Even if it did, XP (the primary OS this would be desired for tbh) doesn't have the necessary resource management necessary to fuel the power needed for the graphics processing that DX10 takes advantage of. Sure, you might get it working, but it would be slow as heck.
First off, why are you so angry? I mean really, think about that for a bit.
Secondly, I don't need to argue the point as it's moot. It's clear we both see it from different angles, but for grins, I'll give you mine anyway. Something that is viable of running an OS does not make it developable. You know what it makes it? An emulator. Everyone knew the PS3 would run Linux. Heck, Sony even wrote the code to integrate it's support during the 2.6.20 development. Misinterpretting my comment and then going on a tyrade doesn't justify your point. It merely shows how fanatical you are. I really hope you get some perspective soon.
That doesn't even make any sense. I didn't say the PS3 was physically uncrackable. What I illustrated with my "metaphor" as you put it is that it wasn't designed for that, nor documented. Perhaps it is you that should stick to...well, whatever it is you excel at.
Quote:
Translation: Having said all that, it is all bullshit because we will load you down with hypervisor restrictions and bullshit DRM that prevents you in some cases from exercising your legal rights and in others simply prevents you from utilizing all of the functionality of the machine.
---
Ya know, when I bought my alarm clock, no where in the documentation did it state I would be able to rip apart it's innards and utilize whatever components I wanted. It said it would keep time, and beep when I told it to beep.
You didn't pay for a development platform, you paid for a game console. If you feel you were mislead in any way then you should review the countless commercials and web ads that say differently. If you are able at some time to utilize it for those purposes, then that's great, but you have no basis for being angry at the potential lack of that ability.
CCP has taken the rare stance with EVE Online to include REAL repercussions to ship loss, including (but not limited to) skill point loss, ship loss (hope you had insurance, and if you had a faction ship, hope you don't mind not being compensated accordingly), and semi loss of modules. This has probably turned more players off to the game then it has turned on (although admittedly, those that like that kind of risk LOVE Eve, and rightfully so). With financial motivations ever present (I assume you have investors to answer to), is CCP likely to ever buckle under the pressure and make Eve into a more mainstream game with less risk that caters more to the "Care Bear" audience?
Show of hands? Sure, I'll bite, I'm on of em. I have a 1080p set on it's way, and so do a lot of other people. Although a little pricey (but coming down all the time), every one of the highend Sony Bravia LCD's (40", 46", and soon-to-be 52") all support it. Lots of other manufacturers are chugging them out too. Don't be so quick to think Microsoft wasted their time on this. This is quite possibly the best reason for people who are buying new TV's now to get the XBOX360 instead of waiting for the PS3.
"Warner's plan is to..."
"This should reflect enough light..."
"...to read it okay."
"But it should also..."
I'm not even sure they believe it'll work either with as much speculative wording as that.
If only Microsoft could keep a lid on something. They overhype all upcoming products to the point of coming under such scrutiny upon release that they have no hope but to dim compared to expectations. They might as well call this search engine Daikatana (for those who don't know, this was a long-hyped game that failed miserably due to expectations, as well as the fact that it kinda sucked). Google is great about preparing a product, quietly releasing it thru a link on their search engine and letting the users determine whether it's good or not. If it's great, it gets tons of exposure and word of mouth, but if it sucks, it quietly dies and few folks hear about it.
Here's Microsoft compared to a real-life scenario:
Friend: "Check it out man, the hottest chick you've ever seen is about to come around the corner"
Me: "Sweet"
*Eagerly Waits*
*Girl walks by*
Me: "Yea, she's alright"
(And if she's ugly, I'll always remember my friend thinking that bowser was a hottie)
Now here's how Google does that same scenario:
Friend: "Hey man, since I'm letting you borrow my Lexus, could you drop my friend off at their house just up the road?"
Me: "Sure!"
*Hot girl gets in car*
*Schwing!*
(And even if she isn't hot, I won't remember her 5 minutes after I drop her off)
That would be true if the PS3 was slated to cost a lot more then the XBox 360, but it's not. Since they can keep the price on par, it makes sense to include as much as you can and make a profit on the extra features as well. They could sell a cheaper version of course, but whether we consciously think it or not, we as consumers are inclined to think that a $350 Xbox 360 is better then a $250 PS3, merely because it costs more.
