To be honest, when playing a game (mostly newer titles) I think there has been almost too much focus on the "storyline" and "plot." I hate watching 2-3 minute video segments every time I do anything. I just want to go though it as fast as I can so I can acually PLAY the game. That is why I PLAY games...to have an interactive experience...something I'm in control of. If I wanted to watch a static video, then I'll put in a movie. When I'm playing a game, I want to play...screw the story line (tapping A as fast as I can...) LET ME PLAY ALREADY!!!
Was actually thinking this was going to get modded funny.
I think that the whole graphics aspect of games is overplayed. I don't care how "real" a game looks if the gameplay isn't good and I'm not having fun while playing it. The oldschool games had awesome gameplay becaues that was the only differentiating (sp?) factor. They were easy to pick up and start playing (you only had two buttons A and B) without having to study a manual. They were usually challenging but could be beaten in a reasonable amount of time (before you got burnt out). And they weren't too expensive...so when the sequel came out, you didn't mind buying it too.
I too just bought some music from them and haven't purchased a CD in forever. However as the other posts have noted that AllOfMP3 doesn't give money back to the artist. While that is true, and is obviously a broken system that (IMHO) isn't the point. What IS the point is that people ARE willing to pay for content, just not the price and not with the restrictions that the "other" systems are providing.
At the few cent/song price point, I'll not only just buy the songs that I know from an artist, but also the ones that I haven't heard...which ended up being more than the cost of the single track that I would have purchased from say iTunes.
All in all, I don't think that AllOfMP3 solves ANY of the problems in the digital music industry. The only thing that it does show is that there are consumers who are willing to purchase music through retail channels (instead of P2P) however, the pricepoint is the roadblock.
I have many machines (most of them Linux) that dual boot to many operating systems
Just nit-picking/trolling, but if you can boot into many operating systems then wouldn't it be a mulit-boot? Doesn't dual boot mean being able to boot from one of two operating systems (ie Windows/Linux or Linux/*BSD, etc)?
From dictionary.com:
dual
adj.
1. Composed of two usually like or complementary parts; double: dual controls for pilot and copilot; a car with dual exhaust pipes.
2. Having a double character or purpose: a belief in the dual nature of reality.
3. Grammar. Of, relating to, or being a number category that indicates two persons or things, as in Greek, Sanskrit, and Old English.
n. Grammar
1. The dual number.
2. An inflected form of a noun, adjective, pronoun, or verb used with two items or people.
This isn't a direct shot at you, but I think there are a lot of people that misuse that term.
Her: blah, blah, blah...
Her:Did you hear that honey?
You (takes out earpiece) and says: What? I didn't realize you were talking. I must have lost your "key"
Either way, its gonna sound the same...blah, blah, blah
I am more interested in getting a more meaningful figure of the start-up time, eg. a machine which has at least installed a few apps, of which a few will be running in the background.
Just run IE7 for a few minutes, reboot and you'll have more than a few apps "running in the background."
Not trying to flame your flame, but you've drank as much of the kool-aid as he has. His "free market leads to lower prices" does hold some credibility. Although it may become diluted through legislation and the ever evil "big business." However, in the long run market forces will rule supreme.
This isn't going to the be the end of the [world|internet|free speech]. As smart as the major players are, the masses are eventually going to be smarter or seek other solutions if their implementation is not sufficient.
So to all the chicken little's screaming their heads off in this post, calm down, everything is going to be ok.
Oh, and all of the jobs that are going to be lost from laying extra fiber...what about the jobs it will create for fiber layers?
We are the elite few. First, we probably use FireFox. Second, we probably extend it with ad-blockers galore.
We are however, the minority (somewhere ~10% last I checked). Also, I managed to get my mother using Firefox, and it really doesn't do anything special for her, except allow her to choose more/better themes. There were few if any extensions (no pop-up blockers) installed.
