How do you mean tracking jobs as they arrive / leave? Barcode scanned objects on arrival or similar? We've adapted various business practices to take advantage of RTs strengths, and pretty much most of our company uses RT to one extent or another, from IT through to sales. We've set up autoforwarders on our mail servers so that e-faxes to certain numbers arrive in particular queues, we've got cron jobs setup to send e-mails out for regular departmental tasks and so on.
Well you could take the view that the other countries, the UK included (I'm English), have a responsibility for their own borders. Just because you buy a.50 cal machine gun in the US doesn't mean I'm allowed to stick it in the hold and bring it out in the UK (or even drive into Canada with it).
The NRC is US body to regulate activities inside the US so in this case nothing to complain about.
People routinely smuggle drugs, weapons and the like into and out of most countries of the world. By allowing a fake company to purchase such materials puts the distinct possibility in place that terrorists could get hold of the material this way and then just have to work out the logistics of transport. They're taking away what should be one of the more difficult stages, and just leaving them one smaller one (albeit hopefully not the easiest) to work out.
are not sufficient for protecting the American people.
So the rest of the world can be damned whilst the US is granting license to fake companies to acquire materials to make dirty bombs with that could be used anywhere in the world? When will the American media wake up and realise there is a wider world out there that isn't made of terrorist and that contains countries terrorists will, and do, attack. From bombs on the London Underground, to bombs on Spanish trains, and numerous thwarted attempts all around Europe, just for a few examples.
Glad to know you're looking out for our safety too.
It's easy to explain what would happen with this (it is basically a variation on the grandfather paradox.) As you send the information back events are changed, but just not in your timeline. Basically at the moment your message is received in the past, a new timeline branches off. This keeps happening, creating an ever wider group of timelines. A large temporal bubble is created between the time you send the message and when the message is received. Eventually, something will cause the sending of the message to fail (Power outage, hardware failure, somebody not receiving or understanding the message, typo, etc etc etc. At that point, temporal paradoxes are solved and the other timelines collapse leaving the event of trying to send the message back in time, but failing. Although with the information based paradox, it would be possible to break the cycle by also sending back instructions to make the message available to the future sender. Then the message can be sent back, even if the event you wish to prevent does not occur.
Of course.. its all so simple now. Can't imagine why I didn't think of that in the first place!:-) On a serious note, that does very much pre-suppose on the concept of parallel universes, and at best that can be classified as in the realm of pure speculation on behalf of scientists desperate to find ways to explain behaviour of quantum effects. It may be true, but it is just a hypothesis and should in no way be considered a scientific theory.
Dear Mr Bush Now would be a really good time to consider adoption. Thanks The future
But then he'd never get to be president, so you'd never know to send a message back in time about it, so he would get to be the president, so you would know to send a message back in time about it.. etc. etc. etc. etc.
If this works the potential for serious temporal causality loops is immense. Makes me wonder if its even possible to achieve time travel, or if it is what steps if any the universe will take to protect itself.
Either that or our perceptions of the universe, being locked in free movement in 3 directions, and fixed movement in the fourth, could be in for some major changes.
Guess you missed out on the Gates of Ahn Qiraj event, the introduction of cross-realm battlegrounds, the invasion of the Scourge when the Lich Kings fortresses were over Ironforge itself, the continuing battles between the Horde and the Alliance in Silithus and Eastern Plaguelands, and so on. No, you heard that people fight Onyxia once a week, and based off that decided that there's no way to have a lasting effect on the world.
No.. actually I was well aware of those. Not bad for GM driven events too.
Take "Gates of Ahn'Qiraj" for example, a rather long winded process requiring mass loads of effort from various guilds co-operating together. For what? A few rare items from all I could see. Opening the gate spawns a few more large bosses to fight, so more of the same. You kill them and nothing actually happens in the game; just a chance that you might get some good loot.