Chrysler announces it's latest offering of cars will not come with air conditioning or a back seat amongst other features. They are quoted as saying they want to focus on the "driving experience" only for now. They fear some potential buyers might be scared off by the superfluous features.
I'm not even worrying about the turnaround time, I'm talking merely about the fact that they won't even let you download a single patch from them unless you pay to access their Metalink site. Thre are lots of pieces of software that use Oracle as a backend, and the vendor's integration of Oracle's patches is sometimes unacceptable to the point where you want to get the native Oracle patch and just apply that directly to the product and take your chances (PTC's Intralink is a prime example), but you can't, because your license is through the vendor, not Oracle. I would liken that to nVidia saying, "We're not going to let you download and use reference drivers anymore, unless you pay us a fee, even though you have indirectly paid us a fee by purchasing the product that contained our chipset."
I'm not even worrying about the turnaround time, I'm talking merely about the fact that they won't even let you download a single patch from them unless you pay to access their Metalink site. Thre are lots of pieces of software that use Oracle as a backend, and the vendor's integration of Oracle's patches is sometimes unacceptable to the point where you want to get the native Oracle patch and just apply that directly to the product and take your chances (PTC's Intralink is a prime example), but you can't, because your license is through the vendor, not Oracle. I would liken that to nVidia saying, "We're not going to let you download and use reference drivers anymore, unless you pay us a fee, even though you have indirectly paid us a fee by buying the product that contained our chipset."
I know this is probably redundant, but is it possible for people to make a story submission relating to Microsoft without drawing imaginary horns and a "666" on their logo every time? I will grant that Micrsoft should probably release the patch to everyone right now for secuirty reasons, but I'm sure there are ample folks who use Oracle, and they won't give you *any* patches at *any* time, or allow you to peruse any of their Metalink site, without first paying.
References to computer network infrastructure as "cyber" sound very amateur to me. 1995 already happened. Could we please get an adult vocabulary and start talking about serious subjects with maturity? Thank you.
This may be very true for you and me, but the majority of the folks pushing papers that make the real decisons for our country need relatable terms.
I can't wait to get onto one of these 3-passenger cars, followed right behind by two thugs who proceed to make me the first casualty of this futuristic transit system.
Technical difficulty, sure.. I bet the pilot was busy getting laid or somthing. Pilots always get the women, especially when chicks know you fly a big powerful mach 10 jet!
Somehow I doubt this. The plane is only 12 feet long. That's virtually nothing compared to most planes, and you know what they say about the length of your aircraft:/
Optimist's response:
Maybe they were waiting for their activation code.
Pessimist's response:
They knowingly stole it.
Realist's response:
Even Microsoft has no use for MS Sound Editor.
You may have banned it, but it's still there. And in the Army, there are things called IAVA's (Information Assurance Vulnerability Alerts). They are simply the same Microsoft secutiy bulletin released by the Army with a date for compliance. So even if I don't have a single machine that has IE as it's default browser, I still have to have that machine compliant with security patches. And you can be sure there are scans conducted to insure compliance. You can also be sure of who's butt gets nailed to the wall if there is even one vulnerable machine found.
...because the IT folks like myself, the ones providing support have to patch for IE anyway because it's buried in the OS. Unless you make the browser removable, IT people making the recomendations are not going to want to support multiple browsers. A few may load Firefox just to make a moral stance, but the majority won't.
"analyse the statistical distributions of sounds...use this information to form phonemic categories...also learn phonotactic rules that govern the sequences of phonemes"
A baby can do this? I don't even know what it means, much less how to do it, and I haven't been a baby for at least a year or so now (give or take).
...would be if someone used one of the new Microsoft exploits to gain information off the guy's computer they suspect doing this (if anyone ever points a finger). If so, Microsoft could actually start marketing statistics that show how their vulnerabilites can save companies money.
He found a few more things he missed...after he finishes updating the page, he's going to make another page detailing the differences between the first page he released and the second.