All that to say, out of the $12.5 billion dollar market (that is still growing might I add)...there is quite a lot more $$$ to be gained.
I'm not debating against net neutrality, but both his analogy and yours are somewhat correct and incorrect.
In the FedEX example, there is cost associated with faster delivery and you as the customer pay for the added benefit. As with most goods and services there will be higher margins for the producers on higher end goods, but they don't get a $5 profit when you opt for the $5 expedited option.
For your argument, yes they are charging money at both ends, kinda. You pay your premium for a fast connection to the local provider. To some extent, once it leaves their network, they have no control over the speed/quality of packets.
To tie it together, FedEX has the capability to take the packages that you paid extra money for prioritization all the way to your doorstep. They have end-to-end control, so it isn't a completly fair anaology. The content originator can pay for prioritization only to your local provider. Then you are going to be limited by the download rate that you have paid for.
Ok, rambled a little there, but the main point is that both arguments are correct but only to a certain extent. The content provider pays for the ABILITY to push the content out at a high rate. But you have to also have paid for the ABILITY to recieve content at a high rate. Just because google pays billions a year for freaking fast connections doesn't mean that I should by default be able to download from them fast...don't see how that could ever change.
What type of security will these devices use? I don't really feel like sharing my network's traffic with everyone around who builds/buys a sniffer.
Don't like it, don't use it. Security issue solved.
I know that there aren't always alternatives, but people are always complaining about company X doing evil activity Y, yet the continue to keep using their product(s). Instead of whining and complaining about how they are doing bad things, do something that will truly make a difference...vote with your $.
I think you are probably correct on that. The man in the middle attack is a very difficult one to completely protect against, outside of quantum communication.
What this scheme will (help) protect against is the ability to data-mine phone calls for later review. They would have to be monitoring all of the phones that use the scheme in real-time in order to be able to use that kind of attack. If/when the numbers of these phones rise the cost/viability of that happening seroiusly drops.
Another one of those things that it will take mass adoption in order for it to work. And I doubt that this will ever get widely adopted. The average consumer won't justify the extra cost, and the telco won't push these either because they would get "pressured" not to.
Avergae Joe: So what's up with these cell phones that are encrypted? I heard about them on slashdot (not that average joe's read slashdot)
Phone Salesman: Oh, THOSE. You don't need one of those unless your a terrorist, you aren't a terrorist are you?
Average Joe: No, not me. In that case I'll take your free phone that only costs my soul in contract fees.
Most of the people here are smarter (at least in the tech sense) that those people that you are ranting about.
Not trying to plug my own blog cause it ain't that great, but it talks about what you were saying...worth checking out. http://jsuggs.blogspot.com/2006/05/others-computer -usage-baffles-me.html
Very true about the first part, was about to add that myself.
Well the hope is that you will be able to go for weeks/months without a recharge/replacement (probably not the first gen though). The word is still out on how you actually would recharge these. Maybe there is just a little port (standardized hopefully) and then you can purchase a refiler device that just reinjects the methanol. If that is the case, then it essentially the same model as we use now. Use till battery runs out, then charge. Just this time, it won't directly be electricity that we are using to charge and again hopefully the charge cycle is shorter. Plus, hopefully its almost instanenous...put the methanol in and go
Also, this has been hyped for quite a while. Its going to take quite a few iterations to get it right, so the sooner the first gens come out and developers get feedback the quicker we are going to get those actually useful X generation versions.
Not trying to flame here but...I think the idea and concept of what net neutrality is/was/will be is not only being mis-understood, but also mis-used.
One way to look at it. Net neutrality means that all bits are the same. I put mine in the pipe you put yours in the pipe, and they are treated as equals, arriving as fast as possible. That is probably the most basic definition, and the one that most people are wanting to promote.
The above definition is great and wonderful for how the internet and its current services operate today. However, when/if VoIP and streaming [fill in blank] start to become more prevalent this model simply will not work unless the pipes are sufficiently large to handle all of this traffic.
