Sure, it's funny, but it doesn't really contribute to the discussion, and isn't even remotely comparable to what's been going on here.
To make this comparison in the computing would is faceticious. It implies that a valid optimization isn't precalculating a function call for a range of inputs; or at the least implies that you must disable caching of such results.
There truly is a fine line between cheating and valid software optimizations. It relies on whether or not the software developers _intent_ was effectively communicated. Since there isn't any particular way to objectively compare what 3DMark 2003's intent is, it's hard to know what a cheat is and what a cheat isn't.
Also to the people indicating this driver is specifically optimized for 3DMark - you're damn right it is. And it's also optimized for 100s of other games and applications. You better believe ATI and nVidia have optimizations in their drivers for all sorts of games and applications, I wouldn't have it any other way! Or are you arguing that we should always use the general case for every function?
If so I guess we can abolish those algorithms classes, and do away with optimizing functions to work with specific sets of data... And hey, why should my compiler unroll loops, or in-line variables? BAH!
first off, for those of you wondering what the big deal with 3DMark 2003 is - and why you might use it in place of "real games" to benchmark 3D performance - here you go:
3DMark is a test application to benchmark next-generation performance, so that you can get an idea how your video card might handle games that will be out this time _next_ year. Specifically some aspects of 3DMark are geared toward testing DX9 functionality, and it's Pixel and Vertex shaders. No game currently on the market uses these features (at least not that I am aware of).
Secondly, the difference between a cheat and optimization is a fine one. If a given function continually produces the same output for the same inputs, and it takes 1 second to do so, and another function can produce the same results given the same inputs, but only takes 1/2 a second - it can be said to be functionally equivalent. However, it has been optimized. It's entirely possible, even desirable to replace pixel shaders and vertex shaders with routines which are optimized for your hardware. In much the same way that compilers schedule instructions optimally for the underlying CPU architecture, so too can instructions be re-ordered in a pixel shader routine... It's an optimization.
Cheating occurs when people start making approximations (analogies to bringing a cheat-sheet to a test are not valid), or by failing to process (in the case of video cards) the same visual fidelity, and detail that was intended. By example:
A> Reducing texture bit-depth. B> Reducing geometry detail (merging 2 or more polygons).
This is only cheating if it's not the intent of the original application developer (not driver developer).
A driver developer could make the following optimizations, since they don't affect the intent of the application developer:
A> Pre-calc tables. A classic demo optimization would be to precalc a SIN function table to some level of precision as looking up a value was faster than calculating it on the fly. B> Replacing various pixel/vertex shader routines with functionally equivalent, but faster ones. C> Reordering data and textures (keeping detail and fidelity) into more optimal chunks for your hardware architecture.
Those aren't cheats - they are optimizations. Of course, the only way you can tell this is if you have an objective standard to gauge against. 3DMark 2003 doesn't seem to provide this. In order to do so they would need the following:
A> A software renderer for their demo. B> Timed snapshots of the demo saving uncompressed images from the software renderer to disk. C> The ability to re-run the demo using a hardware renderer (3D Card and drivers). D> The ability to take the same snapshots and save them, uncompressed to disk. E> The ability to do a histogram, per-pixel comparison to the software renders...
This would enable you to arrive at some objective comparison of visual fidelity - instead of the occassionally subjective I think screenshot X looks better than screenshot Y. Without the intent of the 3DMark developers being known, we really can't know how true the hardware vendors and their drivers are to the original vision.
Anything less than 3% difference is highly likely to be indistinguishable from the intent of the developers in this case. 5% to 10% may be visible, but acceptable (i.e. tweaks for speed in place of quality). Over 10% and you're playing with fire.
Witch's Wake was an interesting Mod (as in Modification, and Module) to be built out on top of the existing NWN system. It didn't really add any new classes, spells, etc - so I guess it's not really an "expansion" - but the effort put into it was over and above that of most modules released to-date for NWN.
BG2 for the PS2/X-Box looks really quite good. I was impressed with the first one as well. Nice action-game adaptation of the D&D system - great graphics, and a whole mess of fun. The only thing I wish the sequel had was network play - but I guess we'll have to wait for BG3!
Of course there is also the case of several products being labeled with the following:
"It is a violation of federal law to use this product in a manner other than intended by the manufacturer..."
Usually this is applied to various chemical solvents and cleaning agents which people for some unfathomable reason are inclined to "huff". However, it does bring up an interesting issue.
Most of these state laws hinge typically on what constitutes reasonable usage. Driving your car on roads and down highways, following traffic laws typically constitutes _reasonable_ usage. However, intentionally deciding to drive your car off a cliff, probably isn't _reasonable_ usage. This in turn typically obviates the responsibility of the manufacturer to your safety, because you exceeded all reasonable limits.
What does this have to do with AMD? Well, they are trying to establish a reasonable guideline for usage. Sort of like a car manufacturer saying their seat-belts are rated for collisions of 150 MPH or less. If you then modify your car to exceed that limit, they aren't liable if the seat-belt fails. AMD is saying, we checked this heatsink out - it works; if you want to use another one, you're welcome to it - just don't blame us if your CPU fries.
I think that in certain respects what really occured was a domination of introverted technologies. The _personal_ computer for instance. Yes, now with the World Wide Web we can connect with one another - but do we really? A great many technologies that have taken off are largely introverted in nature; even when they seem to make it easier for us to communicate.