The Scourge Invasion seemed to ultimately result in just a few rare items, nothing that actually impacts your "average joe on the street" too
Horizons was doing larger impact events a few years back. Initial stages involved invading islands with a well balanced team and collecting crystals and attacking some artifacts IIRC. However Horizons was run on awful servers and most times attacking the artifacts you'd be lucky to get 1 update a second on your screen, often staying that way until a load of mobs had spawned and wiped out your entire force. Tack on that the artifacts literally had around 1m HP, and that no matter how good your weapon was you'd only ever do 1 damage per hit and hardly surprisingly people got cheesed off. When the artifacts were finally destroyed a hidden race was unlocked and some new areas on the maps opened up presenting the next challenge which required building up stockpiles of materials (seem familiar to you?) and constructing various artifacts and buildings whilst allies fought off attacking hordes; resulting in the cleaning up of a once infested undead area and adding in many more things for players to do. Same hassles with lag abounded as before though, which has to be one of the main reasons so many people left the game. When you can't even gather a gang of 15 without getting lag, on what was already a dated looking gfx engine you know something is very wrong:)
Eve actually has very few GM driven events, although there is a focus towards that more recently in line with the introduction of more inter-racial combat with various large alliances working in conjunction with so-called pirate (outlaw) factions on various events. Almost all of the action that dramatically affects the game is caused by the day to day actions of players; from the intricate workings of diplomacy and politics that only tens of thousands of players world wide could cause, through to the actions of a new trade or industrial cartel. Take a look at Eve's latest political map, then compare it to the map from, say, June last year. The biggest political change there probably has to be the complete break-up of the old G/IRON alliance of alliances. Arguments rolled on for months back and forth about all the steps that led up to the implosion, but no final concensus was ever reached. G/IRON had been rolling all over opposition for probably a year; and many corps paid them for protection and the use of their space through mining and hunting passes. For various reasons "Stain- alliance"[sic] came about and took over the area then inhabited by Stain Empire who seemingly rolled over and played dead. G/IRON came in to rectify the situation, then seemingly backstabbed Ascendant Frontier, though to the innocent observer it seemed more a case of mis-understanding exasperated by trigger happy pilots. Queue a month and a half of intense fighting on forever changing fronts, and forever changing ship setups, ultimately resulting in ASCN defending its territory though
Maybe the fact that you have a job is putting a downer on things;) I haven't played it myself, but aren't long trips are just a matter of fact when it comes to space travel? Maybe you're missing a hyper/warp/whatever-drive? Anyway, to be involved in a game at the level the GP mentioned requires other parts of life to take a back seat IMO.. very difficult to live 2 lives fully, it's probably one or the other (I used to love gaming, still do enjoy them, but I don't want to get into anything too deep just now, I prefer the immediacy of things like CS, games where the depth comes from your level of actual skill, games that you can drop and pickup anytime, rather than games with empires or skill points that you have to build up over time and need to be constantly involved in to get anywhere/keep up to date)
Eve is possibly a little too open at the start, ditching players in without a full grasp of the enormity of the game or what they can do. People often complain that all they do is mine, or trade. I can't be arsed with all that jazz, my primary focus on creation of a new character is to get them built up on their combat aspects and focus on agent missions.
Ideally every new player should be encouraged to join a corporation like Eve-University, a completely player run corporation with the sole intention of teaching players not only to play, but to enjoy Eve, covering every aspect from building to fighting.
Strangely enough you can actually play Eve with a fairly low dedication to actual playing time. Its one of the reasons I like it as my play time is pretty low compared to many MMORGPers; I always fall so far behind on stuff like WoW that I just can't be bothered.
Eve's biggest advantage in this regard is that skills are learnt in real time, not game time; so even if I play just 2 hours a week, provided I juggle my skill training and put on a long skill I'll be no better off than having done 20 hours. The only difference comes down to how much is in your wallet.
Corporations are the key in Eve, like in other MMORPGS. Its essential to find a good group of people to play with and chat with, get advice on the game, and have fun. If I hadn't come across the right bunch of people I probably wouldn't have remained in game past 6 months.
You know, in 3-4 months, I can have a character up to 60 in full tier 1 and enjoying end game content. And a few decent alts. And that's not even with obsessive life-controlling playing either, just casual play. I don't have the attention span to drudge through "the first 3-4 months". If they can't make a game that's interesting in a day, I'm not interested at all.
What does that level 60 character get you? What impact do you have on the game? What does trudging through yet another elite complex actually do to the overall "immersive" and "interactive" world? Squat diddly. Essentially in WoW and so many other MMORPGs no matter how good your character, no matter what you do, nothing actually changes. Horizons tried to change this with a very large story arc where you could work towards making a huge change in game, but was absolutely rubbish with god-awful graphics engine and attrociously underpowered servers.