What I think may not be a bad idea is to have QoS available for services that require it. Then all other traffic would default back to best effort. However, that would assume that applications and protocols didn't "cheat" and mark themselves as needing QoS service.
ISP's could continue to offer different service packages by filtering traffic at their site level and either append/prepend packet header information for QoS before sending over the WAN.
More or less the problem isn't what net neutrality is/isn't, its that the current structure of the internet is not going to gracefully handle the new services that are trying to built on top of it. I'm starting to think that the free market will be the best way to determine what works and what doesn't. If the current telcos offer to restricted of access then there will be new entrats. Its already been rumored that Google may be getting into the game, so just because the current players are big and bullying doesn't mean that they can't get wiped out tomorrow.
Bottom line is that both the short and long term winners are going to be the hardware providers...
Very interesting point. However, I'm not sure thats how it would go down. Since you sent that via a method that made no attempts to keep it secure (no encryption) then I would think the claim could be made that it was part of the public domain, and thus not capable of being copyrighted. I make no claims to know the ins/outs of the law, but if you were to make that claim, and take action with its far-reaching implications then I this would just be the first of many defense techniques brought against you. Either way, I doubt that you would "win" that easily.
A standard amongst a non-standard language
on
SQL Cookbook
·
· Score: 0
Because all of the flavors have a sample "Northwind" db.
It's not about showing you how to create a HR or order entry app, its about showing you how to go about basic tasks that are easily explainable problems under those types of schemas.
Smaller and more efficient, but doesn't quite the performance of its derivatives. If you've got a high volume/availibility site then you have to use h1database as it won't get "stuck"
Re:More Cooking with SQL
on
SQL Cookbook
·
· Score: 2, Funny
INSERT INTO TRASH ( SELECT eggs (*) AS ingredients FROM Refrigerator GROUP BY NO.dozen INSERT INTO my_fryingpan (eggs1, butter1) UPDATE my_table SET toast = 'lightly browned' INSERT hole INTO toast MERGE eggs INTO toast USING ( SELECT Eggs, Toast) CREATE Breakfast eggy_toast DELETE FROM my_table WHERE plate = 'N' )
SELECT beverage FROM Refrigerator WHERE Type = 'Beer' AND ROWNUM < 12;
Not only will IBM get a few more academic sales from this, but they'll get a whole new generation of developers that know how to code on the big iron
That next generation will be what decides the future of mainframes. I'm pretty close to fresh out, and everyone I know is all about the linux/oss bandwagon. I don't know a single person (my age) that has touched or even seen a mainframe (me included).
Without people to maintain these beasts, they will eventually fall by the wayside. If IBM really wants to keep this market going then they aren't going to do it with hardware/architecture advances, its going to be in gathering people to take over the support/development positions that are currently being held down by people closing in on retirement. The hardware might run for decades, but good look finding admins that will do the same...especially with our gens attitudes of company hoping to boost salaries (not that there is anything wrong with it).
I know we all know the technical superiority of *nix over windows, but he makes a good point. There are a lot of companies that will look at a study by anyone and take it as truth. However, these are probably not the same companies that would be looking at mainframes.
All they can afford are high school dropouts with an MCSE
I know this sounds mean and anti-rural (my disclaimer: I grew up in a small town, parent still live there, grandparents do live in "rural area"), but all places aren't equal. While its nice to think that we should all have the same everything, it doesn't happen that way. I'm certainly not advocating everyone leaving the country side, but prioritize what you want in a house/home. If the ability to have cheap/free wireless or in some cases broadband at all (always DirectWay) is high on your priorities then don't move to the hills and expect to get it, or even to get it subsidized. Cable/Telco companines are businesses (I know we want to make them out to be mean and greedy) but they are going to make decisions that make "business sense." I doubt upgrading hundreds maybe thousands of miles of new line to pick up a handful of new customers will give them good ROI.
