Did you ~read~ what they were talking about? They were talking about the TIE/Advanced, which most definately does have shields.
Now go find your own table and stop taking up room at mine.
Under 'processer', it says 'AMD 2.0GHz Sempron Processor 2200+'.
Do even a tiny ammount of Googling, and you will see that the Sempron 2200+ is a 1.5 ghz chip. So, this means one of two things... either A) they're blatently lying about the clockspeed, or B) they're pre-overclocking the chips... which is the case?
If they're saying it's equivelant to a 2.0 ghz Intel chip in speed (which most AMD fans, myself included, would agree with), that's one thing. If they're pre-overclocking the chips, that's another (which some people will support, and others won't)... but in either case, they should be clearer in what they're saying and doing, since the way they're saying things now is somewhat suspicious.
GTA: San Andreas?
Explain to me, which part of WINE allows you to emulate a Playstation 2?
It seems extremely impressive that a Windows API emulator could manage to run a game that doesn't even EXIST on Windows.
Even more importantly, it will allow for more efficient duping.
One core can be working on posting a story, while the other core posts the exact same story.
This way there wouldn't be that irritating lag while you wait for the dupe to be posting.
Most hardware keyloggers can be easily disabled by reaching behind the case and unplugging the damn thing.
Yes, there are some that reside within the casing of the keyboard, but if you've got people who're that desperate for your personal information after you, you probably have bigger problems to worry about.
Purely playing devil's advocate here, but why should a user choose to use Linux over Windows on a machine like that, when it means having to deal with a stripped down '*box' style desktop rather than a full desktop environment ?
On a P-II 350mhz/192mb, a Linux user gets either a '*box' or slow, cludgy performance.
On the other hand, my girlfriend runs Windows XP on a somewhat weaker P-II 266mhz/128mb and after simply tweaking the Performance setting to 'Adjust for best performance' it runs at a surprisingly usable speed.
I'm not trying to talk up Microsoft here, I'm as much of a Linux fan as most people here... I'm just saying that if MS's latest and greatest can perform perfectly usably running a full desktop environment on 5-6 year old hardware like this, why can't ours?
The KDE/Gnome/X.org teams really need to work on optimizing and cutting out bloat.
Of course you haven't. It won't complain, and, most of the time, won't tell you that your card doesn't support it, in the same way the game doesn't list the rest of your video card's specifications in it's control panel... it assumes you know the specs of your own card. It's a control panel for the graphics settings in the game, not a graphics card informational providing thingy. It just gives you settings to turn on and off the features the game uses. The number of games that mention the directx level of your card is surprisingly small (one example of a game that does is Half-Life 2, which will list both 'hardware directx level' and 'software directx level' in it's graphics pane.
As for why it doesn't complain, well, the game just won't use those features. If the game calls for a shader your card doesn't support, the card will fail to recognize the command, and you won't get that effect on whatever's being rendered, making it correspondingly less pretty. Ever noticed how in some games, in the graphics settings (often in some 'advanced' subpanel) an option or two might be visible but 'greyed out' or otherwise unable to be tinkered with? Your card not supporting the right level of DirectX for the game is usually why it's greyed out.
And yes, people do buy cards based on their DirectX level. They're called gamers.
Solaris get certified? While I haven't read the details of the proposed standard, I'm pretty sure that given the name, for a distribution to be certified it has to be, at the very least, well... ~A LINUX DISTRIBUTION~.
Solaris may be Unix but it definately isn't Linux, whether closed-source or open.
If they certify Sun they may as well certify Microsoft.
People've been going on and on about how it's silly to have different versions of the standard using examples like having a Debian LSB and a Mandrake LSB, and so on, which to me just seems an absurd way to do things.
I haven't read TFA, but the first interpretation that struck me seems to be one that few people have mentioned so far. Perhaps, having multiple standards doesn't mean there are multiple standards for the same basic thing, but that each basic thing has a standard that a distro can comply or not comply with seperately of others.