Eve Online is hugely different. Get out of the 'empire' and 'n00b friendly' zones and get out to 0.0 and all of a sudden you're in lawless space. Whatever laws you and your friends choose to apply, apply. Its kinda like the wild west out there, a new frontier. The political map changes from day to day, month to month. New alliances form and take land, other alliances come in and fight for it and take it away. Change is on such a huge scale and every individual pilot can make a huge impact in that; be that as leader of a large alliance, or just a minor member of a corporation. The industrialists impact the abilities of the warriors, and vice versa. The more territory the warriors fight for and defend, the better access to the basic materials needed by industrialists, and thus the cheaper it is to produce items for the warriors. With such a no law environment and such a loose structure that CCP have provided there is a role for every type of character, be it industrialist, politician, teacher, fighter, trucker, spy or any other role you could care to develop.
If the choice is between 4 months of achieving nothing in a game other than a figure beside my name, or 4 months in which I can have an impact in a whole universe and make a difference, it's not really hard to guess which one I'd choose.
Texas Instruments invented the microprocessor, not Intel, so you've just denied Intel's entire existence.
If the parent post had said "Intel always shows a 'Not Invented Here' attitude" then your logic would have been correct, but it didn't. The post said 'often', which is not the same as 'always'.
If people want multiple of threads of execution on the same processor then they should get one with two cores.
If you read the article / summary you'd see what its talking about are servers that come with HT enabled by default. Thinking off the top of my head I can't come up with a single Intel processor still being sold and used in servers today that doesn't have HT technology built in. We're not talking about people specifically buying HT processors looking to get a performance boost, we're talking about every single individual who is buying or has bought an Intel server certainly within the last year or two. I've certainly noticed HT being enabled by default on our servers over the past couple of years. Novell has always strongly advised against it, so its always been turned off not long after they're powered up for the first time.
From the way the article reads, the software companies are expressing concern that HT is being enabled by default on server, rather than that they're baffled why its causing slower performance. It even goes so far as to point out that the shared L1 and L2 cache is the problem.
I'm was a little bemused to see this article, when less than a week ago MIT were demonstrating a $100 variation, thats portable, and even has its own screen, and is capable of running a full version of Windows!
I have seen some flakeyness on more bleeding edge distros, X11 crashing, apps crashing. One of my boxes, I have troubled hardware support for my Promise SATA controller and large data transfers would cause system lockups all the time.
I've seen the same, which is why if I really want to reccomend a distro for stability I'd chuck Debian on a system, particularly if its a mission critical server. I've got and use RHEL4 at work, but it is rediculously bloated, but whilst it works I'm reluctant to go through the hassles of a re-install
and Linus' trademark licensing of Linux, we are seeing a very real trend developing.
Linus's trademark licensing of Linux is merely a protection to counter offensive marketing by other 'non-OSS friendly' corporations. Its' like some music artists that copyright their songs, but make them available free for anyone to perform or use, just with permission. The main purpose of the copyright is not to make money, but to ensure that the lyrics are used in the context the writer chose. This is no different, the trademark is not to 'cash in' on its popularity at all, but to control the way the brand name is used.
Your methodology of posting is very interesting, taking unconnected events of minor consequence, trying to push some relevancy through to a reference to IP, which is yet another issue entirely. From the article itself, the Mambo Foundation has been granted an irrevocable, perpetual, royalty free licence, thus negating any issues with IP.
Like others here, I disagree with the BBC article, but for different reasons.
The lack of interest in Windows Vista is not because of Linux, linux still has a way to go to affect the average would-be-geek. Its certainly got a long way to go still to tempt most people away from Windows. (and I even like and use Linux)
The main reason I reckon there is a lack of interest in Windows Vista is because a) It offers nothing new, really; and b) XP works just fine thankyou.
What does Vista really offer us that makes it worthwhile me upgrading this Windows XP install? New GUI? Screw that, this one works fine thank you, and doesn't have heavy GPU/CPU usage to boot.... and so on and so forth.
There was a big interest in XP because it did offer something new. IT was a huge shift, going from an already overworked and unstable 9x kernel, onto the far superior NT kernel, which had already proven itself nicely under Win 2k on the desktop. I upgraded pretty damn fast to XP, and haven't looked back since, its more stable, takes more of a punishment, and when a program does crash it doesn't take the whole OS with it.
