And why are people afraid of Orion? Beacuse just one launch would kill many people and release huge amounts of radiation, not a good thing, especially considering there are alternatives and that there would have to be significantly more than one launch to get it right. It is a rediculous idea and you have absolutly no idea what you are talking about.
That seems like it's the wrong way to do it as there is already a mechanism in the kernel to do what you are doing - cache. Is there no way to hint the kernel to cache specific directories?
no no no no no. This is a terrible idea. One of the beautiful things about bbc online is that anyone can read anything they like with no adverts and no shitty login screens. Quite frankly I couldn't be arsed with being pestered to enter my details all the time and all the baggage that comes with it.
This is one of the biggest resaons I use linux and free software. If I want soming I can just apt-get it, no bollocksing around with activation keys and CD case numbers and other shit like that that just exists because somehow they think that by putting these things in place they will make their software uncopiable even though every other system that they have tried didn't.
I don't want to be asked for any details, I just the content and if that means I pay more and others, who don't own a TV, get it for free so be it. Paying more is well worth avoiding the hassle and stress associated with being asked to validate my identity all the time.
Personally I think it looks really smart, clear and uncluttered and of course it is easier to downlaod and apply your own themes than windows which should appeal to the average home user.
I tend to change my theme every so often so as not to get bored, but on windows it was a case of blue, silver or classic and I would argue that all of them arn't as nice as industrial or gartoon in gnome
Because the only people who want to tinker with thier machines are rich? Or perhaps because windows CE never EVER goes wrong? Because linux is less stable and goes wrong more often perhaps?
I don't understand how it would affect the XBox deal. The XBox 2 will be based on the PowerPC architecture from IBM and will probably have little to do with intel.
I could concieve of a market for open source game engines seeing as many game developers release thier engines a few years down the line from their product. Games (with the exception of games by id software) are all about the gameplay experiance, story and to some extent graphics, but mainly in a textures, etc. sense.
There could be many advantages to a widly commercially used game engine that is open source including saving money for all those developers who just licence engines off other software houses including cost, familiarity (engines always need a bit of tweaking), high levels of optimisation (because everyone (i.e ati and nvidia) can chip in faster code for running on their particular chipset
Game software houses release a lot of game logic source already, and often it is the engine that they havn't put their life into.
A disadvantage of this however would be it would be easier for people to design cheats, etc. Like when the q2 engine was released. Stronger anti-cheating measures would have to be put in place which perhaps would have to be closed-source
I can't really see the entire process becoming more open as people really like the anticipation of waiting for a game and small bits of info leaking out every so often. Also people have enough problems with game piracy as it is without a full and legal version of a game being able to be downloaded for free off the internet before it hits the shops.
Also a more open process might make the strong creative process more difficult as it is easy for a group of 10 people in the same room with a whiteboard to communicate effectivly and for everyone to know thier roles and responsibilities, unlike in the open source world.
So in summerised engines: yes! Whole game: No! Change in developlment process: No!
That's all well and good, but the robot isn't most useful for books that are taken out regularly as these will be the most accessable books and the borrower can get the books themselves. It shines when a book hasn't been taken out in years/decades and it's hidden far away where people seldom visit and is not open to the public.
It would be easier for the robot, but not easier for the people, and that's what really counts. In large librarys where this would be really useful it is inconcieveable to RFID all the books by hand, so if you were to actually implement this you would need this robot or a simaler one to go round and do all the groundwork first. I think it just wouldn't be worth it. Instead of having to change millions of books, it's easier just to have a more intelligent robot.
This sounds like it could be really useful for managing archives. I know in Oxford they have a library called the Bod which has several miles of bookshelves underground as it has a copy of everything that has been published in the UK, but if you want somthing that isn't in the publicly accessable parts you need to order it and wait for the old bloke to take the bod train underground and get it for you, which can take a while. I envisage an underground colony of these little robots going about, organising things, retrieving books with a great increase in efficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
Rampant Rabbit?
Gnome, KDE, what's the other?
And why are people afraid of Orion? Beacuse just one launch would kill many people and release huge amounts of radiation, not a good thing, especially considering there are alternatives and that there would have to be significantly more than one launch to get it right. It is a rediculous idea and you have absolutly no idea what you are talking about.
