um, that's not how software sales work. it costs a lot of money to develop new software, but not to make copies of it. as sales volume increases, unit costs shrink to zero. and someone downloading a copy of Windows off of the internet (or buying a pirated disk) doesn't cost Microsoft anything. it's not like each time a pirate duplicates the 1's and 0's that Windows consists of, Microsoft suddenly loses money or has their operational costs increased.
and selling the OS for $66 in a different market doesn't affect the U.S. market in any way. they're not selling the product at a loss; they're still making money on each sale. so who are you subsidizing? if you feel the need to give Microsoft your money, that's your choice. that doesn't mean other people have to do the same. Chinese consumers refused to buy the OS at Microsoft's initial price point. so Microsoft was forced to lower the price to get people to buy their product. this happens with every market and has nothing to do with piracy.
if you think Microsoft is charging you too much for their OS, then maybe you shouldn't have bought it. don't bitch about Chinese consumers holding out for a better deal just because you're stupid with your own money.
yea, it's just too bad you don't own the airwaves. the radio spectrum is a shared public resource--a limited resource at that. therefor, the FCC made the right decision by choosing public interest over corporate interest (or in your case, an incredibly small minority interest).
i highly doubt this ruling will suddenly cripple all DTV broadcasts, but even if it did, it's still preferable to have a free wireless broadband data network over a free DTV network. why limit this UHF spectrum to DTV broadcasts when using it to extend broadband infrastructure would provide much more public utility? the major TV networks can stream video/audio over the internet, which the public can receive using free wireless, but limiting this spectrum to DTV broadcasts would not allow the public to access the web, internet radio, streaming video, VoIP, and the endless list of other applications an open/public network like the internet enables.
it may be an inconvenience to you that you cannot receive DTV signals from far outside of their broadcast area, but that's hardly a reason to impede technological progress. stop thinking so small and try to see the bigger picture here.
right now a handful of cellular carriers and telecoms hold a complete monopoly on telecommunications with their proprietary communication networks. because of this, they can charge extortionate rates while providing shoddy service. they also have complete control over what devices can connect to their networks and, because their business model depends on it, purposely cripple consumer handsets (such as disabling the use of mp3s as ringtones to force subscribers to buy them from their carrier at jacked up prices), hindering the development of new and potentially useful cellular applications (e.g. video calls or much earlier adoption of mobile TV).
compare this with the progress of the internet/web over the same amount of time. anyone can develop their own applications on the internet because of its open nature. this has fueled innovation and spurred the growth of the web as an application platform. frankly, the internet provides much more benefit & utility to the average person than closed/proprietary telecom, TV, and radio networks. and as a generalized digital communication network, the internet is capable of filling the roles of all of the above specialized proprietary networks. you can already make & receive calls using VoIP (and even video calls with VVoIP), and internet radio offers a much more diversified range of music than the Clear-Channel-dominated FM radio. the public also has access to a lot more video content on the internet than with traditional terrestrial broadcasts.
heck, you can broadcast your own internet video stream and run your own "TV" channel once all of these parallel (and redundant) proprietary networks are absorbed by the internet. the internet allows regular individuals to be content producers rather than just consumers. this decentralization of content distribution has resulted in a democratization of the media. and once we have a nationwide public wireless infrastructure, internet media will be able to go anywhere that TV/radio can go today--and much further.
what is it about proprietary software that prevents companies/developers from working together to achieve mutually beneficial goals? it's not like cooperation would hurt their profit margins. it'd just produce a better user experience and make the Windows computing platform more useful.
whatever it is, this uncooperative culture hurts, not only users, but also developers. just look at how IE has screwed up the web by flouting open standards. if all the browser developers, whether open source or proprietary, would just get together to draw up a standard JavaScript implementation and adhere to open standards for HTML & CSS, it would make the job of web developers so much easier. users won't have to look at sites that don't render properly in their browser of choice, and it would also pave the way for better and more advanced web applications.
