles have over a PC is that developers for a console platform must constantly "push the envelope" to get the console to do more and more as time goes on - this, in turn, creates better, more efficient coding. On the PC, the expectation is that users simply upgrade hardware to meet the requirements of a new game, no games developers get long enough with a particular, say, graphics chipset to fully understand what they can get it to do and, as a result, we, the end users, end up with sloppily coded games that need constant upgrades to get them to work properly.
My point is that we need a return to the good old days of the Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum & Amiga when it was possible for "bedroom programmers" to create good quality games. Sure, games were much smaller then but that's why game development environments like XNA, SDL, etc. exist now in order to cut down the development times. What would really put games development back into the hands of single programmers or small groups of game designers, is having access to the core engines as well so that the most important aspect of game design, the initial good idea for a game design, can become tangible much easier.
Incidentally, I don't, for one minute, expect this to happen because there are far too many concerns about making money (which is why money and good games are mutually exclusive in my view) but it would be good to see the games buyers become a lot more discerning when it comes to purchasing games.
Sure, we all own games that we feel were worth the money and that provide us with good entertainment but I guarantee most game players have spent far more money on disappointing games than good ones.
I wonder, how does one become a great hacker? How do you make yourself a great hacker? I'm not sure it's possible...I mean, I know you can do a lot of things to make yourself dumb, but what can you do to make yourself smart?
I guess a good part of it comes from working on what inspires you, and what makes you happy. In general, I find that it's very difficult to make very smart people do things they don't want to do.
I suppose that in order to accomplish something important, it has to be important to you. It could be that you love it. Obviously, if you can keep alive the zest for programming you had when you were young, then you're bound to do well. If your current profession is making you senile, then you're probably not going to keep that hacker spark going.
I think the real issue must be inquisitiveness. I find that good hackers are very curious about the world around them. Ultimately, that must be the answer. To be a good hacker, you must have a genuine thirst for knowledge, and a desire to improve things for those around you. Sounds good to me.
Our problem in the States these days is that parents want the government to be responsible for their kids. When their kids get in trouble for shoplifting or shooting another kid over a pair of shoes, they want to point to violence on TV or the music they listen to as the problem. Unfortunately, the real problem, as most intelligent people know, is the parents themselves. They don't want to take the time to raise their kids. They want the onus of responsibility to be with the government, hence these absurd laws.
The Republicans are always going on about family values, and while I'm a liberal myself, I have to agree with that one issue. Family values in this country have, for the most part, gone to shit. I was raised by a single mother who worked full time. She still managed to raise me to know the difference between right and wrong. Even after a long, hard day's work, she managed to come home and spend time with me and talk to me about my day.
The fact is, getting the government to charge out after indecency on TV is a complete and utter waste of time. As if kids can't find stuff 100 times more indecent and profane in the SPAM in their inboxes anyway.
What we need is to start prosecuting parents for the crimes of their children so that parents will start taking responsibility for their kids again. At least that's my opinion. Parents can be much better parents than any government, if they have the incentive.
Through this proceeding we seek comment and information along the following lines of inquiry. How much violent programming is there, and what are the trends? What are the effects of viewing violent programming on children and other segments of the population? If particular portrayals of violence are more likely to cause deleterious effects than others, what specific kinds of programming should be the focus of any further public policymaking in this area? Should any further public policymaking address all violence or just excessive or gratuitous violence, and how should that be defined? Are the ratings system and the V-chip accomplishing their intended purpose, or are there additional mechanisms that might be developed to control exposure to media violence? Finally, are there legal constraints on either Congress or the Commission to regulate violent programming?
Anybody notice something missing here? Check what they don't mention...this is television altogether, not just broadcast. Sure, they don't mention DVDs and videogames specifically, but those are forms of non-broadcast television. Will they be under attack next? What about books? Is violence in books any better? Sure, TV violence is bad, but that's only been effecting people for a few decades...books have been around for centuries, and there are scores of violent books.
What is the FCC asking for? This is not just a survey of violent visual material, but an index of how it effects people, and on what levels, and these questions are asked very broadly. To the FCC I say: Good freaking luck.
Having read the article, it seems that Buzz certainly favors international cooperation for this project, but there is little mention of any interest from others. I doubt the U.S. would want to cooperate with China, but what do the Russians think? In Russia, does the Lagrange Point Spaceport advocate Buzz?
Well, now you're making new assumptions. This weapon is being developed by and for use by western governments, particularly the United States, and my comments are made in the context of the War On Terror (TM, all rights reserved), so the target terrorists are highly likely to be Arabic. My prejudice is valid in this context.
