exFAT has as much in common with FAT32 as does NTFS. Microsoft made a big change with a purposeful break from backwards compatibility. So while it may be a 64-bit compatible FAT implementation, it doesn't share anything with the older FAT file systems - even FAT32. So no, no more compatibility whatsoever than NTFS.
I really don't understand the Nintendo apologist. You are actually trying to argue against more diverse games on the Wii. How on any planet would having something more than mini-games on the Wii be a bad thing?
I'm not acting as a Nintendo apologist. Just pointing out the economics - which basically shows that there is nothing right now for Nintendo to gain by doing as you suggest. Once they can meet market demand, then it would stand for their economic benefit - but not right now. Right now, it would only anger more customer than it would make happy. That's the economics and business view point.
From the gaming stand point, yes - it would make more sense to do so. But then economically it creates more demand for something that already can't fulfill demand so it would only be economic suicide.
From the apologists view point - you have the economics, the business, and the "so what?" factor. Nintendo is raking in the dough on the Wii now, and making more or better games won't change that.
Again - there no economic benefit to creating more demand for something that already can't fulfill demand.
There's more to life than games. Nintendo, as one of the oldest gaming companies, realises this.
Last I heard, actually the PS2 is still in the lead as the most played console.
It's just a matter of time. Nintendo is selling more Wii's every month, and has far surpassed the max per month Sony made of PS2's. So it's only a matter of time before the Wii becomes the most played console.
Except the Wii is ALREADY the most successful platform in this generation if not in all previous generations. It's only competitor is PS2 for sales counts, and its already crushing that for where the PS2 was at the same life point.
Face it, the Wii already took off as it is with the strategy Nintendo is already using. Why would they change it?
Great games marry a well known genre with great stories, challenge curves, artwork, plot, and so on; all of which takes time, iterative design, and lots of competition.
For hard core gamers, true. For everyone else, not so much. Most people care about being able to (a) have a little bit of fun, and (b) being able to play the game. For example - I love racing games, but a lot of the hard core games are just so unplayable that it makes them worthless to me unless I devote hundreds of hours learning how to play the game, which I have not desire (nor time) to do. Hard core games may love that, but the other 99% of us don't.
Wii fit and Wii sports are nice technology demonstrators (just like Quake 3 was a great engine demonstrator on the PC), but not fantastic games.
WiiSport and WiiFit are probably among the most played on the console among any age group. They'll likely go down as a the number one titles for this generation of consoles (if not for all generations up to it) as well if they keep up as they do. Don't forget, they're also used in a lot of places that would never have seen a console otherwise (e.g. nursing homes, rehab centers, etc).
Wii games have not matured into proper genres yet
I'll somewhat agree here - but even then, there are a lot of different genres on the Wii, and some likely some new genres that don't exist any where else. But that's more due to the new technology Nintendo put out than it is for the system as a gaming console.
Microsoft isn't going anywhere. Let's review which market segments they are involved in:
* Productivity Software (Office) that is (for better or worse) almost universally used.
And losing market share as ODF picks up, and more companies move to Google Productivity, OpenOffice, Star Office, KOffice, etc. - especially small businesses that can't afford the pricey Microsoft Office Suite.
* Workstating Operating System Software that is (for better or worse) almost universally used.
And losing Market share to Apple and Linux. Didn't they fall below 90% market share recently?
* Video game consoles.
And is getting severely spanked by Nintendo's Wii console. (Joke not intended, but yet another nifty reason for the name.) Microsoft is second place; fortunately they're whipping Sony in the process.
* Server operating systems
And losing market share to Linux and Apple.
* Database software
Keeping its own on par with Oracle. However, it's also losing to MySQL, PostgreSQL, and others on the MSDE/SQLServer Express front. SQL Server will likely lose out to them as well as they mature. Currently Oracle's taking the biggest beating there.
* Exchange (e-mail software? Whatever the hell you wanna call it)
Which is severely broken and requires a full-time administrator to keep up, and does not have a very big market share.
* MSNBC
Perhaps their only redeeming venue, but it's still a money pit for them too.