So, for instance (making up names for hypothetical distros and programs for the sake of example), the LSB Packager standard might specify the use of gnupackager, the LSB Window Manager Standard might specify the use of SpiffyWM, and the LSB Compression Standard might specify the use of Linzip.
The ZippyLinux distribution, which uses gnupackager, SpiffyWM, and Linzip, would be compliant with all three standards.
On the other hand, the MondoLinux distro, using gnupackager for packaging, SuperWindows for a window manager, and Linzip would be compliant with the LSB Packager Standard and the LSB Compression Standard but would not be compliant with the LSB Window Manager Standard.
A compression GUI frontend might specify that it runs on distros compliant with the LSB Compression Standard and the LSB Window Manager Standard, and you'd know from reading this that it would work on SpiffyLinux but that MondoLinux might have problems.
If this is the approach they're taking, it could be quite useful.
Conveniently enough, right clicking the icon and then right clicking 'rename' does the exact same thing as right clicking the icon and then left clicking 'rename'.
Maybe you'd sit there in plain sight of the robot, wait for someone to come in, and yell at them if they're a stranger. Eventually the robot should, theoretically, learn to that you don't yell at certain people, who it would by then hopefully recognize, but yell at all others, and could be set up to imitate your behaviour.
I tried to compile this comment, but partways through it exited with an error. After scanning through your text, I think I found the problem... in paragraph three, you're trying to use a variable, X, to represent a number, when you've already previously defined it as a string earlier in the paragraph.
Try using a variable you haven't already defined to hold a string (I.E., anything other than X, Y or Z) to represent time and you might have better luck.
It could be, just maybe, that Microsoft is doing something that, in some twisted, demented way, makes some sort of sense as a move to strengthen it's hold on it's primary market - the average, barely computer literate home user.
Think about it. Longhorn comes out. All the typical, non-geek home users run out to buy a new computer so they can use Longhorn. Why? Because, as has been established so often, the average user is ~used to~ buying a newer computer sothey can run the newest version of windows.
So, now they have Longhorn, and good god is it pretty. Unnecessarily pretty, yes. Inneficiently pretty, since it takes up all kinds of resources to keep running. But the average user is unaware these kinds of resources even exist, so what does he see? Damn, that's pretty... those are some sweet transparency effects, and don't you love all the neat little animations?
Now, what happens when this same user sees someone running a Linux desktop? Even with the prettiest set of KDE themes and widgets you can find.
I'll tell you what he thinks. He thinks, 'Hey, that doesn't look nearly as nice as my Windows box... it barely even looks any better than that old version of Windows (i.e. Windows XP)' and immediately dismisses Linux as being obsolete and 'old-fashioned' because 'look how much prettier Longhorn is, it must be more advanced'.
A bit of a twisted thinking from Microsoft, but if you look at it like that, you have to admit it does kinda make sense.
I know what you're getting at... that the same complete freedom that lets us do whatever we want on the net lets them send us piles and piles of spam, right?
What you've missed is that this same 'complete freedom on the internet' would allow us to DDOS their servers into oblivion.
It'd even allow us to set up something kinda like SETI@home, only that instead of using your spare CPU power and bandwidth to find aliens, it'd be donated to DDOSing spam servers.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you ~read~ what they were talking about? They were talking about the TIE/Advanced, which most definately does have shields. Now go find your own table and stop taking up room at mine.
Under 'processer', it says 'AMD 2.0GHz Sempron Processor 2200+'.
Do even a tiny ammount of Googling, and you will see that the Sempron 2200+ is a 1.5 ghz chip. So, this means one of two things... either A) they're blatently lying about the clockspeed, or B) they're pre-overclocking the chips... which is the case?
If they're saying it's equivelant to a 2.0 ghz Intel chip in speed (which most AMD fans, myself included, would agree with), that's one thing. If they're pre-overclocking the chips, that's another (which some people will support, and others won't)... but in either case, they should be clearer in what they're saying and doing, since the way they're saying things now is somewhat suspicious.