So long as we're playing semantics, I believe one could certainly make the argument that the United States government is war-like, militaristic, or aggressive. However, "terrorist" acts are defined as those particularly designed to strike fear into a populace, usually characterized by intentional attacks on civilian targets. The World Trade Center attacks were designed to promote fear amongst westerners, and were targeted at civilians, so those are terrorist attacks. However, the current attacks by rebels in Iraq, or the attack on the USS Cole were targeted at military personnel and assets, so I think those are more properly guerilla actions, rather than terrorist actions. The United State's actions have been aimed at military targets, and have tried to avoid injuring or killing civilians, so I don't think they would count as "terrorist."
These are very emotionally charged issues, the terms are pregnant, and the questions are loaded. I believe semantics are very important when discussing these issues, so we should be careful how we define and use the language. Certainly, one can make the argument that the U.S. is unnecessarily militaristic. However, to call the U.S. "terrorists" is demonstrably false, brands you irrational or ignorant, and causes listeners to dismiss any valid points you may have.
"Racism" is the belief that one race is genetically superior to another. For example, Hitler was a racist, because he believe the Aryan (Germanic) people were genetically superior to other races, like blacks and jews. I made no such statement here.
Calling terrorists "camel-jockeys" and "Ahmed" is, however, prejudicial, and most likely bigoted. "Prejudice" means you're "pre" "judging." So, based on past experience, I believe many terrorists, or fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq are Arabic. This is a reasonable assumption, that can easily be supported by statistics and news reports. So the acknowledgment of that assumption may be prejudicial, because I believe that a terrorist is likely to be Arabic, but it isn't in any way negative. Bigotry, however, is characterized by narrow-minded intolerance towards beliefs different from one's own. So, I'm bigoted when I call these Arabs "camel-jockeys," as I'm implying that Arabs ride camels, and that this lifestyle is comically inferior to my own. Mind you, this has nothing to do with race or genetics, but with culture. I don't think my "Ahmed" comment is bigoted, though...merely prejudicial, as I don't think there's any implication that being named "Ahmed" implies beliefs that in my opinion are inferior to my own. Your opinion of that may differ.
So, to answer your question: no, it's not racist, but it is certainly prejudicial, and may also be bigoted, depending upon your point of view and your evaluation of my point of view.
First, the geek in me says: "Cool!" I know the military has been working on these kinds of weapons for decades, and it looks like they're getting closer. Anything that adds to the arsenal is a win in my book.
Now, it's too bad we didn't have this weapon last year for use in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Imagine the effectiveness of such a weapon! We could have annihilated the entire high-tech infrastructure of Afghanistan far more quickly than we could have using conventional weapons. The invasion would have been far more effective if the Taliban's high-tech, integrated command and control technology could have been disrupted from the start. I'd just like to see those camel-jockeys try to coordinate their attacks without their iPaq's and virtual reality headsets! Good luck with that one, Ahmed!
However, I'm a little concerned with the effectiveness of this type of weapon from a ratings point of view. How exactly do you keep the audience entertained without any explosions or visible signs of destruction? I really don't think people are going to stay tuned through the commercials for this. "After these exciting messages from our sponsors, watch all the lights blink off!" Great... Perhaps, as part of this research, they could integrated a conventional weapon with an E-weapon. I guess what I'd like to see is a combination E-Bomb/MOAB. Then you still get the visual effects, sure to scare the poop out of Terrorists (and their camels), with the added bonus of disrupting their sensitive, high-tech infrastructures. It's a win-win! Just make sure the next invasion is during sweeps week.
The other day I was walking by the ocean, and noticed two red sea urchins sword fighting by the shore. One beat down the other, then said "In the end, there can be only one" and chopped off the loser's head. Then there was this lightning or something, and the street lights blew out.
I'd like to see something that really measures intelligence, and I don't think chess necessarily does that.
I would say (this is just my definition; take it for what it's worth:) ) intelligence is when something is self-aware and can develop NEW thoughts (ie. learn). Computers aren't really smart and likely won't be for a long time because they don't do anything NEW. All they do is to go through pre-defined algorithms, and use pre-defined techniques. Even so-called learning algorithms are very primitive and very little new thoughts are generated.
If someone can design a computer that comes up with totally new thoughts, it is intelligent in my book. So, instead of just using existing algorithms, if a computer can create a totally new algorithm, it is intelligent...
Having said that, if computers become intelligent, we'll have all sorts of problems...
Wow, $4,000 per pair? That seems awfully high, but I'd imagine there are many legitimate uses of such technology, that may interest people to shell out that much cash. For instance, credit card authorization, police communication, and drug trafficking come to mind. I work for the second-largest supplier of solid-gold cell phones and pagers, which are often used by celebrities and collectively engaged urban businessmen, and I could certainly see where many of our clients would have use for this kind of device.