Vista brings nothing really worthwhile to the table. Its like the difference between Office 97 and Office 2000. Sure there are differences, but 90% of the users won't even notice them.
Personally, I'm not fussed by adverts on sites, I ignore them routinely anyway. The only type of advert that continues to annoy me are intrusive ones, be it pop ups, or this damned annoying flash things that plonk themselves right in the middle of the content you're looking at.
Actually Step one is tax TV. The BBC is funded by Brittish Tax Payers and a bit by selling TV advertising
Why on earth is everyone convinced we have a Tax on TVs here?! Its a licence, not a tax. If you don't have a TV capable of picking up TV signals, you don't have to pay anything. Simple. (Also, if you have a B&W TV you pay less.) The government sets the licence fee, thats it. The BBC is not run by the Government. There is no advertising on the BBC, except the BBC advertising any services its offering (like bitesize revision help), or forthcoming TV programs, and those adverts always come in between programs, never during a program. The BBC is much more willing to take gambles with new product ideas, new artists etc. generally leading to a far better quality of television. They don't have to play the 'lets keep the advertisers happy' game, which keeps sure-bet programs running interminally like you see elsewhere in the world. Even our commercial TV benefits from the BBC being this way, as they have to actively compete with them. The BBC is a fantastic idea, and it works. Its as close to a truly independant broadcasting company as its possible to get. I know this is slashdot, but if you're going to talk about something knowledgably, make sure you know what you're talking about.
Or such classics in, for example, CSI: Miami, in the episode with the web porn site. Quite a reasonable level of technical consultation must have been made because a good amount of the details were correct, barring the stupid graphical reconstruction of data from a hard disk that you can just about grudgingly accept. Why, then, did they go and use a totally impossible IP address number (5 or 6 8 bit numbers long)? Sure there is that whole "Can't use a real number" thing from security, kinda like using 555 as an area code for phone numbers, but at least they could have used a private address block number like 192.168.0.25, which would have had meaning without compromising anyones security/privacy.
Tragically (thankfully?) the music industry isn't the government. They only look as far as their own wallets and purely in the short term purposes, afterall they've got their shareholders to satisfy. Sod serious declines in sales two years down the line, damaged country economy and what have you, its purely the profits this year that count for anything.
Shortsightedness, the curse of our current capitalist model, potentially strikes itself out once again. Bring back more entrepreneurs running businesses, at least they're more inclined to see the bigger picture and to take risks.
I would call bull on your bull but it would seem childish. The BBC broadcasts a 15mbps MPEG video stream. On an ordinary TV at TV resolutions the artifacts are not really noticeable, unless you're right up to the screen. The only time I see them is when I watch digital tv on my pc, which works at a much higher resolution than a TV screen does. The image clarity over that of an ordinary analogue signal is undeniable. Even with the good strong signal that we get here (with little between us an the transmitter outside of the odd stray pigeon), and the signal amplifier in the roof, there is still signs of analogue artifacts in a normal image, like slight fuzzyness. The overall effect is that whilst not conciously noticeable from a distance, when you switch to a digital feed the image looks subtly but perceptibly clearer.
Not sure what digital prices are like in the US, but here in England you can pick up a digital set-top box for around £25 ($47) at our local supermarket, and thats a one off payment. Thats exactly what it cost for my household to switch from 'old technology' to 'newfangled technology'. If we were talking about £100 ($190) or something I'd be more inclined to agree with you, but when you're talking about such a small cost there really is little justification in claiming its too expensive. The UK is rapidly approaching its digital cutoff date (2006 ~ 2007 IIRC), but no one is kicking up much of a fuss about it as most families can afford the change. The improvements in picture quality is worth the money alone.
Yeah, relative to the sun, but what about within the galaxy, or within the universe? our solar system moves much faster than that through the galaxy, the galaxy moves faster through the universe, in relation to other galaxies, of course.
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'
I reckon timing is about right.. its been, what, 5 or 6 months since the last time 'Dell might have been going to do AMD'. I've lost count of how many times this has been claimed, its certainly been going on for something like 5 years now. I'll believe in an AMD based Dell the moment I see one for sale on their website. Till then the speculation is pointless, Dell have always done this to ensure Intel continue to give them good prices.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you mean tracking jobs as they arrive / leave? Barcode scanned objects on arrival or similar?