well, you would have to first come up with a complex equation that:
accounts for all online and off-line file-sharing
determines what percentage of these individuals would have actually paid full price for the music (and what percentage would have instead just bought a pirated copy)
determines what fraction of their pirated music collection each user would have actually paid for (or could even afford)
accounts for the fan base created by viral marketing directly resulting from file-sharing
determines the amount of merch & ticket sales such fans generate, subtracting this figure from the net "cost" of file-sharing
accounts for the bad PR and loss of fans/customers directly due to anti-file-sharing tactics such as DRM and lawsuits
determines how much of the potential "losses" (money saved by consumers) is reinvested into other music purchases/concert tickets/merch/etc. (subtract this from the net cost as well)
in order to see the full picture you need to analyze all of these variables and see how they affect the market. in the end i think one will find that piracy/file-sharing has actually increased music-related spending and is actually a valuable source of free exposure/advertising. giving consumers the option to try out music cost-free allows them to explore a greater variety of music and artists. this results in lower sales for crappy artists, but increased sales & fan bases for good artists.
i don't doubt that the major labels are hurting and sales for pop albums are dropping. but that isn't entirely due to piracy, and it doesn't mean the industry as a whole doesn't benefit from piracy. part of this is caused by a new distribution paradigm emerging. the old means of promoting music by using Payola to get top-40 radio stations to drill catchy hit singles into the heads of consumers is losing its effectiveness. increasingly people are using the internet to discover music on their own--music that actually suits their tastes. and for the people who do still listen to the radio, they can just buy the singles from iTunes rather than spend $20 on a pop album full of filler tracks that they won't listen to.
the new digital music distribution system gives consumers what they want rather than telling them what they want. and as a result, a lot of consumer spending is being shifted away from the major artists and towards indie artists. studies have shown that music pirates spend more on music than the average person, so how can piracy be hurting the music industry? it may be hurting the major labels and fad musicians who put out derivative bubblegum music which aren't worth paying for, but being able to download an album for free won't stop real fans from purchasing music & merch from, or otherwise supporting, the bands they like.
file sharing is actually great for the music industry because it evens the playing field for indie artists who have previously been locked out of the promotion network and distribution system controlled by the major labels. and this democratization of the market may even lead to a rise in the quality of mainstream music.
yea, you're probably right. i meant games similar to Fallout. for instance, i heard Silent Storm has a similar feel to Fallout, although it's set in World War II and leans more towards spy-fi. but i guess there probably aren't a lot of games like that. it's pretty rare that you find a game that mixes a good plot, rich back story, and original gameplay.
i agree with you that the GP isn't really off-topic, but i just want to point out that some of the GOG.com titles aren't really that old. i mean, Collin McRae Rally 2005? that's considered a PC classic? it is pretty cool to see MDK on there though.
personally, i wish Fallout would get ported to the PSP. there's been an extreme dearth of sci-fi RPGs for the PSP, and i think this is a franchise that would do well on that system. but seeing as that's not going to happen, i just wanna ask if anyone remembers any good sci-fi RPGs that were released for PSX?
you know, i'd heard people mention RockBox on/. before, but i never really checked it out until now. and after looking at some of the UI shots, i really wish they'd port it over to the PSP. i love the PSP's hardware, but the built-in media player outright sucks.
i know there are homebrew media players that add more robust functionality, but none of them look as nice or well-written as RockBox. and every time i see another PMP's audio player interface i get simultaneously frustrated and angry that, with all of constant firmware updates Sony releases just to combat homebrew & "piracy," they can't add something as simple as playlist support or a decent media browser to the PSP audio player.
honestly, how hard is it to let users browse their music collection by genre, artist, or album? or to let users load or edit play lists? if Sony just spent 1% of the resources they waste on breaking backward compatibility with CFW on actually improving the PSP, the quality of its software just might match the quality of the hardware.
because these news sites care more about ad revenue than providing useful information. it's always the major news sites that do this because they don't want you to leave their site.
that's why i prefer alternative/independent news sources that actually care about journalistic integrity and providing a useful service to the public. if you put business profits above your basic duty as a media institution, then i don't want you to be my window to the rest of the world.
it's essentially a form of mimicry. i think true AI research is focused on more fundamental neurological processes, such as neural nets and other adaptive systems. serious AI researchers ought to focus on machine-learning rather than trying to simulate high-order cognitive abilities like linguistic communications.
we need to learn to walk before we can run. it makes more sense to try to build an AI with the intelligence of a cockroach, mouse, or reptile, before trying to emulate the functions of the human brain.