That seems like it's the wrong way to do it as there is already a mechanism in the kernel to do what you are doing - cache. Is there no way to hint the kernel to cache specific directories?
no no no no no. This is a terrible idea. One of the beautiful things about bbc online is that anyone can read anything they like with no adverts and no shitty login screens. Quite frankly I couldn't be arsed with being pestered to enter my details all the time and all the baggage that comes with it.
This is one of the biggest resaons I use linux and free software. If I want soming I can just apt-get it, no bollocksing around with activation keys and CD case numbers and other shit like that that just exists because somehow they think that by putting these things in place they will make their software uncopiable even though every other system that they have tried didn't.
I don't want to be asked for any details, I just the content and if that means I pay more and others, who don't own a TV, get it for free so be it. Paying more is well worth avoiding the hassle and stress associated with being asked to validate my identity all the time.
And they equate the word communist with stalinist
Surely your mind is the software
£100000000000000000 pounds for the first person that can accomplish this in a week
There is no line from SCO unixware to linux
PCBs?
Personally I think it looks really smart, clear and uncluttered and of course it is easier to downlaod and apply your own themes than windows which should appeal to the average home user.
I tend to change my theme every so often so as not to get bored, but on windows it was a case of blue, silver or classic and I would argue that all of them arn't as nice as industrial or gartoon in gnome
For your more expensive pubs (not a weatherspoons) the price would be around the £2.50 mark, but in student unions it can be as low as £0.80
So you're missing the freedom to take away others freedom?
See here
Because the only people who want to tinker with thier machines are rich? Or perhaps because windows CE never EVER goes wrong? Because linux is less stable and goes wrong more often perhaps?
Please check your prejudice before you post
Because americans aren't the most polluting populace in the world?
I don't understand how it would affect the XBox deal. The XBox 2 will be based on the PowerPC architecture from IBM and will probably have little to do with intel.
when the ei becomes firefox :)
No, an aggressive patent portfolio is almost always bad, but this is a defensive one.
I could concieve of a market for open source game engines seeing as many game developers release thier engines a few years down the line from their product. Games (with the exception of games by id software) are all about the gameplay experiance, story and to some extent graphics, but mainly in a textures, etc. sense.
There could be many advantages to a widly commercially used game engine that is open source including saving money for all those developers who just licence engines off other software houses including cost, familiarity (engines always need a bit of tweaking), high levels of optimisation (because everyone (i.e ati and nvidia) can chip in faster code for running on their particular chipset
Game software houses release a lot of game logic source already, and often it is the engine that they havn't put their life into.
A disadvantage of this however would be it would be easier for people to design cheats, etc. Like when the q2 engine was released. Stronger anti-cheating measures would have to be put in place which perhaps would have to be closed-source
I can't really see the entire process becoming more open as people really like the anticipation of waiting for a game and small bits of info leaking out every so often. Also people have enough problems with game piracy as it is without a full and legal version of a game being able to be downloaded for free off the internet before it hits the shops.
Also a more open process might make the strong creative process more difficult as it is easy for a group of 10 people in the same room with a whiteboard to communicate effectivly and for everyone to know thier roles and responsibilities, unlike in the open source world.
So in summerised engines: yes! Whole game: No! Change in developlment process: No!
That's all well and good, but the robot isn't most useful for books that are taken out regularly as these will be the most accessable books and the borrower can get the books themselves. It shines when a book hasn't been taken out in years/decades and it's hidden far away where people seldom visit and is not open to the public.
It would be easier for the robot, but not easier for the people, and that's what really counts. In large librarys where this would be really useful it is inconcieveable to RFID all the books by hand, so if you were to actually implement this you would need this robot or a simaler one to go round and do all the groundwork first. I think it just wouldn't be worth it. Instead of having to change millions of books, it's easier just to have a more intelligent robot.
This sounds like it could be really useful for managing archives. I know in Oxford they have a library called the Bod which has several miles of bookshelves underground as it has a copy of everything that has been published in the UK, but if you want somthing that isn't in the publicly accessable parts you need to order it and wait for the old bloke to take the bod train underground and get it for you, which can take a while. I envisage an underground colony of these little robots going about, organising things, retrieving books with a great increase in efficiency.