...is it going to detect the truck jumping the bridge onto the highway and stop everyone (equipped with it) safely as well?
And yes, that did happen, except 2 trucks and 4 to 6 cars plowed into the gasoline tanker that jumps from a bridge (195? 295?) onto I-95 in Maryland (north of the 495 Capital Beltway) a few years back, at the start of the evening rush-hour nonetheless. (Surprising so _few_ vehicles hit the exploding truck though, given the traffic levels.)
Are you paying for a new laptop?
It's kind of hard to upgrade the video card in laptops, and that's where my R250 sits. Sure I would love to upgrade it, but it's beyond the capabilities of the system.
Stupid integrated graphics...
FYI - it works pretty well with the F/OSS drivers...though I'm having some difficulty with getting VegaStrike to run - resolution and depth problem so far as I can tell.
I'm using Time Warner ala Road Runner; but they still have that "we'll make it cheaper if you get phone or TV", neither of which I want. (And the DTV conversion will just turn off the noise from the air-waves.)
But, yes, they all CAN provide it at competitive pricing without that additional service clause. Hmm...may be someone needs to sue them for collusion since they're all doing it and justifying it as 'competitive' because that is what everyone else is doing. Wonder what would happen...
One of the best things about my high school programming classes was the competition between everyone, or at least those of us at the top of the class. So, I would certainly give them assignments and leave a lot of latitude on how to do it and challenge them to see who could best the others - in terms of features/functionality/coolness (to them)/etc - while still completing the assignment. It would be an automatic failure if they didn't complete the assignment, regardless of anything else; but perhaps get extra credit for what they compete on.
Hmm...may be even make your job a little easier by having the class evaluate everyone's programs - have them present the program, and everyone rates it, you judge the assignment against the assignment criteria, and everyone's input goes to who 'wins' and/or extra credit. (So they all become the judge of the 'coolness'/etc. factors.)
And you'll also help to give them better social skills for when they get out into the real world.
To start with, an "intro" class should not focus on one single paradigm, but focus on general concepts and show how they apply in multiple paradigms. This is best done through using several different languages, and repeating the same exercises in each throughout the course. Later courses can focus on a single paradigm and language, and then choose one that best fits what that course is trying to achieve. And yes, this is doable, but requires a very dramatic change in the CS curriculums to do it.
Many curriculums assume that you need to teach the students "how to program" before you expose the students to multiple languages. This holds true, somewhat, but the use of multiple programming languages can still be easily achieved in a intro course. To achieve the result, select different languages that each have different paradigms (chaotic, functional, OO, etc.) and go through each one covering each quickly - e.g. spend 3 weeks in each language on really simplistic programs that demonstrate the basics of programming; the assignments for each 3 week group are the same, just in a different language using a different paradigm.
You can also run a secondary "intro to language C/Java/whatever" course alongside the course to go into greater depth on other things; or it can be reserved for the next semester/year.
BTW, I speak as someone who was through such a course. My high school programming classes started with an intro course that introduced the other programming language courses. The first semester was more or less computer introductory, and focused on DOS Batch programming; the second took up QBasic, the third Pascal, and the fourth C++. QBasic, Pascal, and C++ each had advanced courses we could take after that. But it taught us a lot more than a standard CS intro course - it was more analogous to my "Programming Languages" course - a "200" level college course. So yes, it can be done and done well; and by doing it, you get to mold the student's mind into being able to think in more than one paradigm or programming language.
Given today's computer languages, I would probably advocate the course use something like JavaScript, Perl, C/C++, Java, and SmallTalk. (JavaScript because it is handy for a lot of scripting - web and on Windows computers - and it can be very similar to Chaos style programming. Perl for its RegEx, C/C++ for functional, Java for its sluggish OO style, and SmallTalk for true OO.) But I wouldn't limit it to specifically those. You could replace JavaScript with Assembly for true Chaos style programming, but I think that would be going a bit too far for an intro course.
Needless to say, I would put the emphasis on the intro course being a diverse CS experience, having to deal with multiple paradigms and programming languages. It will give students a better taste of what CS really is as opposed to focusing simply on a single paradigm and language that embodies that paradigm.