this reminds me of a news article i read on either/. or digg a few years back that showed the east coast has a surplus of single women, while the west coast has a surplus of single males. so if you're a guy who wants to increase his odds at finding a girl, head east. if you're a girl, head west.
i don't know what accounts for these anomalies, but i'm guessing it has to do with culture or migrations patterns. perhaps more tech jobs are offered on the west coast, or perhaps a lot of single women immigrate to the U.S. from Europe? i dont know. but the ratio between single males & females definitely varies depending on geography.
actually, the Lenovo x-series tablets have spill-resistant keyboards that channel spills out the bottom of the system without damaging internal components. having a recessed keyboard or not doesn't make much of a difference when there are open gaps where liquids can seep through between the keys. it's what you do with the liquid that gets under the keys that matters.
i don't know if Macs have this safety feature, but having a raised keyboard won't protect it from spills any more than a recessed keyboard.
part of the problem is the use of dynamic range compression. not all music CDs or mp3s have the same dynamic range, so with most rock/pop/hip-hop/etc. the volume only varies between loud and very loud. but with classical or other genres where dynamic range is preserved, you'll have huge variances in volume. this means if you limit the media player volume to suit rock music, then when consumers listen to classical they'll have a hard time hearing the low to medium volume parts of the track. you could implement a feature to automatically normalize all the tracks played (i think the iPod already has this), but i don't know if this will cause a loss of dynamic range and thus negatively affect sound quality.
personally, i don't think PMP makers should artificially limit the speaker output to prevent hearing loss. some people have more sensitive ears than others, and some need the volume to be a little higher, whether due to the music they listen to or their hearing ability. i think a better idea would be to monitor the speaker output and display a warning to the user if the audio level is high enough to cause damage. this will give users the freedom to use their players as they wish while promoting safe listening habits.
hasn't increased that much != hasn't increased at all. a modern 700 MHz cpu is perfectly capable of surfing the web and handling most office computing work.
and what does using thin clients have to do with lack of redundancy? no one said you had to use a single file server for the entire network. using fat clients will not make up for a lack of common sense. and if you can't manage to keep a dozen servers up, you're certainly not going to be able to handle maintaining a couple hundred fat clients.
so, yea, if you're not a competent network administrator, then obvious you shouldn't be network booting anything. but assuming you can keep your network up, then running thin-clients can simplify your maintenance work. not everyone needs a workstation with the latest quad core CPU virtualizing Windows Vista, all just so they can check their e-mail, search the web, and open Word/Excel/PowerPoint. aside from eliminating the unnecessary overhead, using thin clients in such situations would greatly reduce power consumption.
it's not about rediscovering the advantages/disadvantages of thin clients. AFAIK thin clients were never fully abandoned. it's simply about finding the right niche for thin clients.
for instance, if you're setting up some computers at a public library that only need to search through the library catalog and nothing else, then thin clients are the clear way to go. if you're running a school network where thousands of students will be sharing a few hundred computers, but they'll need word processing, desktop publishing, web access, etc. then you don't want dumb terminals obviously, but you may still want to just set up a bunch of diskless nodes network booting from a central server instead of having to manage a network of standalone workstations.
while processor power has increased significantly, the computing demands of the casual user hasn't increased that much since the days of Windows 95. a secretary/accountant/manager/student/etc. does not need to do anything beyond running an office suite, checking their e-mail, and browsing the web. a thin client by today's standards can still do all of these things. heck, a sub-laptop can do all of these things. so why waste the time & resources to manage a bunch of standalone workstations when a thin client will do?
reserve the fat clients for people who actually need it: engineers, programmers, designers, researchers, etc. and by giving everyone else thin clients, you'll give them less chance to screw up their system, thus giving them more uptime and more reliability, which users will appreciate.
i'm pretty sure the iraqi insurgents are armed with more than just sticks and stones (or pistols and hunting rifles for that matter). so unless you're stockpiling russian RPGs, AKs, black market M16s, mortars, machine guns, etc. it's not going to be the same as Iraq. besides, the reason the insurgency can never be defeated is because we never planned on conquering Iraq and occupying the territory. if there were a civilian uprising in the U.S. it would be quashed immediately by the national guard, and if needed, the army proper.