Genetic engineering is another inward facing technology. I'm not saying it won't open doors to us, but it largely focused on exploring inward frontiers. This is a very personal technology - one which with augment or change us in very intimate ways.
With extroverted technology (exploring boundaries outside ourselves and immediate surroundings) taking a back seat, what do you expect to happen. Personal transport hasn't evolved too much in the last 20 years. Cars today aren't so much different than they were - and when was the Concorde designed and built? How about the Shuttle?
This probably has a lot to do with market forces. It's a lot easier to build and sell small personal things - not to mention more profitable.
for those of you carping on about ooohh "286" or whatnot, keep in mind that the games we're playing now are an evolution of those earlier games. Some of you may be perfectly happy playing pong, while others of you enjoy the overblown graphics engines of today's games.
Dungeon Master was pretty revolutionary on both gameplay, graphics and sound.
1> Stereo sound on the Amiga and Atari systems was used for directional sound. If a monster was off to your left, the sound came out of the left hand speaker.. You could also hear things albeit muffled through walls. Not quite the HRTF/HTRF that we have today, but it was a step forward.
2> Graphics were somewhat 3d - with sprite-based monsters. Hmm, what other game came out like that? Sure, you were restricted to moving on a grid... But hey it was a step forward.
3> Gameplay for an RPG it was pretty basic in terms of "role playing"... However, it did have one of the earliest "if you practice a skill it will get better" systems. Meaning that any character could learn and advance any skill.
4> Gameplay for spell casting was pretty unique for the day. You had a runic panel whereby you could click through a series of runes (the first one determined the power level) and cast spells by selecting the correct runes in sequence.
5> Gameplay for combat was pretty good too. It was "real time" - and various attacks and weapon types took more or less time to recover from. You had 4 characters so 2 were in the front swinging their hand-to-hand weapns and the ones in the rear could cast spells or pelt the enemy with ranged weapons.
Believe it or not games like Morrow-wind, and other first person RPGs are at least somewhat derivative of this one. Not to mention the entire "Eye of the Beholder" series from SSI.
Well, the article sure made it out like Rendezvous was something _only_ Apple had done. And, a lot of people think only Apple has ZeroConf in the form of Rendezvous. So my points were the following:
1> Rendezvous is Apple's specific implementation of ZeroConf. There are other implementations - maybe not as slick as Rendezvous, but there are others.
2> ZeroConf is not solely an invention of Apple's - they are part of the working group that has defined the standard. That working group consists of a lot of network vendors and some OS vendors.
Additionally, it's really just an attempt to correct the Apple equivalent to spew the opposite of FUD. They're a good company - but they aren't necessarily "Humanity's last, best hope". They have a very real tendency to exaggerate their involvement on occassion (Altivec != super computer), and certainly don't take any steps to correct positive erronious reports about their products...
I don't really care what OS or hardware I use, so long as I can get my job done - it's not a religion, so I wish their acolytes would lay off on the sermonizing and proslytizing.
for the record, Rendezvous is the Apple implementation of ZeroConf, a protocol well on it's way to becoming a standard. Much like Apple renamed AltiVec the "Velocity Engine", it's something that Apple did not invent, and is simply incorporating into their system...
By-the-by, ZeroConf for wireless (at least 802.11b) works pretty good under Windows XP. It's not particularly restricted to any application - installing your wireless stuff in "Ad-hoc" mode (similar in many ways to the old AppleTalk approach) makes all systems in range visible. Gnutella, and most any networking capable application "Just Works" over it. I hadn't realized that Apple needed to specially adapt their applications to take advantage of ZeroConf, or as they like to call it, Rendezvous.
Don't get me wrong, Apple makes some nice looking hardware, and they have a great marketing team - but when you get right down to it, they're just like Microsoft. A business.
I take objection to the term "East Coast Code"... First off, I note that only one rep from either CT or MA voted - and for one bill each. The rest of the states in New England (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island) no reps voted for any of the bills. Many votes came out of NY and FL - not too suprising considering the hold that media magnates have there...
I see a whole bunch of votes from CA reps, a few from WA, and a bunch from TX. I'd say one should look in their own back yard before resorting to regional tarrings. The fact that DC is on the East Coast has little to nothing to do with how these bills were legislated; Look where the lobbiests come from - NY, FL and CA - the media hotspots. Plus a good sprinkling from the mid-west, where country is king!
Oh yeah, I forgot, the west coast is where all innovation happens, at least until the bean counters and jackdaws out on the east coast get ahold of it....;-)
Re:IDEO does most of apples Industrial Design
on
Porsche Designs a Laptop
·
· Score: 3, Informative
While it's nice to think it's Apple who has "certain attention to detail", you might want to check that Apple hired IDEO to do a lot of their design work. So really, it's just that Apple was smart enough to hire a _good_ industrial design firm.
lets examine some products similar to the X-Box. Your cellphone, a central office pbx, a game cube, a PS2, your cable box (or Dish network reciever)
How legal is it to hack a cell phone so that you can make unauthorized use of their network (note, I'm not asking how easy)? How about a PBX from Cisco?
I'm just playing devils advocate here - but while you may _own_ the box, I think MS has a vested interest in protecting the internals of the X-Box, and in attempting to keep it secure (keep it secret, keep it safe) - as their goal is the usage of the X-Box as an end-point of a network.
I also think it's relatively silly to waste time running Linux on one of these. Not to mention the time that MS is wasting going after the (at most) 1% of X-Box owners who are doing it. Hey - if you enjoy the challenge and hours that could be better spent constructively - then more power to ya.