Especially such deals are linked to how much a customer buys...
Re:That's what you get... for not using FedEx
on
USPS Server Meltdown
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Because it's no longer reliable enough. The S&H charges change based on too many values for the few factors (carrier, size, weight, destination, type of delivery, timing of delivery, etc.), and things change. So it's not a necessarily easy calculation to perform.
True. OpenMP is great. But it's not the only solution.
OpenMP, MPI, and all are pretty much only useful if you are programming for a multi-computer (not multi-core, or multi-proc) environment - e.g. supercomputer.
When dealing with just one computer and either multi-proc or multi-core, there's a much simplier solution: locks. Works great with doing multi-threaded and even multi-processed programming.
Most programs would simply benefit from having a second thread. (Ever wonder why your program's interface hangs? Usually because it's only one thread and it's in a processing loop and not updating the GUI. A second thread solves that.)
And multi-document programs (e.g. FF, IE, etc.) benefit by having 1 main thread, and another for each document. (Thread, Process, take your choice. Either way...it benefits.)
But you also have to remember - your program is not the only program on the system. So additional cores that you are not using can be provided to a different program so it can run in parallel, thus making the computer more useful for the user - and let them do more, faster - even if its not with your program.
When you are looking at a long term, adjusted set of values, those things tend to go away. What I said still holds water very well, and goes long over 100 years (as far as economics go).
No, I'm just going back to basic economic principles - and the time tried principle of "what goes up must come down". It's a really simple matter that doesn't care about tax codes or laws or anything else - it's more a 'law of nature' kind of thing, and it will happen. If we don't try not to let it happen, or don't manage it down, then it will lead to a destruction of the economy - far worse then we are seeing now.
The problem, however, is that inflation must be countered by deflation. We have been going through a rising inflation cycle through slowly moderated cycles (that keep the overall value inflating by not allowing it to fully deflate as needed) since the 1950's. And we'd be arrogant to assume it can stay that way.
The longer we wait for the deflation cycle to occur - or the longer we push it off - the farther it has to fall to correct itself.
Housing prices are one example of this. Historically, a house that would have sold in the late 1800's (inflation adjusted) for $100K would have still sold for that same amount until the early 1990's when it started creeping up to where it peaked at nearly $200K, and has since fallen down to about $180K to $190K (as of the study that was done, probably a bit more since). It still has a long way to go down.
The only way gov't can help is by helping those same cycles to manage them downward so that the bottom doesn't simply drop-out from beneath the market and the people. However, our gov't and economists are (at least in the majority) too arrogant to do so.
Or TouchTable which is in use by gov't and numerous others...pretty cool stuff (played with it a few times myself). So nothing new, except may be networking two or more of them together, but I think they already did that.
Office also is facing a real lack of motivation as far as upgrading goes as well.
Doesn't help that they made the training costs of moving from any old version of Office to the new version the same as going from any old version of Office to competitors product.
It's ironic that they made the cost (and thus the move) from Office feasible for their customers by killing off the one thing that they had going for them at a time when F/OSS and other competitors were mature enough to handle all the old formats.
May be slower conceptually...but a T1 is dedicated two-way 1.5 mbit/sec. Most home connections are still trying to get above 768kbit/sec up-load - even though they have a 5, 8, 10, or 15 Mbit/sec download.
.Net is provided with Vista. If they have to rely on WPF, then they are limited to Vista any way. (It's not available even for XP - at least not to the same extent it is for Vista.)
Furthermore,.Net 2 has been pretty standard on most versions of Windows any way - and.Net 3.5 could probably be easily provided too.
Silverlight has been primarily distributed through their Windows Update site. So they can be reasonably assured that any version of Windows that supports Silverlight will have the required.Net dependencies.
They may be talking all about it being "self-contained", but in reality - it's just because they want to EOL some older versions of Windows via.Net, whilst still supporting it via Silverlight because otherwise they wouldn't be able to get enough people using Silverlight.
Otherwise, there is no reason to not put the work into.Net and then require a certain level of.Net to be able to use Silverlight. So I call bull on your point.