Bottom line, we make choices. The job we have, the place we work, etc. If we don't like those then we have the ability to change them...that's the beauty of the system. Use it to your advantage and hopefully have a great life!
And a grad student is just somebody who doesn't want to work.:)
haha, that is good. Tell it to all my grad-school friends, most of whom will agree:)
Well put and I agree. I frequently argue pro M$(devil's advocate style) that through M&A they are actually benefitting society. They take semi-mature products that have small market penetration (and smaller hopes of breaking through) and push them through their massive distribution channels. I know they probably lose some of the innovative momentum in the process, but I guess it's kinda like this: which is better helping a few people out a lot or helping a LOT of people out a little? FYI, there is no right answer...just different ways of looking at it.
Slashdot Mirror
To be honest, when playing a game (mostly newer titles) I think there has been almost too much focus on the "storyline" and "plot." I hate watching 2-3 minute video segments every time I do anything. I just want to go though it as fast as I can so I can acually PLAY the game. That is why I PLAY games...to have an interactive experience...something I'm in control of. If I wanted to watch a static video, then I'll put in a movie. When I'm playing a game, I want to play...screw the story line (tapping A as fast as I can...) LET ME PLAY ALREADY!!!
Was actually thinking this was going to get modded funny.
I think that the whole graphics aspect of games is overplayed. I don't care how "real" a game looks if the gameplay isn't good and I'm not having fun while playing it. The oldschool games had awesome gameplay becaues that was the only differentiating (sp?) factor. They were easy to pick up and start playing (you only had two buttons A and B) without having to study a manual. They were usually challenging but could be beaten in a reasonable amount of time (before you got burnt out). And they weren't too expensive...so when the sequel came out, you didn't mind buying it too.
Super Mario Brothers, Duck Hunt and Rad Racer still look just as awesome as the day I first got them!
Physicists...hmm, if you started looking for both starting now it still might be a while before you find either.
I too just bought some music from them and haven't purchased a CD in forever. However as the other posts have noted that AllOfMP3 doesn't give money back to the artist. While that is true, and is obviously a broken system that (IMHO) isn't the point. What IS the point is that people ARE willing to pay for content, just not the price and not with the restrictions that the "other" systems are providing.
At the few cent/song price point, I'll not only just buy the songs that I know from an artist, but also the ones that I haven't heard...which ended up being more than the cost of the single track that I would have purchased from say iTunes.
All in all, I don't think that AllOfMP3 solves ANY of the problems in the digital music industry. The only thing that it does show is that there are consumers who are willing to purchase music through retail channels (instead of P2P) however, the pricepoint is the roadblock.
Just nit-picking/trolling, but if you can boot into many operating systems then wouldn't it be a mulit-boot? Doesn't dual boot mean being able to boot from one of two operating systems (ie Windows/Linux or Linux/*BSD, etc)?
From dictionary.com:
This isn't a direct shot at you, but I think there are a lot of people that misuse that term.
Her: blah, blah, blah...
Her:Did you hear that honey?
You (takes out earpiece) and says: What? I didn't realize you were talking. I must have lost your "key"
Either way, its gonna sound the same...blah, blah, blah
Just run IE7 for a few minutes, reboot and you'll have more than a few apps "running in the background."
Sorry, just too easy
Not trying to flame your flame, but you've drank as much of the kool-aid as he has. His "free market leads to lower prices" does hold some credibility. Although it may become diluted through legislation and the ever evil "big business." However, in the long run market forces will rule supreme.
This isn't going to the be the end of the [world|internet|free speech]. As smart as the major players are, the masses are eventually going to be smarter or seek other solutions if their implementation is not sufficient.
So to all the chicken little's screaming their heads off in this post, calm down, everything is going to be ok.
Oh, and all of the jobs that are going to be lost from laying extra fiber...what about the jobs it will create for fiber layers?