PS: How come people aren't bent over the whole Game Cube thing? Where's the outcry about not being able to run this or that on it? BAH. Your OS is not a religion, and you're better off not being a brainwashed free software ideolog.
1) When a customer purchases an XBox (or any game system for that matter) are you intrinsically "signing" an end-user agreement in the purchase that makes modding the device illegal?
Not particularly, no. Of course MS is under no obligation to support you, or your box if it breaks. Also don't necessarilly expect it to work with the Live service. In other words, you're free to break it, just don't dump on MS when it breaks or you can't use it with some new game, or their online service, they are well within their rights to exclude you if they are able.
2) Could a non-profit org setup an effort to have mod chips produced and "distributed" at the cost of production w/o legal repurcussions? (i.e. would not making a profit on XBox's hardware mods protect you from their wrath?)
Ahh, now here's where you get to the quasi legality. It's the production for profit of mod-chips that has dubious legal value. Ever wonder why you can't just walk into a store and buy a cable descrambler? You might be able to avoid them - but you have to show up in court, and pay the legal fees when they sue you.
3) I understand the whole DRM aspect of mod'ing for playing copied games, BUT, what about legit gray-hacks like the Mandrake Linux XBox project and such?
Microsoft is concerned about a larger picture. Of having the X-Box be an end unit in a network of units. They want to make sure that the network is somewhat secure. By supporting something like Linux on the X-Box, they help to compromise their plans.
call me a cynic. But, this whole freedom of choice thing can't be underscored. GPL is great, if you want to put your software under it, feel free to do so. Just don't demand that I do the same. Information doesn't want to be free. Information doesn't _want_ anything. Information just is. People want information for a variety of purposes.
Unfortunately the US government is somewhat restricted from being a copyright holder, and patent holder for good reason. As if the government doesn't have enough power already, what with laws and everything... Try to imagine if they could be patent holders and copyright holders. What better way to cripple free speech and innovation?
And all this jazz about China using Linux. They're using you alright. China is not adopting Linux out of any altruistic sense of empowering the people. They are adopting it because it is not controlled by a corporation which is based in a potentially hostile foreign nation. China using Linux isn't about software - it's about politics. "Oh, look - we can get free software & brownie points, while divesting ourselves of foreign interest."
Sure, Linux may be the next best thing since sliced bread. GPL might be the next best thing too. But keep in mind that some of us still like to buy our loaves of bread whole, and slice them ourselves. Choice is good. Forcing your brand of "freedom" down anyone and everyone's throat == bad.
I can understand you all wanting the governemt to use OSS systems in building government systems. In fact, I'd lobby for that too. On a business, and social level it makes a lot of sense. But, guess what...? Sometimes OSS isn't always the right choice for the job. Shoehorning the wrong tool into doing the job is a big mistake. Options need to be considered rationally - not religiously. Of course, if you're used to kludges solving your problems - that might be OK.
This debate is far more complex than a simple choice of what OS to use at a government level.
This isn't simply an OS jihad. Where Linux == Good and Windows == Bad. Making business (cause that's what a lot of government is) decisions based on software "religion" is stupid and misguided.
The points that the congressman from Peru (I forget his name) made about using open source software were some of the most valid, and well reasoned ones I have heard in a long time. But - clearly his argument progresses beyond simple selection of the operating system to the systems used to create, maintain, and access the data used to run a govenment.
Here in the USA - govenment money is used to fund all sorts of private development. Look at defense research. Boeing, and all those guys are _private_ companies that acquire patents on inventions that were paid for with government monies. They then sell finished product to the govenment, further profitting from this relationship. As a tax payer you might be more than a little outraged by this.
So the question you have to ask yourself is: Do you want your government funding the r&d of proprietary software? That's one aspect of this debate.
Another question is: Do you want your government using proprietary software? If they are, then it has a cost over time in licensing fees. It also leads to the following -
Do you want your government to store data files in a proprietary format whose layout is held by some private company? (it's one thing if the gov. develops it's own data formats and properly documents them, it's a whole nother game when the format is externally owned).
Probably, in many cases your answer is "NO" to all three of these questions. But, then you have to ask yourself whether or not there is a serious open source, free software alternative to some of the commercial offerings. In many cases, yes. But, in just as many, no.
Other questions that come to mind are: Would you really want your government systems run off of current open source/free software systems? Being fair, you have to consider the bugs in those systems (beyond the simple anecdotal evidence) - and the "spit and polish" of those systems.
Do you really want your government in the "software" business? Maybe, maybe not. There's a reason so many governments sub-contract work out to professionals and specialists. Sure, the gov. usually attaches all sorts of conditions (specs and requirements) so that the end product is well documented - but private companies do the work. Given how effective government is at some tasks, I'm not sure I want them writing software!
Yes, people do need to understand the complete cost to their actions, but...
A tree is a limited effect carbon sink. They die eventually, naturally, and release their trapped carbon right back into the system. A tree is not a magic carbon sink. It's more of a delayed effect carbon sink. Who should people pay to cut down that tree? Keep in mind that wood and paper companies pay people to cut down trees - those people in turn pay others for goods and services; hence society as a whole benefits.
If this is what you were trying to say with your libertarian statement - then say it.
If you mean by externalities - individual preference and free will, oh well. I guess the market will always be imperfect.
Actually the idea behind biometric identification is that you have something other than a piece of paper to vouchsafe your identity.