I am a little concerned, though, that this kind of technology might fall into the wrong hands. For instance, have the manufacturers considered the applications for which terrorists might use these? I hardly think that the NAH6 would like to see their products used to slaughter innocent Americans, or even Amsterdaminians. Encryption is certainly a worthwhile tool, but I think it's far more likely to be exploited by the wicked than the virtuous, as it's the bad guys who've got something to hind.
Perhaps I would be more supportive of NAH6 if they were to provide a backdoor for the NSA, FBI, CBS and the ALF. These organizations, then, could catch evil-doers in the act before they can inflict massive damage to our American way of life. Truly, the only way to secure our liberty is government supervision of the most invasive sort.
SCO has managed to alianate most of their former loyal customer base and as far as I can see, do not have much chance of signing new customers up.
The only option that they have is to go after the world in the hope that they can sue enough people to keep in buisness. The problem is that there are only so many people it can sue and until it actually wins a court case, the vast majority of companies will, quite rightly, sit on it and wait to see what happens. I don't think that SCO will be around long enough to see all the cases through.
I know, here on Slashdot we frequently harangue CNET for their decidedly pro-business anti-linux slant, but I think they erred the other way here. Having read the article, it seems pretty clear to me, that the author simply wasn't competent enough in the field to conduct the interview. Seriously, would you send a wet-behind the ears English-lit major to interview a Nobel prize winning physicist for the cover story in the "Physics Home Journal?" I'm sorry, but if you can't tell me the correlation between the eigenvector of the (sparse) matrix describing the arrangement of crystal lattice structures in a semi-solid and the mass/energy waveform coefficients, you should be out covering donkey shows, not hard science! (BTW, the eigenvector is directly proportional to the waveform's beta coefficient).
That said, check out this gem:
Q: Stripped of all the jargon and market-speak, can you succinctly define what Adaptive Enterprise is supposed to be about? A: I define AE as a business strategy for customers who want to respond in real time to changes affecting their business. Q: That could be boilerplate applying to any company. What's the special sauce? A:The secret sauce that HP brings is the ability to link business processes--which obviously are a manifestation of a company's strategy--to IT gear. The big breakthrough is when those two things are synchronized, so changes in the business environment can dynamically trigger the IT changes necessary to support that business change.
He should never have needed to ask that twice. HP's response was clear to anyone who's been struggling to cultivate dynamic convergence in their disintermediate, yet robust, technologies.
I work IT for one of the lower-end Fortune 500 companies (I won't mention any names, but we're the 2nd largest manufacturer of Internet-enabled personal sanitation devices in the U.S.), and we're seriously looking at HP's AE technology for our next round of upgrades. I am so tired of having to re-virtualize all our front-end functionalities every time the boss-man wants to streamline our synergistic e-services. Now, if I simply had a frictionless front-end action-item, right there in my real-time vortal (vertical portal) I'd be made.
Anyway, Slashdotters, don't believe this CNET FUD. I think AE definitely has the potential to recontextualize the debate on revolutionary mindshare schemas.
I think many on Slashdot will agree with me that this proposal is, essentially, unimplementable. The SMTP protocol simply isn't designed to interface into some kind of online micropayment transaction system to make everybody pay their tax. That said, I'm very pleased to see a member of Congress acting proactively on the issue of spam (i.e., unsolicited email, not the delicious lunch meat).
I guess the problem with Mr. Dayton's approach is, it doesn't go far enough. You can't very well force everyone to change their mail servers over to a system with the transaction processing software in it. On the other hand, the government has got to DO SOMETHING, as no one is interested in lower mortgage or nubile young coeds willing to "bare it all!" for you. Therefore, the only logical option to stop spam (i.e., unsolicited email) is to consolidate the email facilities of the United States. Perhaps we need the creation of a Department of Internet Security.
Imagine, if you will, an underground labyrinth of servers, all secure.NET enabled heavy iron monsters, guarded by severe-looking men with machine guns, and laser-wielding robots. Every email account in the United States will be routed through these machines, and sophisticated genetic algorithms will filter out any messages containing the words "penis enlargement," "exciting timeshare opportunities," and "URGENTLY SEEKING YOUR AID IN AN EMERGENCY BUSINESS TRANSACTION." Keep in mind, privacy advocates, as an added bonus, this system could spell the end for hated systems like Carnivore (or whatever they're calling it these days) because, with every email server consolidated in a secret underground lab in New Mexico, there's no need to monitor your local ISPs traffic. It's a win-win. As an added bonus, this system could very well stop terrorists in their tracks. Just imagine the look on poor Ahmed's face when DIS (Department of Internet Security) stormtroopers burst through the door of his flat, guns blazing, after intercepting his "Dear Osama, the attacks begin at dawn" email.