Am I the only one who initially read this as 'NASA Ponders Postponing Lunch until July'?
GTA: San Andreas? Explain to me, which part of WINE allows you to emulate a Playstation 2? It seems extremely impressive that a Windows API emulator could manage to run a game that doesn't even EXIST on Windows.
Seems to me that with ~two~ high end cards like 6800GTs, cooling would be even more of an issue. What are they doing to deal with the extra heat?
Even more importantly, it will allow for more efficient duping. One core can be working on posting a story, while the other core posts the exact same story. This way there wouldn't be that irritating lag while you wait for the dupe to be posting.
Most hardware keyloggers can be easily disabled by reaching behind the case and unplugging the damn thing. Yes, there are some that reside within the casing of the keyboard, but if you've got people who're that desperate for your personal information after you, you probably have bigger problems to worry about.
Hey, look... in the third line of the article it says that the new disc we're discussing is using unionfs. How convenient.
There are eight. That's why you don't hear them.
If there are more fans, they can run at a lower speed individually, and thus generate less noise.
Nontechnical, obviously.
Purely playing devil's advocate here, but why should a user choose to use Linux over Windows on a machine like that, when it means having to deal with a stripped down '*box' style desktop rather than a full desktop environment ? On a P-II 350mhz/192mb, a Linux user gets either a '*box' or slow, cludgy performance. On the other hand, my girlfriend runs Windows XP on a somewhat weaker P-II 266mhz/128mb and after simply tweaking the Performance setting to 'Adjust for best performance' it runs at a surprisingly usable speed. I'm not trying to talk up Microsoft here, I'm as much of a Linux fan as most people here... I'm just saying that if MS's latest and greatest can perform perfectly usably running a full desktop environment on 5-6 year old hardware like this, why can't ours? The KDE/Gnome/X.org teams really need to work on optimizing and cutting out bloat.
Wine emulates the Windows API... it does not emulate the x86 instruction set.
So even if Wine was for some reason compiled to run on Power, you'd still have to add something to emulate an x86 chip.
Yes, of course this could be emulated. Read the original post, the guy's point was to do this ~without~ emulation.
Because all the playstation games would need to be rewritten.
Does the Mac have the ~EXACT SAME~ DVD drive at the PS2 does? Nope? Guess you'll have to rewrite the code.
Does the Mac have the exact same USB and Firewire controllers as the PS2? No? Guess you'll have to rewrite that too.
How about the hard drive? Nope? Okay, add it to the list of code to rewrite.
Part of why consoles work so flawlessly is that they're designed to work with a very, ~VERY~ specific set of hardware.
Of course you haven't. It won't complain, and, most of the time, won't tell you that your card doesn't support it, in the same way the game doesn't list the rest of your video card's specifications in it's control panel... it assumes you know the specs of your own card. It's a control panel for the graphics settings in the game, not a graphics card informational providing thingy. It just gives you settings to turn on and off the features the game uses. The number of games that mention the directx level of your card is surprisingly small (one example of a game that does is Half-Life 2, which will list both 'hardware directx level' and 'software directx level' in it's graphics pane. As for why it doesn't complain, well, the game just won't use those features. If the game calls for a shader your card doesn't support, the card will fail to recognize the command, and you won't get that effect on whatever's being rendered, making it correspondingly less pretty. Ever noticed how in some games, in the graphics settings (often in some 'advanced' subpanel) an option or two might be visible but 'greyed out' or otherwise unable to be tinkered with? Your card not supporting the right level of DirectX for the game is usually why it's greyed out. And yes, people do buy cards based on their DirectX level. They're called gamers.
Solaris get certified? While I haven't read the details of the proposed standard, I'm pretty sure that given the name, for a distribution to be certified it has to be, at the very least, well... ~A LINUX DISTRIBUTION~. Solaris may be Unix but it definately isn't Linux, whether closed-source or open. If they certify Sun they may as well certify Microsoft.