So, have your drivers license stolen - it's no longer identity theft. As soon as the retinal information on the license is cross-referenced with an actual retinal scan of the individual carrying the card, bingo the scanner knows they're in fraudulent posession.
sure, it's bad news. If you suppose that things should never change. Assuming you think that the climate and ecology of the planet should be held in stasis then this is really bad. But, I suppose that if you're for stasis, you're against evolution.
I guess that's what bothers me - I'm not proposing that people be reckless and stupid - but I wish that some of these people would get a clue. The number of species that have become extinct since man walked the earth pales in comparison to the numbers prior to man. Things evolve, things change - life on Earth in 1,000 years may not be the same. Life on Earth in 10,000 years definitely won't be.
In short I tend to think that while these people pretend enlightenment they actually are afraid to move on. They hold too tightly to what was/is and don't think much about what might be.
I would accept the installation of cameras to monitor public spaces if - and only if - the public has full access to that network.
1> These are your tax dollars that are going to pay for it. You have a right to the information these cameras provide.
2> If the assertion is true that these cameras are in public, and only public spaces; then there is no expectation of privacy - and all should be able to access the data.
These cameras are going in whether we want them or not. The real danger here is that the access to their data may be restricted to an "elite" few. Sure, exposure of this network to everyone might be "bad" in that it would allow someone who has a vendetta to track down someone. But I would balance that danger against restricted access to "authorities" any day of the week.
Not a language feature. Yes, some very nice IDEs are available to support various languages - but this would be like using your word processor to generate documents in English, Spanish, or German...
2> simplified GUI design and event handling;
Not solely a language feature. Most modern languages do not (as a rule) incorporate GUI code into the language base. Many do provide very good libraries to support these features - some libraries available for various languages are better than others. Additionally, a lot of modern GUI design is handled by the IDE - so if you're looking for a WYSIWYG forms designer, that's a whole 'nother ball game.
3> advanced error handling;
Hey, wow a language feature. I assume you are looking for decent support of "throw -> catch" with possibly a "finally" clause in there. A lot of languages support this.
4> advanced object oriented design including multiple inheritance, abstract classes, and garbage collection;
Hmm - this really bundles a lot of things together. Any chance of getting these _prioritized_? Python or Ruby might be a good choice if these are equally important goals. Java doesn't much care for multiple inheritance - it can sort of fake it thru good design though. C++ has got multiple inheritance down pat, but that whole garbage collection thing throws it off.
5> full support for operator and function overloading;
Why? What does your boss know about the problem that you will be solving that will require this feature? I have used it on occassion myself - but largely I've found it to be a more confusing addition to a language, unless it supports it fairly ubiquitously (see Python or Ruby for ubiquity). In C++, overloading is just stupid - as you'll really want to explain what adding two new types together should do and make it perfectly clear to anyone else using that type.
6> and portable (at compile-time) across various platforms.
Compiler issue, not language issue. The question is whether a compiler exists for the language in question for your target platform. Sort of comes around to the IDE goals at the beginning.
This is a nice laundry list - but depending on the real problem at hand, you may only really need a few of these features. I'm guessing your boss would really like to have a "one language shop" that can solve a whole lot of different problems. An admirable goal - but not entirely realistic. Better IDE support is usually available for languages with good commercial support - C++, Java. However, both of these skimp somewhat on some of the actual language features your boss professes to be interested in. Python and Ruby both have all the language features you're looking for - but generally lag (comparatively) in the IDE department. Eiffel is neat - but again you loose out on multiple inheritance, and most Eiffel implementations are geared toward producing C/C++ code for compilation.
all the way back in the early 90s! It was far, far cheaper to rig this up to get data connectivity across Huntington Ave in Boston than to tunnel underneath the T tracks. The city of Boston has a special levy they charge you yearly if you've got cabling running under the tracks. They can't charge you anything for IR-laser.
It's not a bad solution for short distances, and relatively moderate bandwidth. Although I suspect duplication and redundancy could improve both.
I've been using Eclipse now for a couple of weeks, and have managed to bring an existing Java project consisting of a couple hundred source files into it, and compiling fine.
Things I Like:
1> Great code editor. Nice highlighting of matching parens and curly braces. Fairly instantaneous pop-up of attributes and methods when you press the period.
2> JUnit integration is strong. JUnit is good -it won't solve all your problems, but it's a nice safety net.
3> CVS Integration. Good source control integration is a must, otherwise I won't use it.
Things I'm not so keen on:
1> Seems to be good for Java, but not much else. I know it's still early, but I'd like to see more support for web targetted development.
2> Since it's supposedly using Ant behind the scenes, where's the XML config, and a GUI editor for said config? That would go a long way toward fixing #1 above.
Anyhow - with CVS integration, and JUnit, I'm not looking back. NetBeans was OK - but slow as heck, even if it bundles in more functionality. I'm betting Eclipse will gain rapidly.
just a couple of words. Having dealt with make files a few times in the past, I can say that I would be very happy to avoid them. In dealing with a Java/JSP system under Apache, I happily made the switch to using Ant!
Ant is a wonderful improvement over the batch files, and other kludges used to produce Java builds. Anything that makes that process less manual, easier to modify, and consistent is a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Blah -
Sure, it's funny, but it doesn't really contribute to the discussion, and isn't even remotely comparable to what's been going on here.
To make this comparison in the computing would is faceticious. It implies that a valid optimization isn't precalculating a function call for a range of inputs; or at the least implies that you must disable caching of such results.