Truly, there is no downside to this plan. I urge all/.'ers to write their congressmen immediately, and say, with one clear voice, "URGENTLY SEEKING YOUR LEGISLATIVE ACTION: Please stop Osama from acquiring penis enlargement, such that he may steal our nubile young coeds willing to bare it all at the luxurious timeshare condominium financed with a low, low interest rate!" Think of the children, people.
Having spent some time at a lab doing cutting edge HIV research I have to say that the genes which help HIV infect and persist in cells are also what makes HIV incurable. While we now understand the basics, we still don't understand all of the details. And given the ability of viruses to rapidly mutate and/or trade genes, the last thing I want is a permanent, incurable, but theoretically harmless, virus in my system which can mutate into something nasty or pick up new tricks from another more harmful virus I might come down with... Ebola may be the same way.
I'm all for continuing research in the secure facility, but until we have the ability to eradicate such a virus from the body I'd be very reluctant to have even a "harmless" virus with those genes added inserted into anyone who isn't already dying, and even then I'd have to think long and hard.
I admire Perens ambition and passion for the open source movement, and always respect his educated opinion, but I really don't like the "UserLinux" idea. Working in the enterprise world myself for about 4 years, it has been my experience that management is more willing to use Linux when it is backed by a well-known and "secure" name. Customized jobs cost a lot of money, and most enterprise decision makers are more inclined to lean towards comprehensive distributions and assign the task of making it workable to their already over-tasked IT staff.
I don't think that the community needs to collectively focus their attention on one single distro. I just think that one single distro needs to rise above the rest and earn market acceptance as a solid desktop. The strength of Linux is that I can use a different distro suited to a particular task. If I need a quick solution for IDS, but don't have some powerful hardware, I can quickly setup snort and Acid on a Debain box and get it going. If I need a quick packet filtering firewall with easy to manage tools (for the IT staff here that isn't very Linux knowledgeble) I can setup Redhat 9 in about an hour and a half.
Somewhere in the near future we need a desktop distro that is every bit as good as Windows is when it comes to the desktop. Then I can say "when I need a quick desktop for someone that just needs web access, eDirectory, and Lotus Notes out of the box, I can use insert distro here."
Here's a couple of links on recent developments in understanding this rare and curious disorder called. It got me thinking about how some people, when in the company of people speaking with accents, take on some of accent themselves. This latter phenomenon obviously doesn't have to do with a change in brain structure, but is an interesting little psychological happeningI've noticed. Have you ever found yourself talking with an accent (not on purpose)?
Since these video disc players are not DVD licensed, do they have the right to use DVD keys to decrypt existing DVDs? These keys, I imagine, are licensed along with the patent and royalty agreements. This will work great in non-DMCA countries, the USA, however, will likely stop them at customs after some mild lobbying from various patent owners and trade groups. It's very likely that these are destined for the huge chinese market, but they are probably hoping to skirt around the law and get these into the US as well.
Or, they may be more interested in distributing content without a licensing fee than in distributing players without paying a licensing fee. To produce a DVD, a license fee must be paid per disk. If they produce a disk using their new format, there is no fee. (This is a win for independent producers of content, as well as for countries keen on reducing cash transfersto the DVD consortium).
To make a player that plays just this new protocol, there is no license fee involved (I presme). The players they'll probably make will be APEX-like, playing DVDs, CDs, MP3s, and will probably pay a DVD licensing fee. At least, auditable units, or units shipped to the west will pay fees. Who knows about grey-market ones.
Slashdot Mirror
This article makes it unclear if WGF 1.0 is basically DirectX 10.0 or a Longhorn-specific system. If it isn't available to users of older versions of Windows, there is little incentive to rewrite code specifically for it. I think the adoption of Longhorn will be slow as I haven't heard any really compelling reasons to shell out the money for the upgrade.
I got into FreeBSD about 6 months ago and have not looked back. I was frustrated with RedHat and heard good things about the BSDs.
I have been tempted to check out OpenBSD, because of the networking. This FreeBSD 5.3 status announcement mentions work being done integrating PF (updates?) and ALTQ (new to FreeBSD?)
I'm working towards a site-to-site VPN deployment (hubs and spokes, of course) and am debating FreeBSD vs. OpenBSD. IPSec, queueing and redundancy (dynamic routing, perhaps DBU, and something like CARP) are requirements. Managability is important. "Room for growth" (transparent proxies, accounting, file/print services) would be icing on the cake.
I figure it all could be made to work either way. Is FreeBSD's IPSec and firewall (IPFW/PF) as solid os OpenBSD? How about queueing? I'm a "seasoned newbee" on BSD... My experience is with the FreeBSD 5.x branch, but I'm not sure what all is changing with 5.3. I figure on diving into OpenBSD someday, it's just that time can be hard to come by.
Any advice out there? Am I giving anything up if I commit to Free vs. Open BSD?