and by that point there'd be no reason to worry about public opinion; the legitimacy of the government would depend entirely on military force. so there'd be no reason for the government to hesitate to declare marshal law and create a police state. i mean, we're already half way there. any violence that breaks out will just be used as proof of the terrorist threat that exists, thus requiring a moratorium on our civil liberties for the sake of national security.
and it's unlikely that there'll be many soldiers defecting. soldiers are trained to blindly obey orders, and that kind of mentality has been responsible for the majority of military atrocities throughout history. suppressing a civilian uprising under the banner of fighting terrorism is not likely to be questioned by many soldiers. it'll probably be questioned by few civilians.
democracy is defended by words and ideas, not with bullets and bombs. so it's always silly when people rant on and on about the 2nd amendment but vote for corrupt leaders and allow their most important rights to be capitulated. right now the best weapon for protecting democracy is probably the internet and net neutrality. it allows the public to stay informed and get their news from a variety of independent news sources. so instead of fighting for your right to own a handgun, we should be fighting to preserve net neutrality.
that might be true if our society weren't so dependent on global trade. but if our trade partners suddenly cut all economic relations with us our domestic economy would collapse. we depend on other nations for manufacturing, investments, and imports/exports.
we might be able to raid other countries for their oil, but we can't use military coercion to force other countries to import our goods or manufacture our raw materials. and since our trade relations with other nations are generally good for us, bad for them, if we're no longer an economic superpower, i imagine most of the developing nations we exploit would cut their ties with us and just nationalize the resources we've hijacked from them like Venezuela has done.
i mean, if we don't have money to lend other nations, the IMF & World Bank would cease to be relevant. and without the power and influence of the IMF/World Bank, we wouldn't be able to dictate the domestic policies of other nations anymore. so 3rd world nations who've allowed us to privatize their industries and open up their markets to us would cease to allow themselves to be exploited.
and quite frankly, we need them more than they need us. many American-based corporate conglomerates would tank if our globalization policies were reversed. WalMart and other retailers wouldn't have cheap sweatshop made goods to sell. Monsanto would lose most of their profits made from selling developing nations GMO seeds every planting season. and 38% of Microsoft's annual revenue comes from sales outside of the U.S. heck, Hollywood makes more money from foreign ticket sales than from the domestic box office ($12 billion a year versus $9 billion).
if our money was certainly no good internationally, or if countries like China decided to collect on our debts, we would be royally screwed.
many people like to invent things and come up with new, innovative ideas because it pleases them. they enjoy sharing their ideas with others and contributing to society--yea, it's a novel concept, i know. people were inventing ways to make life better long before capitalism and the subsequent commercialization of our society. it's in our nature to create, invent, and innovate. that's why people write open source software, conduct academic research, and create art.
the patent system simply promotes the attitude you demonstrate, which is that inventions are simply commodities to be commercially exploited. that's why we have patent trolls that don't contribute to society in any meaningful way, and instead go around suing people who actually do.
patents no longer serve their original purpose of promoting innovation while expanding the corpus of human knowledge. most patents these days are held by corporations, and the majority of them are of obvious or trivial ideas, which are simply patented to prevent others from using them, and contribute nothing to the wealth of human knowledge.
that's a poor way to grant patents. just because something has market value doesn't make it an innovation or an invention. anything that is useful has market value--especially if you're able to patent it and force others to pay you licensing/royalty fees to use it. the ultimate goal of the patent and copyright system is to promote public good and societal progress. public interest should always be placed above economic interest, not the other way around.
one of the inherent flaws with most patent systems is that once something is patented, even if someone else with no knowledge of the patent filing independently invents the same idea, they will either, be forced to pay royalties to the first inventor, or simply forbidden from using their own invention. it's a means of excluding others from the use of the patented idea, essentially giving the patent holder a monopoly. but why should someone be prevented from implementing an idea they invented independently just because they came up with the idea later? should being born 10 years earlier give a person the right to monopolize an obvious concept?
software patents exacerbate the problem when companies are allowed to patent mathematical algorithms or trivial/obvious functionality. things like UI interfaces, JavaScript popups, portable e-mail, etc. should not be patentable. these patents do not benefit society in any way, and they have hindered technological progress rather than promote it.
at the very least, non-commercial uses of patented ideas should not be prohibited. give the first inventor exclusive rights to commercial the idea, but if someone else comes along and re-invents the same concept for personal use, they should be free to do so. otherwise the patent system is just restricting free expression and stifling innovation.