Slashdot Mirror
exFAT has as much in common with FAT32 as does NTFS. Microsoft made a big change with a purposeful break from backwards compatibility. So while it may be a 64-bit compatible FAT implementation, it doesn't share anything with the older FAT file systems - even FAT32. So no, no more compatibility whatsoever than NTFS.
42
I'm not acting as a Nintendo apologist. Just pointing out the economics - which basically shows that there is nothing right now for Nintendo to gain by doing as you suggest. Once they can meet market demand, then it would stand for their economic benefit - but not right now. Right now, it would only anger more customer than it would make happy. That's the economics and business view point.
From the gaming stand point, yes - it would make more sense to do so. But then economically it creates more demand for something that already can't fulfill demand so it would only be economic suicide.
From the apologists view point - you have the economics, the business, and the "so what?" factor. Nintendo is raking in the dough on the Wii now, and making more or better games won't change that.
Again - there no economic benefit to creating more demand for something that already can't fulfill demand.
There's more to life than games. Nintendo, as one of the oldest gaming companies, realises this.
It's just a matter of time. Nintendo is selling more Wii's every month, and has far surpassed the max per month Sony made of PS2's. So it's only a matter of time before the Wii becomes the most played console.
Except the Wii is ALREADY the most successful platform in this generation if not in all previous generations. It's only competitor is PS2 for sales counts, and its already crushing that for where the PS2 was at the same life point.
Face it, the Wii already took off as it is with the strategy Nintendo is already using. Why would they change it?
For hard core gamers, true. For everyone else, not so much. Most people care about being able to (a) have a little bit of fun, and (b) being able to play the game. For example - I love racing games, but a lot of the hard core games are just so unplayable that it makes them worthless to me unless I devote hundreds of hours learning how to play the game, which I have not desire (nor time) to do. Hard core games may love that, but the other 99% of us don't.
WiiSport and WiiFit are probably among the most played on the console among any age group. They'll likely go down as a the number one titles for this generation of consoles (if not for all generations up to it) as well if they keep up as they do. Don't forget, they're also used in a lot of places that would never have seen a console otherwise (e.g. nursing homes, rehab centers, etc).
I'll somewhat agree here - but even then, there are a lot of different genres on the Wii, and some likely some new genres that don't exist any where else. But that's more due to the new technology Nintendo put out than it is for the system as a gaming console.
And losing market share as ODF picks up, and more companies move to Google Productivity, OpenOffice, Star Office, KOffice, etc. - especially small businesses that can't afford the pricey Microsoft Office Suite.
And losing Market share to Apple and Linux. Didn't they fall below 90% market share recently?
And is getting severely spanked by Nintendo's Wii console. (Joke not intended, but yet another nifty reason for the name.) Microsoft is second place; fortunately they're whipping Sony in the process.
And losing market share to Linux and Apple.
Keeping its own on par with Oracle. However, it's also losing to MySQL, PostgreSQL, and others on the MSDE/SQLServer Express front. SQL Server will likely lose out to them as well as they mature. Currently Oracle's taking the biggest beating there.
Which is severely broken and requires a full-time administrator to keep up, and does not have a very big market share.
Perhaps their only redeeming venue, but it's still a money pit for them too.
...is it going to detect the truck jumping the bridge onto the highway and stop everyone (equipped with it) safely as well?
And yes, that did happen, except 2 trucks and 4 to 6 cars plowed into the gasoline tanker that jumps from a bridge (195? 295?) onto I-95 in Maryland (north of the 495 Capital Beltway) a few years back, at the start of the evening rush-hour nonetheless. (Surprising so _few_ vehicles hit the exploding truck though, given the traffic levels.)
Are you paying for a new laptop? It's kind of hard to upgrade the video card in laptops, and that's where my R250 sits. Sure I would love to upgrade it, but it's beyond the capabilities of the system. Stupid integrated graphics... FYI - it works pretty well with the F/OSS drivers...though I'm having some difficulty with getting VegaStrike to run - resolution and depth problem so far as I can tell.
...they all can, but the choose not to.