I've been interested in these devices for a while now. As a design engineer, I don't see much how these new intelligent fasteners will differ much from today's dumb fasteners. Since they are mechanical fasteners, the joint strength considerations remain the same. All fasteners still have to transfer a force, and the concepts of tension, shear, and clamp load don't change with the addition of an embedded system. I suppose that any joint strength you can achieve with a traditional fastener, you can achieve with an intelligent fastener.
There will be differences, of course. On the plus side, they promise to provide additional design freedom. Tool access and assembly sequences often dictate the fastener locations as much as joint strength does. Now you can put a joint anywhere you want because of the built-in actuation, which can also eliminate some of the tolerance or orientation issues associated with assembly tools. Cross threading could be a thing of the past.
They also shouldn't present any packaging difficulties, despite their onboard electronics. These fasteners tap into a product's existing wiring and electronics. Digital commands take up far less space than a physical tool. I think that smart fasteners can attain much smaller sizes than conventional mechanical fasteners--in part because they overcome traditional spacing constraints and in part because smart materials will allow them to be smaller, perhaps even down to the nanotechnology scale. Cool stuff indeed.
I've driven and worked on passenger car diesels exclusively for the past ten years. They're robust and reliable, but you can't just fuel them on anything. They run terribly on gasoline!
The most critical part of the diesel is the fuel pump and injectors. They run at 3000-5000 psi with very low volume per stroke, so leakage cannot be tolerated. The fuel has to be filtered extremely well (sub micron). My worry with biodiesel is that it might plug filters due to microbial growth [always a problem in diesel], or the vegatable oil hydrolyze into organic acid plus glycerol. The organic acids will cause corrosion of the injector pump plungers and injector tips. Not good at all. The fuel will also have different rubber swell characteristics, so you may get fuel leaks. I'd try this first on a imetal-to-metal Mercedes with simple to replace rubber rather than a Peugeot or VW with a fuel-lubricated pump and that main O ring soaking in fuel.
I expect vegatable oil could be made to work with additives: a biostat, acid neutralizer plus seal swell control. But it would have to remain a separate product becauase petroleum oil and vegatable oils aren't miscible. If you wanted a blend, you'd need an emulsifier, and the results might be too viscous.
If Sony (or any other company) releases free development environments then they should be applauded because at least it gives anyone the opportunity of turning a good idea into a tangible game or piece of software.
The problem I have is with the game companies themselves because making money from games and having a constant supply of good quality games are mutually exclusive.
For starters, I don't understand why there is a necessity to constantly re-invent the wheel and create gaming engines from scratch just about each time a new game is released. Surely it would be better to throw out the source code to current gaming engines to the Internet community to see what enhancements get added as a result - sure, keep the level design, textures, etc. for a specific commercial game that uses that engine under wraps so that, as a game company, you can make money from it.
One advantage that consoles have over a PC is that developers for a console platform must constantly "push the envelope" to get the console to do more and more as time goes on - this, in turn, creates better, more efficient coding. On the PC, the expectation is that users simply upgrade hardware to meet the requirements of a new game, no games developers get long enough with a particular, say, graphics chipset to fully understand what they can get it to do and, as a result, we, the end users, end up with sloppily coded games that need constant upgrades to get them to work properly.
My point is that we need a return to the good old days of the Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum & Amiga when it was possible for "bedroom programmers" to create good quality games. Sure, games were much smaller then but that's why game development environments like XNA, SDL, etc. exist now in order to cut down the development times. What would really put games development back into the hands of single programmers or small groups of game designers, is having access to the core engines as well so that the most important aspect of game design, the initial good idea for a game design, can become tangible much easier.
Incidentally, I don't, for one minute, expect this to happen because there are far too many concerns about making money (which is why money and good games are mutually exclusive in my view) but it would be good to see the games buyers become a lot more discerning when it comes to purchasing games.
Sure, we all own games that we feel were worth the money and that provide us with good entertainment but I guarantee most game players have spent far more money on disappointing games than good ones.
Interesting insights.
I wonder, how does one become a great hacker? How do you make yourself a great hacker? I'm not sure it's possible...I mean, I know you can do a lot of things to make yourself dumb, but what can you do to make yourself smart?
I guess a good part of it comes from working on what inspires you, and what makes you happy. In general, I find that it's very difficult to make very smart people do things they don't want to do.
I suppose that in order to accomplish something important, it has to be important to you. It could be that you love it. Obviously, if you can keep alive the zest for programming you had when you were young, then you're bound to do well. If your current profession is making you senile, then you're probably not going to keep that hacker spark going.
I think the real issue must be inquisitiveness. I find that good hackers are very curious about the world around them. Ultimately, that must be the answer. To be a good hacker, you must have a genuine thirst for knowledge, and a desire to improve things for those around you. Sounds good to me.