you're referring to overrun fuel shutoffs, right? if so, what percentage of cars have this feature?
because, driving a 2001 Honda Accord, i was under the impression that when i use active engine breaking going downhill on steep mountain roads i was sacrificing fuel efficiency for brake life. is it noticeable when the overrun protection is engaged? i'm just curious because i haven't noticed the engine shutting off when engine braking downhill.
i mean, if the engine isn't idling and the throttle is completely closed, shouldn't you hear the engine going silent?
the article only mentions that it's free for eligible testers; it doesn't indicate whether it will be a free add-on to Windows when it's actually released.
frankly, i don't think there will ever be a software replacement for repair technicians. if such software could be designed then we'd already have self-repairing OSes.
but perhaps a centralized database for device drivers could be created online, where hardware manufacturers could post their drivers so that users can automatically fetch driver updates from a centralized server. this could be integrated into the operating system so that it's handled seamlessly.
for hardware troubleshooting, i think it's still very much a trial and error process requiring an experience human technician. that is, unless it's possible to build an error detection system into every piece of hardware that might possibly fail. for instance, don't most new hard drives come with SMART (Self-Monitoring, Analysis, and Reporting Technology)? it should be possible for the OS to recognize the warning signs for potential disk failure and alert the user before a catastrophic event.
i'm not sure not sure if things like memory, motherboards, printers, etc. can perform similar self-diagnostics. but it might be worthwhile for other hardware manufacturers to work together on creating something similar to SMART for their respective devices.
the author's major complaints against the tool seem to be:
PC Checkup diagnoses non-problems (UAC being disabled, desktop shortcut pointing to wrong version of a program, the use of a custom power profile)
offers useless tips (empty Temporary Internet Files, enable IE's phising filter, turn on Windows Firewall)
missed obvious problems like outdated drivers which were causing actual system crashes
rest of the menus were just shortcuts to the control panel or other pre-existing Windows content/features
it sounds like the author's evaluation that this program offers non-fixes for non-problems seems like a pretty accurate one. he does give the program benefit of the doubt and states:
...the PC Checkup functionality could deliver some interesting functionality, especially if it develops the ability to suss out real PC problems...
i think they were just expecting what MS tried to promise--a program that would actually help troubleshoot computer problems. but in the end, Microsoft's PC Advisor Repair Tool suffers the same problem as other PC repair programs--they don't work.
Slashdot Mirror
um, that's not how software sales work. it costs a lot of money to develop new software, but not to make copies of it. as sales volume increases, unit costs shrink to zero. and someone downloading a copy of Windows off of the internet (or buying a pirated disk) doesn't cost Microsoft anything. it's not like each time a pirate duplicates the 1's and 0's that Windows consists of, Microsoft suddenly loses money or has their operational costs increased.
and selling the OS for $66 in a different market doesn't affect the U.S. market in any way. they're not selling the product at a loss; they're still making money on each sale. so who are you subsidizing? if you feel the need to give Microsoft your money, that's your choice. that doesn't mean other people have to do the same. Chinese consumers refused to buy the OS at Microsoft's initial price point. so Microsoft was forced to lower the price to get people to buy their product. this happens with every market and has nothing to do with piracy.
if you think Microsoft is charging you too much for their OS, then maybe you shouldn't have bought it. don't bitch about Chinese consumers holding out for a better deal just because you're stupid with your own money.
actually, her full designation is "Seven of Nine, Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix Zero-One."
but i don't really watch Star Trek...
yea, it's just too bad you don't own the airwaves. the radio spectrum is a shared public resource--a limited resource at that. therefor, the FCC made the right decision by choosing public interest over corporate interest (or in your case, an incredibly small minority interest).
i highly doubt this ruling will suddenly cripple all DTV broadcasts, but even if it did, it's still preferable to have a free wireless broadband data network over a free DTV network. why limit this UHF spectrum to DTV broadcasts when using it to extend broadband infrastructure would provide much more public utility? the major TV networks can stream video/audio over the internet, which the public can receive using free wireless, but limiting this spectrum to DTV broadcasts would not allow the public to access the web, internet radio, streaming video, VoIP, and the endless list of other applications an open/public network like the internet enables.