There is the possibility, and the hope, that if/when we evolve beyond radio transmissions, we may still transmit signals that we perceive as detectable by other civilizations if for no other reason to establish contact. With that said, perhaps these other civilizations if more advanced then us, would follow the same line of thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if it did, XP (the primary OS this would be desired for tbh) doesn't have the necessary resource management necessary to fuel the power needed for the graphics processing that DX10 takes advantage of. Sure, you might get it working, but it would be slow as heck.
First off, why are you so angry? I mean really, think about that for a bit. Secondly, I don't need to argue the point as it's moot. It's clear we both see it from different angles, but for grins, I'll give you mine anyway. Something that is viable of running an OS does not make it developable. You know what it makes it? An emulator. Everyone knew the PS3 would run Linux. Heck, Sony even wrote the code to integrate it's support during the 2.6.20 development. Misinterpretting my comment and then going on a tyrade doesn't justify your point. It merely shows how fanatical you are. I really hope you get some perspective soon.
That doesn't even make any sense. I didn't say the PS3 was physically uncrackable. What I illustrated with my "metaphor" as you put it is that it wasn't designed for that, nor documented. Perhaps it is you that should stick to...well, whatever it is you excel at.
Quote: Translation: Having said all that, it is all bullshit because we will load you down with hypervisor restrictions and bullshit DRM that prevents you in some cases from exercising your legal rights and in others simply prevents you from utilizing all of the functionality of the machine. --- Ya know, when I bought my alarm clock, no where in the documentation did it state I would be able to rip apart it's innards and utilize whatever components I wanted. It said it would keep time, and beep when I told it to beep. You didn't pay for a development platform, you paid for a game console. If you feel you were mislead in any way then you should review the countless commercials and web ads that say differently. If you are able at some time to utilize it for those purposes, then that's great, but you have no basis for being angry at the potential lack of that ability.
CCP has taken the rare stance with EVE Online to include REAL repercussions to ship loss, including (but not limited to) skill point loss, ship loss (hope you had insurance, and if you had a faction ship, hope you don't mind not being compensated accordingly), and semi loss of modules. This has probably turned more players off to the game then it has turned on (although admittedly, those that like that kind of risk LOVE Eve, and rightfully so). With financial motivations ever present (I assume you have investors to answer to), is CCP likely to ever buckle under the pressure and make Eve into a more mainstream game with less risk that caters more to the "Care Bear" audience?
Show of hands? Sure, I'll bite, I'm on of em. I have a 1080p set on it's way, and so do a lot of other people. Although a little pricey (but coming down all the time), every one of the highend Sony Bravia LCD's (40", 46", and soon-to-be 52") all support it. Lots of other manufacturers are chugging them out too. Don't be so quick to think Microsoft wasted their time on this. This is quite possibly the best reason for people who are buying new TV's now to get the XBOX360 instead of waiting for the PS3.
"Warner's plan is to..." "This should reflect enough light..." "...to read it okay." "But it should also..." I'm not even sure they believe it'll work either with as much speculative wording as that.
If only Microsoft could keep a lid on something. They overhype all upcoming products to the point of coming under such scrutiny upon release that they have no hope but to dim compared to expectations. They might as well call this search engine Daikatana (for those who don't know, this was a long-hyped game that failed miserably due to expectations, as well as the fact that it kinda sucked). Google is great about preparing a product, quietly releasing it thru a link on their search engine and letting the users determine whether it's good or not. If it's great, it gets tons of exposure and word of mouth, but if it sucks, it quietly dies and few folks hear about it.
Here's Microsoft compared to a real-life scenario:
Friend: "Check it out man, the hottest chick you've ever seen is about to come around the corner"
Me: "Sweet"
*Eagerly Waits*
*Girl walks by*
Me: "Yea, she's alright"
(And if she's ugly, I'll always remember my friend thinking that bowser was a hottie)
Now here's how Google does that same scenario:
Friend: "Hey man, since I'm letting you borrow my Lexus, could you drop my friend off at their house just up the road?"
Me: "Sure!"