We've adapted various business practices to take advantage of RTs strengths, and pretty much most of our company uses RT to one extent or another, from IT through to sales. We've set up autoforwarders on our mail servers so that e-faxes to certain numbers arrive in particular queues, we've got cron jobs setup to send e-mails out for regular departmental tasks and so on.
Well you could take the view that the other countries, the UK included (I'm English), have a responsibility for their own borders. Just because you buy a .50 cal machine gun in the US doesn't mean I'm allowed to stick it in the hold and bring it out in the UK (or even drive into Canada with it).
The NRC is US body to regulate activities inside the US so in this case nothing to complain about.
People routinely smuggle drugs, weapons and the like into and out of most countries of the world. By allowing a fake company to purchase such materials puts the distinct possibility in place that terrorists could get hold of the material this way and then just have to work out the logistics of transport. They're taking away what should be one of the more difficult stages, and just leaving them one smaller one (albeit hopefully not the easiest) to work out.
are not sufficient for protecting the American people.
So the rest of the world can be damned whilst the US is granting license to fake companies to acquire materials to make dirty bombs with that could be used anywhere in the world? When will the American media wake up and realise there is a wider world out there that isn't made of terrorist and that contains countries terrorists will, and do, attack. From bombs on the London Underground, to bombs on Spanish trains, and numerous thwarted attempts all around Europe, just for a few examples.
Glad to know you're looking out for our safety too.
It's easy to explain what would happen with this (it is basically a variation on the grandfather paradox.) As you send the information back events are changed, but just not in your timeline. Basically at the moment your message is received in the past, a new timeline branches off. This keeps happening, creating an ever wider group of timelines. A large temporal bubble is created between the time you send the message and when the message is received. Eventually, something will cause the sending of the message to fail (Power outage, hardware failure, somebody not receiving or understanding the message, typo, etc etc etc. At that point, temporal paradoxes are solved and the other timelines collapse leaving the event of trying to send the message back in time, but failing. Although with the information based paradox, it would be possible to break the cycle by also sending back instructions to make the message available to the future sender. Then the message can be sent back, even if the event you wish to prevent does not occur.
Of course.. its all so simple now. Can't imagine why I didn't think of that in the first place! :-)
On a serious note, that does very much pre-suppose on the concept of parallel universes, and at best that can be classified as in the realm of pure speculation on behalf of scientists desperate to find ways to explain behaviour of quantum effects. It may be true, but it is just a hypothesis and should in no way be considered a scientific theory.
Dear Mr Bush Now would be a really good time to consider adoption. Thanks The future
But then he'd never get to be president, so you'd never know to send a message back in time about it, so he would get to be the president, so you would know to send a message back in time about it.. etc. etc. etc. etc. If this works the potential for serious temporal causality loops is immense. Makes me wonder if its even possible to achieve time travel, or if it is what steps if any the universe will take to protect itself.
Either that or our perceptions of the universe, being locked in free movement in 3 directions, and fixed movement in the fourth, could be in for some major changes.
Guess you missed out on the Gates of Ahn Qiraj event, the introduction of cross-realm battlegrounds, the invasion of the Scourge when the Lich Kings fortresses were over Ironforge itself, the continuing battles between the Horde and the Alliance in Silithus and Eastern Plaguelands, and so on. No, you heard that people fight Onyxia once a week, and based off that decided that there's no way to have a lasting effect on the world.
No.. actually I was well aware of those. Not bad for GM driven events too.
Take "Gates of Ahn'Qiraj" for example, a rather long winded process requiring mass loads of effort from various guilds co-operating together. For what? A few rare items from all I could see. Opening the gate spawns a few more large bosses to fight, so more of the same. You kill them and nothing actually happens in the game; just a chance that you might get some good loot.