I'm using Time Warner ala Road Runner; but they still have that "we'll make it cheaper if you get phone or TV", neither of which I want. (And the DTV conversion will just turn off the noise from the air-waves.)
But, yes, they all CAN provide it at competitive pricing without that additional service clause. Hmm...may be someone needs to sue them for collusion since they're all doing it and justifying it as 'competitive' because that is what everyone else is doing. Wonder what would happen...
This brings you to the following page (for the US): WTR54G GPL Code Web Page. That page also lists the following FTP site: Cisco/LinkSys Open Source FTP site
So what are the missing that the FSF thinks they need to sue over?
One of the best things about my high school programming classes was the competition between everyone, or at least those of us at the top of the class. So, I would certainly give them assignments and leave a lot of latitude on how to do it and challenge them to see who could best the others - in terms of features/functionality/coolness (to them)/etc - while still completing the assignment. It would be an automatic failure if they didn't complete the assignment, regardless of anything else; but perhaps get extra credit for what they compete on.
Hmm...may be even make your job a little easier by having the class evaluate everyone's programs - have them present the program, and everyone rates it, you judge the assignment against the assignment criteria, and everyone's input goes to who 'wins' and/or extra credit. (So they all become the judge of the 'coolness'/etc. factors.)
And you'll also help to give them better social skills for when they get out into the real world.
Also see another one of my posts on this topic.
That's what it's about to them. What, you think you can just cut-out the middle-man? Think again.
This is also what the NY/NJ Mafia has been around for a long time. Try to muscle them out and you have something else to consider - your life.
Yeah, the RIAA may not be as powerful as it use to be - but it's not going to go down without a fight.
To start with, an "intro" class should not focus on one single paradigm, but focus on general concepts and show how they apply in multiple paradigms. This is best done through using several different languages, and repeating the same exercises in each throughout the course. Later courses can focus on a single paradigm and language, and then choose one that best fits what that course is trying to achieve. And yes, this is doable, but requires a very dramatic change in the CS curriculums to do it.
Many curriculums assume that you need to teach the students "how to program" before you expose the students to multiple languages. This holds true, somewhat, but the use of multiple programming languages can still be easily achieved in a intro course. To achieve the result, select different languages that each have different paradigms (chaotic, functional, OO, etc.) and go through each one covering each quickly - e.g. spend 3 weeks in each language on really simplistic programs that demonstrate the basics of programming; the assignments for each 3 week group are the same, just in a different language using a different paradigm.
You can also run a secondary "intro to language C/Java/whatever" course alongside the course to go into greater depth on other things; or it can be reserved for the next semester/year.
BTW, I speak as someone who was through such a course. My high school programming classes started with an intro course that introduced the other programming language courses. The first semester was more or less computer introductory, and focused on DOS Batch programming; the second took up QBasic, the third Pascal, and the fourth C++. QBasic, Pascal, and C++ each had advanced courses we could take after that. But it taught us a lot more than a standard CS intro course - it was more analogous to my "Programming Languages" course - a "200" level college course. So yes, it can be done and done well; and by doing it, you get to mold the student's mind into being able to think in more than one paradigm or programming language.
Given today's computer languages, I would probably advocate the course use something like JavaScript, Perl, C/C++, Java, and SmallTalk. (JavaScript because it is handy for a lot of scripting - web and on Windows computers - and it can be very similar to Chaos style programming. Perl for its RegEx, C/C++ for functional, Java for its sluggish OO style, and SmallTalk for true OO.) But I wouldn't limit it to specifically those. You could replace JavaScript with Assembly for true Chaos style programming, but I think that would be going a bit too far for an intro course.
Needless to say, I would put the emphasis on the intro course being a diverse CS experience, having to deal with multiple paradigms and programming languages. It will give students a better taste of what CS really is as opposed to focusing simply on a single paradigm and language that embodies that paradigm.
Especially such deals are linked to how much a customer buys...
Because it's no longer reliable enough. The S&H charges change based on too many values for the few factors (carrier, size, weight, destination, type of delivery, timing of delivery, etc.), and things change. So it's not a necessarily easy calculation to perform.