There truly is a fine line between cheating and valid software optimizations. It relies on whether or not the software developers _intent_ was effectively communicated. Since there isn't any particular way to objectively compare what 3DMark 2003's intent is, it's hard to know what a cheat is and what a cheat isn't.
Also to the people indicating this driver is specifically optimized for 3DMark - you're damn right it is. And it's also optimized for 100s of other games and applications. You better believe ATI and nVidia have optimizations in their drivers for all sorts of games and applications, I wouldn't have it any other way! Or are you arguing that we should always use the general case for every function?
If so I guess we can abolish those algorithms classes, and do away with optimizing functions to work with specific sets of data... And hey, why should my compiler unroll loops, or in-line variables? BAH!
OK -
first off, for those of you wondering what the big deal with 3DMark 2003 is - and why you might use it in place of "real games" to benchmark 3D performance - here you go:
3DMark is a test application to benchmark next-generation performance, so that you can get an idea how your video card might handle games that will be out this time _next_ year. Specifically some aspects of 3DMark are geared toward testing DX9 functionality, and it's Pixel and Vertex shaders. No game currently on the market uses these features (at least not that I am aware of).
Secondly, the difference between a cheat and optimization is a fine one. If a given function continually produces the same output for the same inputs, and it takes 1 second to do so, and another function can produce the same results given the same inputs, but only takes 1/2 a second - it can be said to be functionally equivalent. However, it has been optimized. It's entirely possible, even desirable to replace pixel shaders and vertex shaders with routines which are optimized for your hardware. In much the same way that compilers schedule instructions optimally for the underlying CPU architecture, so too can instructions be re-ordered in a pixel shader routine... It's an optimization.
Cheating occurs when people start making approximations (analogies to bringing a cheat-sheet to a test are not valid), or by failing to process (in the case of video cards) the same visual fidelity, and detail that was intended. By example:
A> Reducing texture bit-depth.
B> Reducing geometry detail (merging 2 or more polygons).
This is only cheating if it's not the intent of the original application developer (not driver developer).
A driver developer could make the following optimizations, since they don't affect the intent of the application developer:
A> Pre-calc tables. A classic demo optimization would be to precalc a SIN function table to some level of precision as looking up a value was faster than calculating it on the fly.
B> Replacing various pixel/vertex shader routines with functionally equivalent, but faster ones.
C> Reordering data and textures (keeping detail and fidelity) into more optimal chunks for your hardware architecture.
Those aren't cheats - they are optimizations. Of course, the only way you can tell this is if you have an objective standard to gauge against. 3DMark 2003 doesn't seem to provide this. In order to do so they would need the following:
A> A software renderer for their demo.
B> Timed snapshots of the demo saving uncompressed images from the software renderer to disk.
C> The ability to re-run the demo using a hardware renderer (3D Card and drivers).
D> The ability to take the same snapshots and save them, uncompressed to disk.
E> The ability to do a histogram, per-pixel comparison to the software renders...
This would enable you to arrive at some objective comparison of visual fidelity - instead of the occassionally subjective I think screenshot X looks better than screenshot Y. Without the intent of the 3DMark developers being known, we really can't know how true the hardware vendors and their drivers are to the original vision.
Anything less than 3% difference is highly likely to be indistinguishable from the intent of the developers in this case. 5% to 10% may be visible, but acceptable (i.e. tweaks for speed in place of quality). Over 10% and you're playing with fire.
Witch's Wake was an interesting Mod (as in Modification, and Module) to be built out on top of the existing NWN system. It didn't really add any new classes, spells, etc - so I guess it's not really an "expansion" - but the effort put into it was over and above that of most modules released to-date for NWN.
BG2 for the PS2/X-Box looks really quite good. I was impressed with the first one as well. Nice action-game adaptation of the D&D system - great graphics, and a whole mess of fun. The only thing I wish the sequel had was network play - but I guess we'll have to wait for BG3!
Of course there is also the case of several products being labeled with the following:
"It is a violation of federal law to use this product in a manner other than intended by the manufacturer..."
Usually this is applied to various chemical solvents and cleaning agents which people for some unfathomable reason are inclined to "huff". However, it does bring up an interesting issue.
Most of these state laws hinge typically on what constitutes reasonable usage. Driving your car on roads and down highways, following traffic laws typically constitutes _reasonable_ usage. However, intentionally deciding to drive your car off a cliff, probably isn't _reasonable_ usage. This in turn typically obviates the responsibility of the manufacturer to your safety, because you exceeded all reasonable limits.
What does this have to do with AMD? Well, they are trying to establish a reasonable guideline for usage. Sort of like a car manufacturer saying their seat-belts are rated for collisions of 150 MPH or less. If you then modify your car to exceed that limit, they aren't liable if the seat-belt fails. AMD is saying, we checked this heatsink out - it works; if you want to use another one, you're welcome to it - just don't blame us if your CPU fries.
I think that in certain respects what really occured was a domination of introverted technologies. The _personal_ computer for instance. Yes, now with the World Wide Web we can connect with one another - but do we really? A great many technologies that have taken off are largely introverted in nature; even when they seem to make it easier for us to communicate.
Genetic engineering is another inward facing technology. I'm not saying it won't open doors to us, but it largely focused on exploring inward frontiers. This is a very personal technology - one which with augment or change us in very intimate ways.
With extroverted technology (exploring boundaries outside ourselves and immediate surroundings) taking a back seat, what do you expect to happen. Personal transport hasn't evolved too much in the last 20 years. Cars today aren't so much different than they were - and when was the Concorde designed and built? How about the Shuttle?