The Scourge Invasion seemed to ultimately result in just a few rare items, nothing that actually impacts your "average joe on the street" too
Horizons was doing larger impact events a few years back. Initial stages involved invading islands with a well balanced team and collecting crystals and attacking some artifacts IIRC. However Horizons was run on awful servers and most times attacking the artifacts you'd be lucky to get 1 update a second on your screen, often staying that way until a load of mobs had spawned and wiped out your entire force. Tack on that the artifacts literally had around 1m HP, and that no matter how good your weapon was you'd only ever do 1 damage per hit and hardly surprisingly people got cheesed off. When the artifacts were finally destroyed a hidden race was unlocked and some new areas on the maps opened up presenting the next challenge which required building up stockpiles of materials (seem familiar to you?) and constructing various artifacts and buildings whilst allies fought off attacking hordes; resulting in the cleaning up of a once infested undead area and adding in many more things for players to do. Same hassles with lag abounded as before though, which has to be one of the main reasons so many people left the game. When you can't even gather a gang of 15 without getting lag, on what was already a dated looking gfx engine you know something is very wrong :)
Eve actually has very few GM driven events, although there is a focus towards that more recently in line with the introduction of more inter-racial combat with various large alliances working in conjunction with so-called pirate (outlaw) factions on various events. Almost all of the action that dramatically affects the game is caused by the day to day actions of players; from the intricate workings of diplomacy and politics that only tens of thousands of players world wide could cause, through to the actions of a new trade or industrial cartel. Take a look at Eve's latest political map, then compare it to the map from, say, June last year. The biggest political change there probably has to be the complete break-up of the old G/IRON alliance of alliances. Arguments rolled on for months back and forth about all the steps that led up to the implosion, but no final concensus was ever reached. G/IRON had been rolling all over opposition for probably a year; and many corps paid them for protection and the use of their space through mining and hunting passes. For various reasons "Stain- alliance"[sic] came about and took over the area then inhabited by Stain Empire who seemingly rolled over and played dead. G/IRON came in to rectify the situation, then seemingly backstabbed Ascendant Frontier, though to the innocent observer it seemed more a case of mis-understanding exasperated by trigger happy pilots. Queue a month and a half of intense fighting on forever changing fronts, and forever changing ship setups, ultimately resulting in ASCN defending its territory though
Maybe the fact that you have a job is putting a downer on things ;) I haven't played it myself, but aren't long trips are just a matter of fact when it comes to space travel? Maybe you're missing a hyper/warp/whatever-drive? Anyway, to be involved in a game at the level the GP mentioned requires other parts of life to take a back seat IMO.. very difficult to live 2 lives fully, it's probably one or the other (I used to love gaming, still do enjoy them, but I don't want to get into anything too deep just now, I prefer the immediacy of things like CS, games where the depth comes from your level of actual skill, games that you can drop and pickup anytime, rather than games with empires or skill points that you have to build up over time and need to be constantly involved in to get anywhere/keep up to date)
Eve is possibly a little too open at the start, ditching players in without a full grasp of the enormity of the game or what they can do. People often complain that all they do is mine, or trade. I can't be arsed with all that jazz, my primary focus on creation of a new character is to get them built up on their combat aspects and focus on agent missions.
Ideally every new player should be encouraged to join a corporation like Eve-University, a completely player run corporation with the sole intention of teaching players not only to play, but to enjoy Eve, covering every aspect from building to fighting. Strangely enough you can actually play Eve with a fairly low dedication to actual playing time. Its one of the reasons I like it as my play time is pretty low compared to many MMORGPers; I always fall so far behind on stuff like WoW that I just can't be bothered.
Eve's biggest advantage in this regard is that skills are learnt in real time, not game time; so even if I play just 2 hours a week, provided I juggle my skill training and put on a long skill I'll be no better off than having done 20 hours. The only difference comes down to how much is in your wallet.
Corporations are the key in Eve, like in other MMORPGS. Its essential to find a good group of people to play with and chat with, get advice on the game, and have fun. If I hadn't come across the right bunch of people I probably wouldn't have remained in game past 6 months.
You know, in 3-4 months, I can have a character up to 60 in full tier 1 and enjoying end game content. And a few decent alts. And that's not even with obsessive life-controlling playing either, just casual play. I don't have the attention span to drudge through "the first 3-4 months". If they can't make a game that's interesting in a day, I'm not interested at all.