Our problem in the States these days is that parents want the government to be responsible for their kids. When their kids get in trouble for shoplifting or shooting another kid over a pair of shoes, they want to point to violence on TV or the music they listen to as the problem. Unfortunately, the real problem, as most intelligent people know, is the parents themselves. They don't want to take the time to raise their kids. They want the onus of responsibility to be with the government, hence these absurd laws.
The Republicans are always going on about family values, and while I'm a liberal myself, I have to agree with that one issue. Family values in this country have, for the most part, gone to shit. I was raised by a single mother who worked full time. She still managed to raise me to know the difference between right and wrong. Even after a long, hard day's work, she managed to come home and spend time with me and talk to me about my day.
The fact is, getting the government to charge out after indecency on TV is a complete and utter waste of time. As if kids can't find stuff 100 times more indecent and profane in the SPAM in their inboxes anyway.
What we need is to start prosecuting parents for the crimes of their children so that parents will start taking responsibility for their kids again. At least that's my opinion. Parents can be much better parents than any government, if they have the incentive.
Anybody notice something missing here? Check what they don't mention...this is television altogether, not just broadcast. Sure, they don't mention DVDs and videogames specifically, but those are forms of non-broadcast television. Will they be under attack next? What about books? Is violence in books any better? Sure, TV violence is bad, but that's only been effecting people for a few decades...books have been around for centuries, and there are scores of violent books.
What is the FCC asking for? This is not just a survey of violent visual material, but an index of how it effects people, and on what levels, and these questions are asked very broadly. To the FCC I say: Good freaking luck.
Having read the article, it seems that Buzz certainly favors international cooperation for this project, but there is little mention of any interest from others. I doubt the U.S. would want to cooperate with China, but what do the Russians think? In Russia, does the Lagrange Point Spaceport advocate Buzz?
Well, now you're making new assumptions. This weapon is being developed by and for use by western governments, particularly the United States, and my comments are made in the context of the War On Terror (TM, all rights reserved), so the target terrorists are highly likely to be Arabic. My prejudice is valid in this context.
So long as we're playing semantics, I believe one could certainly make the argument that the United States government is war-like, militaristic, or aggressive. However, "terrorist" acts are defined as those particularly designed to strike fear into a populace, usually characterized by intentional attacks on civilian targets. The World Trade Center attacks were designed to promote fear amongst westerners, and were targeted at civilians, so those are terrorist attacks. However, the current attacks by rebels in Iraq, or the attack on the USS Cole were targeted at military personnel and assets, so I think those are more properly guerilla actions, rather than terrorist actions. The United State's actions have been aimed at military targets, and have tried to avoid injuring or killing civilians, so I don't think they would count as "terrorist."
These are very emotionally charged issues, the terms are pregnant, and the questions are loaded. I believe semantics are very important when discussing these issues, so we should be careful how we define and use the language. Certainly, one can make the argument that the U.S. is unnecessarily militaristic. However, to call the U.S. "terrorists" is demonstrably false, brands you irrational or ignorant, and causes listeners to dismiss any valid points you may have.
"Racism" is the belief that one race is genetically superior to another. For example, Hitler was a racist, because he believe the Aryan (Germanic) people were genetically superior to other races, like blacks and jews. I made no such statement here.
Calling terrorists "camel-jockeys" and "Ahmed" is, however, prejudicial, and most likely bigoted. "Prejudice" means you're "pre" "judging." So, based on past experience, I believe many terrorists, or fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq are Arabic. This is a reasonable assumption, that can easily be supported by statistics and news reports. So the acknowledgment of that assumption may be prejudicial, because I believe that a terrorist is likely to be Arabic, but it isn't in any way negative. Bigotry, however, is characterized by narrow-minded intolerance towards beliefs different from one's own. So, I'm bigoted when I call these Arabs "camel-jockeys," as I'm implying that Arabs ride camels, and that this lifestyle is comically inferior to my own. Mind you, this has nothing to do with race or genetics, but with culture. I don't think my "Ahmed" comment is bigoted, though...merely prejudicial, as I don't think there's any implication that being named "Ahmed" implies beliefs that in my opinion are inferior to my own. Your opinion of that may differ.
So, to answer your question: no, it's not racist, but it is certainly prejudicial, and may also be bigoted, depending upon your point of view and your evaluation of my point of view.
First, the geek in me says: "Cool!" I know the military has been working on these kinds of weapons for decades, and it looks like they're getting closer. Anything that adds to the arsenal is a win in my book.
Now, it's too bad we didn't have this weapon last year for use in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Imagine the effectiveness of such a weapon! We could have annihilated the entire high-tech infrastructure of Afghanistan far more quickly than we could have using conventional weapons. The invasion would have been far more effective if the Taliban's high-tech, integrated command and control technology could have been disrupted from the start. I'd just like to see those camel-jockeys try to coordinate their attacks without their iPaq's and virtual reality headsets! Good luck with that one, Ahmed!