This probably has a lot to do with market forces. It's a lot easier to build and sell small personal things - not to mention more profitable.
Hey -
for those of you carping on about ooohh "286" or whatnot, keep in mind that the games we're playing now are an evolution of those earlier games. Some of you may be perfectly happy playing pong, while others of you enjoy the overblown graphics engines of today's games.
Dungeon Master was pretty revolutionary on both gameplay, graphics and sound.
1> Stereo sound on the Amiga and Atari systems was used for directional sound. If a monster was off to your left, the sound came out of the left hand speaker.. You could also hear things albeit muffled through walls. Not quite the HRTF/HTRF that we have today, but it was a step forward.
2> Graphics were somewhat 3d - with sprite-based monsters. Hmm, what other game came out like that? Sure, you were restricted to moving on a grid... But hey it was a step forward.
3> Gameplay for an RPG it was pretty basic in terms of "role playing"... However, it did have one of the earliest "if you practice a skill it will get better" systems. Meaning that any character could learn and advance any skill.
4> Gameplay for spell casting was pretty unique for the day. You had a runic panel whereby you could click through a series of runes (the first one determined the power level) and cast spells by selecting the correct runes in sequence.
5> Gameplay for combat was pretty good too. It was "real time" - and various attacks and weapon types took more or less time to recover from. You had 4 characters so 2 were in the front swinging their hand-to-hand weapns and the ones in the rear could cast spells or pelt the enemy with ranged weapons.
Believe it or not games like Morrow-wind, and other first person RPGs are at least somewhat derivative of this one. Not to mention the entire "Eye of the Beholder" series from SSI.
Well, the article sure made it out like Rendezvous was something _only_ Apple had done. And, a lot of people think only Apple has ZeroConf in the form of Rendezvous. So my points were the following:
1> Rendezvous is Apple's specific implementation of ZeroConf. There are other implementations - maybe not as slick as Rendezvous, but there are others.
2> ZeroConf is not solely an invention of Apple's - they are part of the working group that has defined the standard. That working group consists of a lot of network vendors and some OS vendors.
Additionally, it's really just an attempt to correct the Apple equivalent to spew the opposite of FUD. They're a good company - but they aren't necessarily "Humanity's last, best hope". They have a very real tendency to exaggerate their involvement on occassion (Altivec != super computer), and certainly don't take any steps to correct positive erronious reports about their products...
I don't really care what OS or hardware I use, so long as I can get my job done - it's not a religion, so I wish their acolytes would lay off on the sermonizing and proslytizing.
OK -
for the record, Rendezvous is the Apple implementation of ZeroConf, a protocol well on it's way to becoming a standard. Much like Apple renamed AltiVec the "Velocity Engine", it's something that Apple did not invent, and is simply incorporating into their system...
By-the-by, ZeroConf for wireless (at least 802.11b) works pretty good under Windows XP. It's not particularly restricted to any application - installing your wireless stuff in "Ad-hoc" mode (similar in many ways to the old AppleTalk approach) makes all systems in range visible. Gnutella, and most any networking capable application "Just Works" over it. I hadn't realized that Apple needed to specially adapt their applications to take advantage of ZeroConf, or as they like to call it, Rendezvous.
Don't get me wrong, Apple makes some nice looking hardware, and they have a great marketing team - but when you get right down to it, they're just like Microsoft. A business.
I take objection to the term "East Coast Code"... First off, I note that only one rep from either CT or MA voted - and for one bill each. The rest of the states in New England (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island) no reps voted for any of the bills. Many votes came out of NY and FL - not too suprising considering the hold that media magnates have there...
;-)
I see a whole bunch of votes from CA reps, a few from WA, and a bunch from TX. I'd say one should look in their own back yard before resorting to regional tarrings. The fact that DC is on the East Coast has little to nothing to do with how these bills were legislated; Look where the lobbiests come from - NY, FL and CA - the media hotspots. Plus a good sprinkling from the mid-west, where country is king!
Oh yeah, I forgot, the west coast is where all innovation happens, at least until the bean counters and jackdaws out on the east coast get ahold of it....
While it's nice to think it's Apple who has "certain attention to detail", you might want to check that Apple hired IDEO to do a lot of their design work. So really, it's just that Apple was smart enough to hire a _good_ industrial design firm.
OK -
lets examine some products similar to the X-Box. Your cellphone, a central office pbx, a game cube, a PS2, your cable box (or Dish network reciever)
How legal is it to hack a cell phone so that you can make unauthorized use of their network (note, I'm not asking how easy)? How about a PBX from Cisco?
I'm just playing devils advocate here - but while you may _own_ the box, I think MS has a vested interest in protecting the internals of the X-Box, and in attempting to keep it secure (keep it secret, keep it safe) - as their goal is the usage of the X-Box as an end-point of a network.
I also think it's relatively silly to waste time running Linux on one of these. Not to mention the time that MS is wasting going after the (at most) 1% of X-Box owners who are doing it. Hey - if you enjoy the challenge and hours that could be better spent constructively - then more power to ya.
PS: How come people aren't bent over the whole Game Cube thing? Where's the outcry about not being able to run this or that on it? BAH. Your OS is not a religion, and you're better off not being a brainwashed free software ideolog.
Amazingly enough in the business world, foreign laws are often applied to US businesses. Wow - it's called reciprocity. Amazing.