it may be an inconvenience to you that you cannot receive DTV signals from far outside of their broadcast area, but that's hardly a reason to impede technological progress. stop thinking so small and try to see the bigger picture here.
right now a handful of cellular carriers and telecoms hold a complete monopoly on telecommunications with their proprietary communication networks. because of this, they can charge extortionate rates while providing shoddy service. they also have complete control over what devices can connect to their networks and, because their business model depends on it, purposely cripple consumer handsets (such as disabling the use of mp3s as ringtones to force subscribers to buy them from their carrier at jacked up prices), hindering the development of new and potentially useful cellular applications (e.g. video calls or much earlier adoption of mobile TV).
compare this with the progress of the internet/web over the same amount of time. anyone can develop their own applications on the internet because of its open nature. this has fueled innovation and spurred the growth of the web as an application platform. frankly, the internet provides much more benefit & utility to the average person than closed/proprietary telecom, TV, and radio networks. and as a generalized digital communication network, the internet is capable of filling the roles of all of the above specialized proprietary networks. you can already make & receive calls using VoIP (and even video calls with VVoIP), and internet radio offers a much more diversified range of music than the Clear-Channel-dominated FM radio. the public also has access to a lot more video content on the internet than with traditional terrestrial broadcasts.
heck, you can broadcast your own internet video stream and run your own "TV" channel once all of these parallel (and redundant) proprietary networks are absorbed by the internet. the internet allows regular individuals to be content producers rather than just consumers. this decentralization of content distribution has resulted in a democratization of the media. and once we have a nationwide public wireless infrastructure, internet media will be able to go anywhere that TV/radio can go today--and much further.
what is it about proprietary software that prevents companies/developers from working together to achieve mutually beneficial goals? it's not like cooperation would hurt their profit margins. it'd just produce a better user experience and make the Windows computing platform more useful.
whatever it is, this uncooperative culture hurts, not only users, but also developers. just look at how IE has screwed up the web by flouting open standards. if all the browser developers, whether open source or proprietary, would just get together to draw up a standard JavaScript implementation and adhere to open standards for HTML & CSS, it would make the job of web developers so much easier. users won't have to look at sites that don't render properly in their browser of choice, and it would also pave the way for better and more advanced web applications.
well, you would have to first come up with a complex equation that:
in order to see the full picture you need to analyze all of these variables and see how they affect the market. in the end i think one will find that piracy/file-sharing has actually increased music-related spending and is actually a valuable source of free exposure/advertising. giving consumers the option to try out music cost-free allows them to explore a greater variety of music and artists. this results in lower sales for crappy artists, but increased sales & fan bases for good artists.
i don't doubt that the major labels are hurting and sales for pop albums are dropping. but that isn't entirely due to piracy, and it doesn't mean the industry as a whole doesn't benefit from piracy. part of this is caused by a new distribution paradigm emerging. the old means of promoting music by using Payola to get top-40 radio stations to drill catchy hit singles into the heads of consumers is losing its effectiveness. increasingly people are using the internet to discover music on their own--music that actually suits their tastes. and for the people who do still listen to the radio, they can just buy the singles from iTunes rather than spend $20 on a pop album full of filler tracks that they won't listen to.
the new digital music distribution system gives consumers what they want rather than telling them what they want. and as a result, a lot of consumer spending is being shifted away from the major artists and towards indie artists. studies have shown that music pirates spend more on music than the average person, so how can piracy be hurting the music industry? it may be hurting the major labels and fad musicians who put out derivative bubblegum music which aren't worth paying for, but being able to download an album for free won't stop real fans from purchasing music & merch from, or otherwise supporting, the bands they like.
file sharing is actually great for the music industry because it evens the playing field for indie artists who have previously been locked out of the promotion network and distribution system controlled by the major labels. and this democratization of the market may even lead to a rise in the quality of mainstream music.
yea, you're probably right. i meant games similar to Fallout. for instance, i heard Silent Storm has a similar feel to Fallout, although it's set in World War II and leans more towards spy-fi. but i guess there probably aren't a lot of games like that. it's pretty rare that you find a game that mixes a good plot, rich back story, and original gameplay.
i'm still waiting for them to release it under the more "free spirited" Microsoft Promiscuous License.