What does that level 60 character get you? What impact do you have on the game? What does trudging through yet another elite complex actually do to the overall "immersive" and "interactive" world? Squat diddly. Essentially in WoW and so many other MMORPGs no matter how good your character, no matter what you do, nothing actually changes. Horizons tried to change this with a very large story arc where you could work towards making a huge change in game, but was absolutely rubbish with god-awful graphics engine and attrociously underpowered servers. Eve Online is hugely different. Get out of the 'empire' and 'n00b friendly' zones and get out to 0.0 and all of a sudden you're in lawless space. Whatever laws you and your friends choose to apply, apply. Its kinda like the wild west out there, a new frontier. The political map changes from day to day, month to month. New alliances form and take land, other alliances come in and fight for it and take it away. Change is on such a huge scale and every individual pilot can make a huge impact in that; be that as leader of a large alliance, or just a minor member of a corporation. The industrialists impact the abilities of the warriors, and vice versa. The more territory the warriors fight for and defend, the better access to the basic materials needed by industrialists, and thus the cheaper it is to produce items for the warriors. With such a no law environment and such a loose structure that CCP have provided there is a role for every type of character, be it industrialist, politician, teacher, fighter, trucker, spy or any other role you could care to develop.
If the choice is between 4 months of achieving nothing in a game other than a figure beside my name, or 4 months in which I can have an impact in a whole universe and make a difference, it's not really hard to guess which one I'd choose.
http://www.time.com/time/2003/worldseries/moments/ 4.html
About says it all really.
Texas Instruments invented the microprocessor, not Intel, so you've just denied Intel's entire existence.
If the parent post had said "Intel always shows a 'Not Invented Here' attitude" then your logic would have been correct, but it didn't. The post said 'often', which is not the same as 'always'.
If people want multiple of threads of execution on the same processor then they should get one with two cores.
If you read the article / summary you'd see what its talking about are servers that come with HT enabled by default. Thinking off the top of my head I can't come up with a single Intel processor still being sold and used in servers today that doesn't have HT technology built in. We're not talking about people specifically buying HT processors looking to get a performance boost, we're talking about every single individual who is buying or has bought an Intel server certainly within the last year or two. I've certainly noticed HT being enabled by default on our servers over the past couple of years. Novell has always strongly advised against it, so its always been turned off not long after they're powered up for the first time.
From the way the article reads, the software companies are expressing concern that HT is being enabled by default on server, rather than that they're baffled why its causing slower performance. It even goes so far as to point out that the shared L1 and L2 cache is the problem.
I'm was a little bemused to see this article, when less than a week ago MIT were demonstrating a $100 variation, thats portable, and even has its own screen, and is capable of running a full version of Windows!
/ 129235&tid=98&tid=184&tid=106&tid=219&tid=137
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/29
I have seen some flakeyness on more bleeding edge distros, X11 crashing, apps crashing. One of my boxes, I have troubled hardware support for my Promise SATA controller and large data transfers would cause system lockups all the time.
I've seen the same, which is why if I really want to reccomend a distro for stability I'd chuck Debian on a system, particularly if its a mission critical server. I've got and use RHEL4 at work, but it is rediculously bloated, but whilst it works I'm reluctant to go through the hassles of a re-install
and Linus' trademark licensing of Linux, we are seeing a very real trend developing.
Linus's trademark licensing of Linux is merely a protection to counter offensive marketing by other 'non-OSS friendly' corporations. Its' like some music artists that copyright their songs, but make them available free for anyone to perform or use, just with permission. The main purpose of the copyright is not to make money, but to ensure that the lyrics are used in the context the writer chose. This is no different, the trademark is not to 'cash in' on its popularity at all, but to control the way the brand name is used.
Your methodology of posting is very interesting, taking unconnected events of minor consequence, trying to push some relevancy through to a reference to IP, which is yet another issue entirely. From the article itself, the Mambo Foundation has been granted an irrevocable, perpetual, royalty free licence, thus negating any issues with IP.
Like others here, I disagree with the BBC article, but for different reasons.
The lack of interest in Windows Vista is not because of Linux, linux still has a way to go to affect the average would-be-geek. Its certainly got a long way to go still to tempt most people away from Windows. (and I even like and use Linux)
The main reason I reckon there is a lack of interest in Windows Vista is because a) It offers nothing new, really; and b) XP works just fine thankyou.
What does Vista really offer us that makes it worthwhile me upgrading this Windows XP install? New GUI? Screw that, this one works fine thank you, and doesn't have heavy GPU/CPU usage to boot.... and so on and so forth.
There was a big interest in XP because it did offer something new. IT was a huge shift, going from an already overworked and unstable 9x kernel, onto the far superior NT kernel, which had already proven itself nicely under Win 2k on the desktop. I upgraded pretty damn fast to XP, and haven't looked back since, its more stable, takes more of a punishment, and when a program does crash it doesn't take the whole OS with it.