1) When a customer purchases an XBox (or any game system for that matter) are you intrinsically "signing" an end-user agreement in the purchase that makes modding the device illegal?
Not particularly, no. Of course MS is under no obligation to support you, or your box if it breaks. Also don't necessarilly expect it to work with the Live service. In other words, you're free to break it, just don't dump on MS when it breaks or you can't use it with some new game, or their online service, they are well within their rights to exclude you if they are able.
2) Could a non-profit org setup an effort to have mod chips produced and "distributed" at the cost of production w/o legal repurcussions? (i.e. would not making a profit on XBox's hardware mods protect you from their wrath?)
Ahh, now here's where you get to the quasi legality. It's the production for profit of mod-chips that has dubious legal value. Ever wonder why you can't just walk into a store and buy a cable descrambler? You might be able to avoid them - but you have to show up in court, and pay the legal fees when they sue you.
3) I understand the whole DRM aspect of mod'ing for playing copied games, BUT, what about legit gray-hacks like the Mandrake Linux XBox project and such?
Microsoft is concerned about a larger picture. Of having the X-Box be an end unit in a network of units. They want to make sure that the network is somewhat secure. By supporting something like Linux on the X-Box, they help to compromise their plans.
OK -
call me a cynic. But, this whole freedom of choice thing can't be underscored. GPL is great, if you want to put your software under it, feel free to do so. Just don't demand that I do the same. Information doesn't want to be free. Information doesn't _want_ anything. Information just is. People want information for a variety of purposes.
Unfortunately the US government is somewhat restricted from being a copyright holder, and patent holder for good reason. As if the government doesn't have enough power already, what with laws and everything... Try to imagine if they could be patent holders and copyright holders. What better way to cripple free speech and innovation?
And all this jazz about China using Linux. They're using you alright. China is not adopting Linux out of any altruistic sense of empowering the people. They are adopting it because it is not controlled by a corporation which is based in a potentially hostile foreign nation. China using Linux isn't about software - it's about politics. "Oh, look - we can get free software & brownie points, while divesting ourselves of foreign interest."
Sure, Linux may be the next best thing since sliced bread. GPL might be the next best thing too. But keep in mind that some of us still like to buy our loaves of bread whole, and slice them ourselves. Choice is good. Forcing your brand of "freedom" down anyone and everyone's throat == bad.
I can understand you all wanting the governemt to use OSS systems in building government systems. In fact, I'd lobby for that too. On a business, and social level it makes a lot of sense. But, guess what...? Sometimes OSS isn't always the right choice for the job. Shoehorning the wrong tool into doing the job is a big mistake. Options need to be considered rationally - not religiously. Of course, if you're used to kludges solving your problems - that might be OK.
Bah!
This debate is far more complex than a simple choice of what OS to use at a government level.
This isn't simply an OS jihad. Where Linux == Good and Windows == Bad. Making business (cause that's what a lot of government is) decisions based on software "religion" is stupid and misguided.
The points that the congressman from Peru (I forget his name) made about using open source software were some of the most valid, and well reasoned ones I have heard in a long time. But - clearly his argument progresses beyond simple selection of the operating system to the systems used to create, maintain, and access the data used to run a govenment.
Here in the USA - govenment money is used to fund all sorts of private development. Look at defense research. Boeing, and all those guys are _private_ companies that acquire patents on inventions that were paid for with government monies. They then sell finished product to the govenment, further profitting from this relationship. As a tax payer you might be more than a little outraged by this.
So the question you have to ask yourself is: Do you want your government funding the r&d of proprietary software? That's one aspect of this debate.
Another question is: Do you want your government using proprietary software? If they are, then it has a cost over time in licensing fees. It also leads to the following -
Do you want your government to store data files in a proprietary format whose layout is held by some private company? (it's one thing if the gov. develops it's own data formats and properly documents them, it's a whole nother game when the format is externally owned).
Probably, in many cases your answer is "NO" to all three of these questions. But, then you have to ask yourself whether or not there is a serious open source, free software alternative to some of the commercial offerings. In many cases, yes. But, in just as many, no.
Other questions that come to mind are: Would you really want your government systems run off of current open source/free software systems? Being fair, you have to consider the bugs in those systems (beyond the simple anecdotal evidence) - and the "spit and polish" of those systems.
Do you really want your government in the "software" business? Maybe, maybe not. There's a reason so many governments sub-contract work out to professionals and specialists. Sure, the gov. usually attaches all sorts of conditions (specs and requirements) so that the end product is well documented - but private companies do the work. Given how effective government is at some tasks, I'm not sure I want them writing software!
...Food for thought...
Yes, people do need to understand the complete cost to their actions, but...
A tree is a limited effect carbon sink. They die eventually, naturally, and release their trapped carbon right back into the system. A tree is not a magic carbon sink. It's more of a delayed effect carbon sink. Who should people pay to cut down that tree? Keep in mind that wood and paper companies pay people to cut down trees - those people in turn pay others for goods and services; hence society as a whole benefits.
If this is what you were trying to say with your libertarian statement - then say it.
If you mean by externalities - individual preference and free will, oh well. I guess the market will always be imperfect.
Actually the idea behind biometric identification is that you have something other than a piece of paper to vouchsafe your identity.
So, have your drivers license stolen - it's no longer identity theft. As soon as the retinal information on the license is cross-referenced with an actual retinal scan of the individual carrying the card, bingo the scanner knows they're in fraudulent posession.