i agree with you that the GP isn't really off-topic, but i just want to point out that some of the GOG.com titles aren't really that old. i mean, Collin McRae Rally 2005? that's considered a PC classic? it is pretty cool to see MDK on there though.
personally, i wish Fallout would get ported to the PSP. there's been an extreme dearth of sci-fi RPGs for the PSP, and i think this is a franchise that would do well on that system. but seeing as that's not going to happen, i just wanna ask if anyone remembers any good sci-fi RPGs that were released for PSX?
you know, i'd heard people mention RockBox on /. before, but i never really checked it out until now. and after looking at some of the UI shots, i really wish they'd port it over to the PSP. i love the PSP's hardware, but the built-in media player outright sucks.
i know there are homebrew media players that add more robust functionality, but none of them look as nice or well-written as RockBox. and every time i see another PMP's audio player interface i get simultaneously frustrated and angry that, with all of constant firmware updates Sony releases just to combat homebrew & "piracy," they can't add something as simple as playlist support or a decent media browser to the PSP audio player.
honestly, how hard is it to let users browse their music collection by genre, artist, or album? or to let users load or edit play lists? if Sony just spent 1% of the resources they waste on breaking backward compatibility with CFW on actually improving the PSP, the quality of its software just might match the quality of the hardware.
because these news sites care more about ad revenue than providing useful information. it's always the major news sites that do this because they don't want you to leave their site.
that's why i prefer alternative/independent news sources that actually care about journalistic integrity and providing a useful service to the public. if you put business profits above your basic duty as a media institution, then i don't want you to be my window to the rest of the world.
it's essentially a form of mimicry. i think true AI research is focused on more fundamental neurological processes, such as neural nets and other adaptive systems. serious AI researchers ought to focus on machine-learning rather than trying to simulate high-order cognitive abilities like linguistic communications.
we need to learn to walk before we can run. it makes more sense to try to build an AI with the intelligence of a cockroach, mouse, or reptile, before trying to emulate the functions of the human brain.
this reminds me of a news article i read on either /. or digg a few years back that showed the east coast has a surplus of single women, while the west coast has a surplus of single males. so if you're a guy who wants to increase his odds at finding a girl, head east. if you're a girl, head west.
i don't know what accounts for these anomalies, but i'm guessing it has to do with culture or migrations patterns. perhaps more tech jobs are offered on the west coast, or perhaps a lot of single women immigrate to the U.S. from Europe? i dont know. but the ratio between single males & females definitely varies depending on geography.
actually, the Lenovo x-series tablets have spill-resistant keyboards that channel spills out the bottom of the system without damaging internal components. having a recessed keyboard or not doesn't make much of a difference when there are open gaps where liquids can seep through between the keys. it's what you do with the liquid that gets under the keys that matters.
i don't know if Macs have this safety feature, but having a raised keyboard won't protect it from spills any more than a recessed keyboard.
part of the problem is the use of dynamic range compression. not all music CDs or mp3s have the same dynamic range, so with most rock/pop/hip-hop/etc. the volume only varies between loud and very loud. but with classical or other genres where dynamic range is preserved, you'll have huge variances in volume. this means if you limit the media player volume to suit rock music, then when consumers listen to classical they'll have a hard time hearing the low to medium volume parts of the track. you could implement a feature to automatically normalize all the tracks played (i think the iPod already has this), but i don't know if this will cause a loss of dynamic range and thus negatively affect sound quality.
personally, i don't think PMP makers should artificially limit the speaker output to prevent hearing loss. some people have more sensitive ears than others, and some need the volume to be a little higher, whether due to the music they listen to or their hearing ability. i think a better idea would be to monitor the speaker output and display a warning to the user if the audio level is high enough to cause damage. this will give users the freedom to use their players as they wish while promoting safe listening habits.
hasn't increased that much != hasn't increased at all. a modern 700 MHz cpu is perfectly capable of surfing the web and handling most office computing work.
and what does using thin clients have to do with lack of redundancy? no one said you had to use a single file server for the entire network. using fat clients will not make up for a lack of common sense. and if you can't manage to keep a dozen servers up, you're certainly not going to be able to handle maintaining a couple hundred fat clients.