Vista brings nothing really worthwhile to the table. Its like the difference between Office 97 and Office 2000. Sure there are differences, but 90% of the users won't even notice them.
Personally, I'm not fussed by adverts on sites, I ignore them routinely anyway. The only type of advert that continues to annoy me are intrusive ones, be it pop ups, or this damned annoying flash things that plonk themselves right in the middle of the content you're looking at.
Why on earth is everyone convinced we have a Tax on TVs here?! Its a licence, not a tax. If you don't have a TV capable of picking up TV signals, you don't have to pay anything. Simple. (Also, if you have a B&W TV you pay less.) The government sets the licence fee, thats it. The BBC is not run by the Government. There is no advertising on the BBC, except the BBC advertising any services its offering (like bitesize revision help), or forthcoming TV programs, and those adverts always come in between programs, never during a program. The BBC is much more willing to take gambles with new product ideas, new artists etc. generally leading to a far better quality of television. They don't have to play the 'lets keep the advertisers happy' game, which keeps sure-bet programs running interminally like you see elsewhere in the world. Even our commercial TV benefits from the BBC being this way, as they have to actively compete with them. The BBC is a fantastic idea, and it works. Its as close to a truly independant broadcasting company as its possible to get.
I know this is slashdot, but if you're going to talk about something knowledgably, make sure you know what you're talking about.
Or such classics in, for example, CSI: Miami, in the episode with the web porn site. Quite a reasonable level of technical consultation must have been made because a good amount of the details were correct, barring the stupid graphical reconstruction of data from a hard disk that you can just about grudgingly accept. Why, then, did they go and use a totally impossible IP address number (5 or 6 8 bit numbers long)? Sure there is that whole "Can't use a real number" thing from security, kinda like using 555 as an area code for phone numbers, but at least they could have used a private address block number like 192.168.0.25, which would have had meaning without compromising anyones security/privacy.
Tragically (thankfully?) the music industry isn't the government. They only look as far as their own wallets and purely in the short term purposes, afterall they've got their shareholders to satisfy. Sod serious declines in sales two years down the line, damaged country economy and what have you, its purely the profits this year that count for anything.
Shortsightedness, the curse of our current capitalist model, potentially strikes itself out once again. Bring back more entrepreneurs running businesses, at least they're more inclined to see the bigger picture and to take risks.
I would call bull on your bull but it would seem childish. The BBC broadcasts a 15mbps MPEG video stream. On an ordinary TV at TV resolutions the artifacts are not really noticeable, unless you're right up to the screen. The only time I see them is when I watch digital tv on my pc, which works at a much higher resolution than a TV screen does. The image clarity over that of an ordinary analogue signal is undeniable. Even with the good strong signal that we get here (with little between us an the transmitter outside of the odd stray pigeon), and the signal amplifier in the roof, there is still signs of analogue artifacts in a normal image, like slight fuzzyness. The overall effect is that whilst not conciously noticeable from a distance, when you switch to a digital feed the image looks subtly but perceptibly clearer.
Not sure what digital prices are like in the US, but here in England you can pick up a digital set-top box for around £25 ($47) at our local supermarket, and thats a one off payment. Thats exactly what it cost for my household to switch from 'old technology' to 'newfangled technology'. If we were talking about £100 ($190) or something I'd be more inclined to agree with you, but when you're talking about such a small cost there really is little justification in claiming its too expensive.
The UK is rapidly approaching its digital cutoff date (2006 ~ 2007 IIRC), but no one is kicking up much of a fuss about it as most families can afford the change. The improvements in picture quality is worth the money alone.
Maybe I should turn to computer journalism for my trade?. Might certainly get rid of these 'newshounds' that jump at the tiniest tidbits, forgetting the past, and forever turning mere morsels into a feasts.
Yeah, relative to the sun, but what about within the galaxy, or within the universe? our solar system moves much faster than that through the galaxy, the galaxy moves faster through the universe, in relation to other galaxies, of course.
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'
I reckon timing is about right.. its been, what, 5 or 6 months since the last time 'Dell might have been going to do AMD'. I've lost count of how many times this has been claimed, its certainly been going on for something like 5 years now. I'll believe in an AMD based Dell the moment I see one for sale on their website. Till then the speculation is pointless, Dell have always done this to ensure Intel continue to give them good prices.
I for one welcome our new supercomputer overlords.