However, I'm a little concerned with the effectiveness of this type of weapon from a ratings point of view. How exactly do you keep the audience entertained without any explosions or visible signs of destruction? I really don't think people are going to stay tuned through the commercials for this. "After these exciting messages from our sponsors, watch all the lights blink off!" Great... Perhaps, as part of this research, they could integrated a conventional weapon with an E-weapon. I guess what I'd like to see is a combination E-Bomb/MOAB. Then you still get the visual effects, sure to scare the poop out of Terrorists (and their camels), with the added bonus of disrupting their sensitive, high-tech infrastructures. It's a win-win! Just make sure the next invasion is during sweeps week.
The other day I was walking by the ocean, and noticed two red sea urchins sword fighting by the shore. One beat down the other, then said "In the end, there can be only one" and chopped off the loser's head. Then there was this lightning or something, and the street lights blew out.
I'd like to see something that really measures intelligence, and I don't think chess necessarily does that.
:) ) intelligence is when something is self-aware and can develop NEW thoughts (ie. learn). Computers aren't really smart and likely won't be for a long time because they don't do anything NEW. All they do is to go through pre-defined algorithms, and use pre-defined techniques. Even so-called learning algorithms are very primitive and very little new thoughts are generated.
I would say (this is just my definition; take it for what it's worth
If someone can design a computer that comes up with totally new thoughts, it is intelligent in my book. So, instead of just using existing algorithms, if a computer can create a totally new algorithm, it is intelligent...
Having said that, if computers become intelligent, we'll have all sorts of problems...
Obviously, the steel-cage no holds barred death match is the answer.
Wow, $4,000 per pair? That seems awfully high, but I'd imagine there are many legitimate uses of such technology, that may interest people to shell out that much cash. For instance, credit card authorization, police communication, and drug trafficking come to mind. I work for the second-largest supplier of solid-gold cell phones and pagers, which are often used by celebrities and collectively engaged urban businessmen, and I could certainly see where many of our clients would have use for this kind of device.
I am a little concerned, though, that this kind of technology might fall into the wrong hands. For instance, have the manufacturers considered the applications for which terrorists might use these? I hardly think that the NAH6 would like to see their products used to slaughter innocent Americans, or even Amsterdaminians. Encryption is certainly a worthwhile tool, but I think it's far more likely to be exploited by the wicked than the virtuous, as it's the bad guys who've got something to hind.
Perhaps I would be more supportive of NAH6 if they were to provide a backdoor for the NSA, FBI, CBS and the ALF. These organizations, then, could catch evil-doers in the act before they can inflict massive damage to our American way of life. Truly, the only way to secure our liberty is government supervision of the most invasive sort.
As now the lawyers/judges have the words - let them sort the things out. No more lies - no more FUD.
What options do they have?
SCO has managed to alianate most of their former loyal customer base and as far as I can see, do not have much chance of signing new customers up.
The only option that they have is to go after the world in the hope that they can sue enough people to keep in buisness. The problem is that there are only so many people it can sue and until it actually wins a court case, the vast majority of companies will, quite rightly, sit on it and wait to see what happens. I don't think that SCO will be around long enough to see all the cases through.
That said, check out this gem:
He should never have needed to ask that twice. HP's response was clear to anyone who's been struggling to cultivate dynamic convergence in their disintermediate, yet robust, technologies.
I work IT for one of the lower-end Fortune 500 companies (I won't mention any names, but we're the 2nd largest manufacturer of Internet-enabled personal sanitation devices in the U.S.), and we're seriously looking at HP's AE technology for our next round of upgrades. I am so tired of having to re-virtualize all our front-end functionalities every time the boss-man wants to streamline our synergistic e-services. Now, if I simply had a frictionless front-end action-item, right there in my real-time vortal (vertical portal) I'd be made.
Anyway, Slashdotters, don't believe this CNET FUD. I think AE definitely has the potential to recontextualize the debate on revolutionary mindshare schemas.
I think many on Slashdot will agree with me that this proposal is, essentially, unimplementable. The SMTP protocol simply isn't designed to interface into some kind of online micropayment transaction system to make everybody pay their tax. That said, I'm very pleased to see a member of Congress acting proactively on the issue of spam (i.e., unsolicited email, not the delicious lunch meat).