*Hot girl gets in car*
*Schwing!*
(And even if she isn't hot, I won't remember her 5 minutes after I drop her off)
That would be true if the PS3 was slated to cost a lot more then the XBox 360, but it's not. Since they can keep the price on par, it makes sense to include as much as you can and make a profit on the extra features as well. They could sell a cheaper version of course, but whether we consciously think it or not, we as consumers are inclined to think that a $350 Xbox 360 is better then a $250 PS3, merely because it costs more.
Chrysler announces it's latest offering of cars will not come with air conditioning or a back seat amongst other features. They are quoted as saying they want to focus on the "driving experience" only for now. They fear some potential buyers might be scared off by the superfluous features.
Now that you're done trying to make us think you're so smart and they're so stupid, where do you propose to get the sample of the DNA?
I'm not even worrying about the turnaround time, I'm talking merely about the fact that they won't even let you download a single patch from them unless you pay to access their Metalink site. Thre are lots of pieces of software that use Oracle as a backend, and the vendor's integration of Oracle's patches is sometimes unacceptable to the point where you want to get the native Oracle patch and just apply that directly to the product and take your chances (PTC's Intralink is a prime example), but you can't, because your license is through the vendor, not Oracle. I would liken that to nVidia saying, "We're not going to let you download and use reference drivers anymore, unless you pay us a fee, even though you have indirectly paid us a fee by purchasing the product that contained our chipset."
I'm not even worrying about the turnaround time, I'm talking merely about the fact that they won't even let you download a single patch from them unless you pay to access their Metalink site. Thre are lots of pieces of software that use Oracle as a backend, and the vendor's integration of Oracle's patches is sometimes unacceptable to the point where you want to get the native Oracle patch and just apply that directly to the product and take your chances (PTC's Intralink is a prime example), but you can't, because your license is through the vendor, not Oracle. I would liken that to nVidia saying, "We're not going to let you download and use reference drivers anymore, unless you pay us a fee, even though you have indirectly paid us a fee by buying the product that contained our chipset."
I know this is probably redundant, but is it possible for people to make a story submission relating to Microsoft without drawing imaginary horns and a "666" on their logo every time? I will grant that Micrsoft should probably release the patch to everyone right now for secuirty reasons, but I'm sure there are ample folks who use Oracle, and they won't give you *any* patches at *any* time, or allow you to peruse any of their Metalink site, without first paying.
References to computer network infrastructure as "cyber" sound very amateur to me. 1995 already happened. Could we please get an adult vocabulary and start talking about serious subjects with maturity? Thank you.
This may be very true for you and me, but the majority of the folks pushing papers that make the real decisons for our country need relatable terms.
I can't wait to get onto one of these 3-passenger cars, followed right behind by two thugs who proceed to make me the first casualty of this futuristic transit system.
Technical difficulty, sure.. I bet the pilot was busy getting laid or somthing. Pilots always get the women, especially when chicks know you fly a big powerful mach 10 jet!
Somehow I doubt this. The plane is only 12 feet long. That's virtually nothing compared to most planes, and you know what they say about the length of your aircraft
Optimist's response: Maybe they were waiting for their activation code. Pessimist's response: They knowingly stole it. Realist's response: Even Microsoft has no use for MS Sound Editor.
Something tells me that little Timmy is going to be a little disappointed if he gets a Gyroscope instead of Halo II.
You may have banned it, but it's still there. And in the Army, there are things called IAVA's (Information Assurance Vulnerability Alerts). They are simply the same Microsoft secutiy bulletin released by the Army with a date for compliance. So even if I don't have a single machine that has IE as it's default browser, I still have to have that machine compliant with security patches. And you can be sure there are scans conducted to insure compliance. You can also be sure of who's butt gets nailed to the wall if there is even one vulnerable machine found.
"analyse the statistical distributions of sounds...use this information to form phonemic categories...also learn phonotactic rules that govern the sequences of phonemes" A baby can do this? I don't even know what it means, much less how to do it, and I haven't been a baby for at least a year or so now (give or take).
He found a few more things he missed...after he finishes updating the page, he's going to make another page detailing the differences between the first page he released and the second.
There is the possibility, and the hope, that if/when we evolve beyond radio transmissions, we may still transmit signals that we perceive as detectable by other civilizations if for no other reason to establish contact. With that said, perhaps these other civilizations if more advanced then us, would follow the same line of thinking.