I'd add the following, if they can be considered algorithms:
Genetic Algorithms/Programming
Neural Networks
Fuzzy Logic
While these may appear focused on AI - they have had real application in a lot of areas.
OK -
sure, it's bad news. If you suppose that things should never change. Assuming you think that the climate and ecology of the planet should be held in stasis then this is really bad. But, I suppose that if you're for stasis, you're against evolution.
I guess that's what bothers me - I'm not proposing that people be reckless and stupid - but I wish that some of these people would get a clue. The number of species that have become extinct since man walked the earth pales in comparison to the numbers prior to man. Things evolve, things change - life on Earth in 1,000 years may not be the same. Life on Earth in 10,000 years definitely won't be.
In short I tend to think that while these people pretend enlightenment they actually are afraid to move on. They hold too tightly to what was/is and don't think much about what might be.
- Woodie
I would accept the installation of cameras to monitor public spaces if - and only if - the public has full access to that network.
1> These are your tax dollars that are going to pay for it. You have a right to the information these cameras provide.
2> If the assertion is true that these cameras are in public, and only public spaces; then there is no expectation of privacy - and all should be able to access the data.
These cameras are going in whether we want them or not. The real danger here is that the access to their data may be restricted to an "elite" few. Sure, exposure of this network to everyone might be "bad" in that it would allow someone who has a vendetta to track down someone. But I would balance that danger against restricted access to "authorities" any day of the week.
- Woodie
1> intuitive and easy to use IDE;
Not a language feature. Yes, some very nice IDEs are available to support various languages - but this would be like using your word processor to generate documents in English, Spanish, or German...
2> simplified GUI design and event handling;
Not solely a language feature. Most modern languages do not (as a rule) incorporate GUI code into the language base. Many do provide very good libraries to support these features - some libraries available for various languages are better than others. Additionally, a lot of modern GUI design is handled by the IDE - so if you're looking for a WYSIWYG forms designer, that's a whole 'nother ball game.
3> advanced error handling;
Hey, wow a language feature. I assume you are looking for decent support of "throw -> catch" with possibly a "finally" clause in there. A lot of languages support this.
4> advanced object oriented design including multiple inheritance, abstract classes, and garbage collection;
Hmm - this really bundles a lot of things together. Any chance of getting these _prioritized_? Python or Ruby might be a good choice if these are equally important goals. Java doesn't much care for multiple inheritance - it can sort of fake it thru good design though. C++ has got multiple inheritance down pat, but that whole garbage collection thing throws it off.
5> full support for operator and function overloading;
Why? What does your boss know about the problem that you will be solving that will require this feature? I have used it on occassion myself - but largely I've found it to be a more confusing addition to a language, unless it supports it fairly ubiquitously (see Python or Ruby for ubiquity). In C++, overloading is just stupid - as you'll really want to explain what adding two new types together should do and make it perfectly clear to anyone else using that type.
6> and portable (at compile-time) across various platforms.
Compiler issue, not language issue. The question is whether a compiler exists for the language in question for your target platform. Sort of comes around to the IDE goals at the beginning.
This is a nice laundry list - but depending on the real problem at hand, you may only really need a few of these features. I'm guessing your boss would really like to have a "one language shop" that can solve a whole lot of different problems. An admirable goal - but not entirely realistic. Better IDE support is usually available for languages with good commercial support - C++, Java. However, both of these skimp somewhat on some of the actual language features your boss professes to be interested in. Python and Ruby both have all the language features you're looking for - but generally lag (comparatively) in the IDE department. Eiffel is neat - but again you loose out on multiple inheritance, and most Eiffel implementations are geared toward producing C/C++ code for compilation.
Yup -
all the way back in the early 90s! It was far, far cheaper to rig this up to get data connectivity across Huntington Ave in Boston than to tunnel underneath the T tracks. The city of Boston has a special levy they charge you yearly if you've got cabling running under the tracks. They can't charge you anything for IR-laser.
It's not a bad solution for short distances, and relatively moderate bandwidth. Although I suspect duplication and redundancy could improve both.
Hey -
I've been using Eclipse now for a couple of weeks, and have managed to bring an existing Java project consisting of a couple hundred source files into it, and compiling fine.
Things I Like:
1> Great code editor. Nice highlighting of matching parens and curly braces. Fairly instantaneous pop-up of attributes and methods when you press the period.
2> JUnit integration is strong. JUnit is good -it won't solve all your problems, but it's a nice safety net.
3> CVS Integration. Good source control integration is a must, otherwise I won't use it.
Things I'm not so keen on:
1> Seems to be good for Java, but not much else. I know it's still early, but I'd like to see more support for web targetted development.
2> Since it's supposedly using Ant behind the scenes, where's the XML config, and a GUI editor for said config? That would go a long way toward fixing #1 above.
Anyhow - with CVS integration, and JUnit, I'm not looking back. NetBeans was OK - but slow as heck, even if it bundles in more functionality. I'm betting Eclipse will gain rapidly.
- Porter
Hi -
just a couple of words. Having dealt with make files a few times in the past, I can say that I would be very happy to avoid them. In dealing with a Java/JSP system under Apache, I happily made the switch to using Ant!
Ant is a wonderful improvement over the batch files, and other kludges used to produce Java builds. Anything that makes that process less manual, easier to modify, and consistent is a good thing.
Yup, it was theft...
"...in as much as stealing arrangements of electrons can be considered "theft". "
To which I would say
...in as much as stealing arrangements of molecules can be considered "theft".
Same thing.