.NET enabled heavy iron monsters, guarded by severe-looking men with machine guns, and laser-wielding robots. Every email account in the United States will be routed through these machines, and sophisticated genetic algorithms will filter out any messages containing the words "penis enlargement," "exciting timeshare opportunities," and "URGENTLY SEEKING YOUR AID IN AN EMERGENCY BUSINESS TRANSACTION." Keep in mind, privacy advocates, as an added bonus, this system could spell the end for hated systems like Carnivore (or whatever they're calling it these days) because, with every email server consolidated in a secret underground lab in New Mexico, there's no need to monitor your local ISPs traffic. It's a win-win. As an added bonus, this system could very well stop terrorists in their tracks. Just imagine the look on poor Ahmed's face when DIS (Department of Internet Security) stormtroopers burst through the door of his flat, guns blazing, after intercepting his "Dear Osama, the attacks begin at dawn" email.
/.'ers to write their congressmen immediately, and say, with one clear voice, "URGENTLY SEEKING YOUR LEGISLATIVE ACTION: Please stop Osama from acquiring penis enlargement, such that he may steal our nubile young coeds willing to bare it all at the luxurious timeshare condominium financed with a low, low interest rate!" Think of the children, people.
I guess the problem with Mr. Dayton's approach is, it doesn't go far enough. You can't very well force everyone to change their mail servers over to a system with the transaction processing software in it. On the other hand, the government has got to DO SOMETHING, as no one is interested in lower mortgage or nubile young coeds willing to "bare it all!" for you. Therefore, the only logical option to stop spam (i.e., unsolicited email) is to consolidate the email facilities of the United States. Perhaps we need the creation of a Department of Internet Security.
Imagine, if you will, an underground labyrinth of servers, all secure
Truly, there is no downside to this plan. I urge all
Having spent some time at a lab doing cutting edge HIV research I have to say that the genes which help HIV infect and persist in cells are also what makes HIV incurable. While we now understand the basics, we still don't understand all of the details. And given the ability of viruses to rapidly mutate and/or trade genes, the last thing I want is a permanent, incurable, but theoretically harmless, virus in my system which can mutate into something nasty or pick up new tricks from another more harmful virus I might come down with... Ebola may be the same way.
I'm all for continuing research in the secure facility, but until we have the ability to eradicate such a virus from the body I'd be very reluctant to have even a "harmless" virus with those genes added inserted into anyone who isn't already dying, and even then I'd have to think long and hard.
I admire Perens ambition and passion for the open source movement, and always respect his educated opinion, but I really don't like the "UserLinux" idea. Working in the enterprise world myself for about 4 years, it has been my experience that management is more willing to use Linux when it is backed by a well-known and "secure" name. Customized jobs cost a lot of money, and most enterprise decision makers are more inclined to lean towards comprehensive distributions and assign the task of making it workable to their already over-tasked IT staff.
I don't think that the community needs to collectively focus their attention on one single distro. I just think that one single distro needs to rise above the rest and earn market acceptance as a solid desktop. The strength of Linux is that I can use a different distro suited to a particular task. If I need a quick solution for IDS, but don't have some powerful hardware, I can quickly setup snort and Acid on a Debain box and get it going. If I need a quick packet filtering firewall with easy to manage tools (for the IT staff here that isn't very Linux knowledgeble) I can setup Redhat 9 in about an hour and a half.
Somewhere in the near future we need a desktop distro that is every bit as good as Windows is when it comes to the desktop. Then I can say "when I need a quick desktop for someone that just needs web access, eDirectory, and Lotus Notes out of the box, I can use insert distro here."
Gnome-DB is another such application, but it is not as advanced: Gnome-DB
And then there is Aqua Data Studio too, which is also multiplatform and free.
BBC
NY Times
Here's a couple of links on recent developments in understanding this rare and curious disorder called. It got me thinking about how some people, when in the company of people speaking with accents, take on some of accent themselves. This latter phenomenon obviously doesn't have to do with a change in brain structure, but is an interesting little psychological happeningI've noticed. Have you ever found yourself talking with an accent (not on purpose)?
Since these video disc players are not DVD licensed, do they have the right to use DVD keys to decrypt existing DVDs? These keys, I imagine, are licensed along with the patent and royalty agreements. This will work great in non-DMCA countries, the USA, however, will likely stop them at customs after some mild lobbying from various patent owners and trade groups. It's very likely that these are destined for the huge chinese market, but they are probably hoping to skirt around the law and get these into the US as well.
Or, they may be more interested in distributing content without a licensing fee than in distributing players without paying a licensing fee. To produce a DVD, a license fee must be paid per disk. If they produce a disk using their new format, there is no fee. (This is a win for independent producers of content, as well as for countries keen on reducing cash transfersto the DVD consortium).
To make a player that plays just this new protocol, there is no license fee involved (I presme). The players they'll probably make will be APEX-like, playing DVDs, CDs, MP3s, and will probably pay a DVD licensing fee. At least, auditable units, or units shipped to the west will pay fees. Who knows about grey-market ones.