We are the elite few. First, we probably use FireFox. Second, we probably extend it with ad-blockers galore.
We are however, the minority (somewhere ~10% last I checked). Also, I managed to get my mother using Firefox, and it really doesn't do anything special for her, except allow her to choose more/better themes. There were few if any extensions (no pop-up blockers) installed.
All that to say, out of the $12.5 billion dollar market (that is still growing might I add)...there is quite a lot more $$$ to be gained.
I'm not debating against net neutrality, but both his analogy and yours are somewhat correct and incorrect.
In the FedEX example, there is cost associated with faster delivery and you as the customer pay for the added benefit. As with most goods and services there will be higher margins for the producers on higher end goods, but they don't get a $5 profit when you opt for the $5 expedited option.
For your argument, yes they are charging money at both ends, kinda. You pay your premium for a fast connection to the local provider. To some extent, once it leaves their network, they have no control over the speed/quality of packets.
To tie it together, FedEX has the capability to take the packages that you paid extra money for prioritization all the way to your doorstep. They have end-to-end control, so it isn't a completly fair anaology. The content originator can pay for prioritization only to your local provider. Then you are going to be limited by the download rate that you have paid for.
Ok, rambled a little there, but the main point is that both arguments are correct but only to a certain extent. The content provider pays for the ABILITY to push the content out at a high rate. But you have to also have paid for the ABILITY to recieve content at a high rate. Just because google pays billions a year for freaking fast connections doesn't mean that I should by default be able to download from them fast...don't see how that could ever change.
I know the concept of proxies will probably escape most users, but at least for us geeks "in the know" there will be ways to beat the system.
Don't like it, don't use it. Security issue solved.
I know that there aren't always alternatives, but people are always complaining about company X doing evil activity Y, yet the continue to keep using their product(s). Instead of whining and complaining about how they are doing bad things, do something that will truly make a difference...vote with your $.
I think you are probably correct on that. The man in the middle attack is a very difficult one to completely protect against, outside of quantum communication.
What this scheme will (help) protect against is the ability to data-mine phone calls for later review. They would have to be monitoring all of the phones that use the scheme in real-time in order to be able to use that kind of attack. If/when the numbers of these phones rise the cost/viability of that happening seroiusly drops.
Another one of those things that it will take mass adoption in order for it to work. And I doubt that this will ever get widely adopted. The average consumer won't justify the extra cost, and the telco won't push these either because they would get "pressured" not to.
Avergae Joe: So what's up with these cell phones that are encrypted? I heard about them on slashdot (not that average joe's read slashdot)
Phone Salesman: Oh, THOSE. You don't need one of those unless your a terrorist, you aren't a terrorist are you?
Average Joe: No, not me. In that case I'll take your free phone that only costs my soul in contract fees.
Why are YOU preaching to the CHOIR?
r -usage-baffles-me.html
Most of the people here are smarter (at least in the tech sense) that those people that you are ranting about.
Not trying to plug my own blog cause it ain't that great, but it talks about what you were saying...worth checking out. http://jsuggs.blogspot.com/2006/05/others-compute
Very true about the first part, was about to add that myself.
Well the hope is that you will be able to go for weeks/months without a recharge/replacement (probably not the first gen though). The word is still out on how you actually would recharge these. Maybe there is just a little port (standardized hopefully) and then you can purchase a refiler device that just reinjects the methanol. If that is the case, then it essentially the same model as we use now. Use till battery runs out, then charge. Just this time, it won't directly be electricity that we are using to charge and again hopefully the charge cycle is shorter. Plus, hopefully its almost instanenous...put the methanol in and go
Also, this has been hyped for quite a while. Its going to take quite a few iterations to get it right, so the sooner the first gens come out and developers get feedback the quicker we are going to get those actually useful X generation versions.
Not trying to flame here but...I think the idea and concept of what net neutrality is/was/will be is not only being mis-understood, but also mis-used.