People've been going on and on about how it's silly to have different versions of the standard using examples like having a Debian LSB and a Mandrake LSB, and so on, which to me just seems an absurd way to do things.
I haven't read TFA, but the first interpretation that struck me seems to be one that few people have mentioned so far. Perhaps, having multiple standards doesn't mean there are multiple standards for the same basic thing, but that each basic thing has a standard that a distro can comply or not comply with seperately of others.
So, for instance (making up names for hypothetical distros and programs for the sake of example), the LSB Packager standard might specify the use of gnupackager, the LSB Window Manager Standard might specify the use of SpiffyWM, and the LSB Compression Standard might specify the use of Linzip.
The ZippyLinux distribution, which uses gnupackager, SpiffyWM, and Linzip, would be compliant with all three standards.
On the other hand, the MondoLinux distro, using gnupackager for packaging, SuperWindows for a window manager, and Linzip would be compliant with the LSB Packager Standard and the LSB Compression Standard but would not be compliant with the LSB Window Manager Standard.
A compression GUI frontend might specify that it runs on distros compliant with the LSB Compression Standard and the LSB Window Manager Standard, and you'd know from reading this that it would work on SpiffyLinux but that MondoLinux might have problems.
If this is the approach they're taking, it could be quite useful.
Conveniently enough, right clicking the icon and then right clicking 'rename' does the exact same thing as right clicking the icon and then left clicking 'rename'.
Could someone give me a link to something that uses a PCI-E x1 slot? So far all the PCI-E cards I've seen have been graphics cards using the x16 slot.
Maybe you'd sit there in plain sight of the robot, wait for someone to come in, and yell at them if they're a stranger. Eventually the robot should, theoretically, learn to that you don't yell at certain people, who it would by then hopefully recognize, but yell at all others, and could be set up to imitate your behaviour.
I tried to compile this comment, but partways through it exited with an error. After scanning through your text, I think I found the problem... in paragraph three, you're trying to use a variable, X, to represent a number, when you've already previously defined it as a string earlier in the paragraph. Try using a variable you haven't already defined to hold a string (I.E., anything other than X, Y or Z) to represent time and you might have better luck.
It could be, just maybe, that Microsoft is doing something that, in some twisted, demented way, makes some sort of sense as a move to strengthen it's hold on it's primary market - the average, barely computer literate home user. Think about it. Longhorn comes out. All the typical, non-geek home users run out to buy a new computer so they can use Longhorn. Why? Because, as has been established so often, the average user is ~used to~ buying a newer computer sothey can run the newest version of windows. So, now they have Longhorn, and good god is it pretty. Unnecessarily pretty, yes. Inneficiently pretty, since it takes up all kinds of resources to keep running. But the average user is unaware these kinds of resources even exist, so what does he see? Damn, that's pretty... those are some sweet transparency effects, and don't you love all the neat little animations? Now, what happens when this same user sees someone running a Linux desktop? Even with the prettiest set of KDE themes and widgets you can find. I'll tell you what he thinks. He thinks, 'Hey, that doesn't look nearly as nice as my Windows box... it barely even looks any better than that old version of Windows (i.e. Windows XP)' and immediately dismisses Linux as being obsolete and 'old-fashioned' because 'look how much prettier Longhorn is, it must be more advanced'. A bit of a twisted thinking from Microsoft, but if you look at it like that, you have to admit it does kinda make sense.
No shit, Sherlock.
Yeah, because we don't have this hypothetical 'complete freedom on the internet'.
I know what you're getting at... that the same complete freedom that lets us do whatever we want on the net lets them send us piles and piles of spam, right?
What you've missed is that this same 'complete freedom on the internet' would allow us to DDOS their servers into oblivion.
It'd even allow us to set up something kinda like SETI@home, only that instead of using your spare CPU power and bandwidth to find aliens, it'd be donated to DDOSing spam servers.