True. OpenMP is great. But it's not the only solution.
OpenMP, MPI, and all are pretty much only useful if you are programming for a multi-computer (not multi-core, or multi-proc) environment - e.g. supercomputer.
When dealing with just one computer and either multi-proc or multi-core, there's a much simplier solution: locks. Works great with doing multi-threaded and even multi-processed programming.
Most programs would simply benefit from having a second thread. (Ever wonder why your program's interface hangs? Usually because it's only one thread and it's in a processing loop and not updating the GUI. A second thread solves that.)
And multi-document programs (e.g. FF, IE, etc.) benefit by having 1 main thread, and another for each document. (Thread, Process, take your choice. Either way...it benefits.)
But you also have to remember - your program is not the only program on the system. So additional cores that you are not using can be provided to a different program so it can run in parallel, thus making the computer more useful for the user - and let them do more, faster - even if its not with your program.
When you are looking at a long term, adjusted set of values, those things tend to go away. What I said still holds water very well, and goes long over 100 years (as far as economics go).
No, I'm just going back to basic economic principles - and the time tried principle of "what goes up must come down". It's a really simple matter that doesn't care about tax codes or laws or anything else - it's more a 'law of nature' kind of thing, and it will happen. If we don't try not to let it happen, or don't manage it down, then it will lead to a destruction of the economy - far worse then we are seeing now.
The problem, however, is that inflation must be countered by deflation. We have been going through a rising inflation cycle through slowly moderated cycles (that keep the overall value inflating by not allowing it to fully deflate as needed) since the 1950's. And we'd be arrogant to assume it can stay that way.
The longer we wait for the deflation cycle to occur - or the longer we push it off - the farther it has to fall to correct itself.
Housing prices are one example of this. Historically, a house that would have sold in the late 1800's (inflation adjusted) for $100K would have still sold for that same amount until the early 1990's when it started creeping up to where it peaked at nearly $200K, and has since fallen down to about $180K to $190K (as of the study that was done, probably a bit more since). It still has a long way to go down.
The only way gov't can help is by helping those same cycles to manage them downward so that the bottom doesn't simply drop-out from beneath the market and the people. However, our gov't and economists are (at least in the majority) too arrogant to do so.
Or TouchTable which is in use by gov't and numerous others...pretty cool stuff (played with it a few times myself). So nothing new, except may be networking two or more of them together, but I think they already did that.
which system gives you the most e-penis for your buck
I believe you are referring to the Apple iPenis.
This forthcoming product from Apple is very fashionable but it does dick-all.
Must be good - just look what it did for Steve Jobs. *ducks and runs for cover*
Office also is facing a real lack of motivation as far as upgrading goes as well.
Doesn't help that they made the training costs of moving from any old version of Office to the new version the same as going from any old version of Office to competitors product.
It's ironic that they made the cost (and thus the move) from Office feasible for their customers by killing off the one thing that they had going for them at a time when F/OSS and other competitors were mature enough to handle all the old formats.
May be slower conceptually...but a T1 is dedicated two-way 1.5 mbit/sec. Most home connections are still trying to get above 768kbit/sec up-load - even though they have a 5, 8, 10, or 15 Mbit/sec download.
Download speed isn't everything.
Then he just goes flying with the chair...
.Net is provided with Vista. If they have to rely on WPF, then they are limited to Vista any way. (It's not available even for XP - at least not to the same extent it is for Vista.)
.Net 2 has been pretty standard on most versions of Windows any way - and .Net 3.5 could probably be easily provided too.
.Net dependencies.
.Net, whilst still supporting it via Silverlight because otherwise they wouldn't be able to get enough people using Silverlight.
.Net and then require a certain level of .Net to be able to use Silverlight. So I call bull on your point.
Furthermore,
Silverlight has been primarily distributed through their Windows Update site. So they can be reasonably assured that any version of Windows that supports Silverlight will have the required
They may be talking all about it being "self-contained", but in reality - it's just because they want to EOL some older versions of Windows via
Otherwise, there is no reason to not put the work into