One way to look at it. Net neutrality means that all bits are the same. I put mine in the pipe you put yours in the pipe, and they are treated as equals, arriving as fast as possible. That is probably the most basic definition, and the one that most people are wanting to promote.
The above definition is great and wonderful for how the internet and its current services operate today. However, when/if VoIP and streaming [fill in blank] start to become more prevalent this model simply will not work unless the pipes are sufficiently large to handle all of this traffic.
What I think may not be a bad idea is to have QoS available for services that require it. Then all other traffic would default back to best effort. However, that would assume that applications and protocols didn't "cheat" and mark themselves as needing QoS service.
ISP's could continue to offer different service packages by filtering traffic at their site level and either append/prepend packet header information for QoS before sending over the WAN.
More or less the problem isn't what net neutrality is/isn't, its that the current structure of the internet is not going to gracefully handle the new services that are trying to built on top of it. I'm starting to think that the free market will be the best way to determine what works and what doesn't. If the current telcos offer to restricted of access then there will be new entrats. Its already been rumored that Google may be getting into the game, so just because the current players are big and bullying doesn't mean that they can't get wiped out tomorrow.
Bottom line is that both the short and long term winners are going to be the hardware providers...
Very interesting point. However, I'm not sure thats how it would go down. Since you sent that via a method that made no attempts to keep it secure (no encryption) then I would think the claim could be made that it was part of the public domain, and thus not capable of being copyrighted. I make no claims to know the ins/outs of the law, but if you were to make that claim, and take action with its far-reaching implications then I this would just be the first of many defense techniques brought against you. Either way, I doubt that you would "win" that easily.
Because all of the flavors have a sample "Northwind" db.
It's not about showing you how to create a HR or order entry app, its about showing you how to go about basic tasks that are easily explainable problems under those types of schemas.
Smaller and more efficient, but doesn't quite the performance of its derivatives. If you've got a high volume/availibility site then you have to use h1database as it won't get "stuck"
That next generation will be what decides the future of mainframes. I'm pretty close to fresh out, and everyone I know is all about the linux/oss bandwagon. I don't know a single person (my age) that has touched or even seen a mainframe (me included).
Without people to maintain these beasts, they will eventually fall by the wayside. If IBM really wants to keep this market going then they aren't going to do it with hardware/architecture advances, its going to be in gathering people to take over the support/development positions that are currently being held down by people closing in on retirement. The hardware might run for decades, but good look finding admins that will do the same...especially with our gens attitudes of company hoping to boost salaries (not that there is anything wrong with it).
Yep, just sad but true.
I know this sounds mean and anti-rural (my disclaimer: I grew up in a small town, parent still live there, grandparents do live in "rural area"), but all places aren't equal. While its nice to think that we should all have the same everything, it doesn't happen that way. I'm certainly not advocating everyone leaving the country side, but prioritize what you want in a house/home. If the ability to have cheap/free wireless or in some cases broadband at all (always DirectWay) is high on your priorities then don't move to the hills and expect to get it, or even to get it subsidized. Cable/Telco companines are businesses (I know we want to make them out to be mean and greedy) but they are going to make decisions that make "business sense." I doubt upgrading hundreds maybe thousands of miles of new line to pick up a handful of new customers will give them good ROI.
Bottom line, we make choices. The job we have, the place we work, etc. If we don't like those then we have the ability to change them...that's the beauty of the system. Use it to your advantage and hopefully have a great life!
haha, that is good. Tell it to all my grad-school friends, most of whom will agree
Well put and I agree. I frequently argue pro M$(devil's advocate style) that through M&A they are actually benefitting society. They take semi-mature products that have small market penetration (and smaller hopes of breaking through) and push them through their massive distribution channels. I know they probably lose some of the innovative momentum in the process, but I guess it's kinda like this: which is better helping a few people out a lot or helping a LOT of people out a little? FYI, there is no right answer...just different ways of looking at it.