so, yea, if you're not a competent network administrator, then obvious you shouldn't be network booting anything. but assuming you can keep your network up, then running thin-clients can simplify your maintenance work. not everyone needs a workstation with the latest quad core CPU virtualizing Windows Vista, all just so they can check their e-mail, search the web, and open Word/Excel/PowerPoint. aside from eliminating the unnecessary overhead, using thin clients in such situations would greatly reduce power consumption.
it's not about rediscovering the advantages/disadvantages of thin clients. AFAIK thin clients were never fully abandoned. it's simply about finding the right niche for thin clients.
for instance, if you're setting up some computers at a public library that only need to search through the library catalog and nothing else, then thin clients are the clear way to go. if you're running a school network where thousands of students will be sharing a few hundred computers, but they'll need word processing, desktop publishing, web access, etc. then you don't want dumb terminals obviously, but you may still want to just set up a bunch of diskless nodes network booting from a central server instead of having to manage a network of standalone workstations.
while processor power has increased significantly, the computing demands of the casual user hasn't increased that much since the days of Windows 95. a secretary/accountant/manager/student/etc. does not need to do anything beyond running an office suite, checking their e-mail, and browsing the web. a thin client by today's standards can still do all of these things. heck, a sub-laptop can do all of these things. so why waste the time & resources to manage a bunch of standalone workstations when a thin client will do?
reserve the fat clients for people who actually need it: engineers, programmers, designers, researchers, etc. and by giving everyone else thin clients, you'll give them less chance to screw up their system, thus giving them more uptime and more reliability, which users will appreciate.
i'm pretty sure the iraqi insurgents are armed with more than just sticks and stones (or pistols and hunting rifles for that matter). so unless you're stockpiling russian RPGs, AKs, black market M16s, mortars, machine guns, etc. it's not going to be the same as Iraq. besides, the reason the insurgency can never be defeated is because we never planned on conquering Iraq and occupying the territory. if there were a civilian uprising in the U.S. it would be quashed immediately by the national guard, and if needed, the army proper.
and by that point there'd be no reason to worry about public opinion; the legitimacy of the government would depend entirely on military force. so there'd be no reason for the government to hesitate to declare marshal law and create a police state. i mean, we're already half way there. any violence that breaks out will just be used as proof of the terrorist threat that exists, thus requiring a moratorium on our civil liberties for the sake of national security.
and it's unlikely that there'll be many soldiers defecting. soldiers are trained to blindly obey orders, and that kind of mentality has been responsible for the majority of military atrocities throughout history. suppressing a civilian uprising under the banner of fighting terrorism is not likely to be questioned by many soldiers. it'll probably be questioned by few civilians.
democracy is defended by words and ideas, not with bullets and bombs. so it's always silly when people rant on and on about the 2nd amendment but vote for corrupt leaders and allow their most important rights to be capitulated. right now the best weapon for protecting democracy is probably the internet and net neutrality. it allows the public to stay informed and get their news from a variety of independent news sources. so instead of fighting for your right to own a handgun, we should be fighting to preserve net neutrality.
oops, that last sentence should read "if our money was suddenly no good internationally..."
that might be true if our society weren't so dependent on global trade. but if our trade partners suddenly cut all economic relations with us our domestic economy would collapse. we depend on other nations for manufacturing, investments, and imports/exports.
we might be able to raid other countries for their oil, but we can't use military coercion to force other countries to import our goods or manufacture our raw materials. and since our trade relations with other nations are generally good for us, bad for them, if we're no longer an economic superpower, i imagine most of the developing nations we exploit would cut their ties with us and just nationalize the resources we've hijacked from them like Venezuela has done.
i mean, if we don't have money to lend other nations, the IMF & World Bank would cease to be relevant. and without the power and influence of the IMF/World Bank, we wouldn't be able to dictate the domestic policies of other nations anymore. so 3rd world nations who've allowed us to privatize their industries and open up their markets to us would cease to allow themselves to be exploited.
and quite frankly, we need them more than they need us. many American-based corporate conglomerates would tank if our globalization policies were reversed. WalMart and other retailers wouldn't have cheap sweatshop made goods to sell. Monsanto would lose most of their profits made from selling developing nations GMO seeds every planting season. and 38% of Microsoft's annual revenue comes from sales outside of the U.S. heck, Hollywood makes more money from foreign ticket sales than from the domestic box office ($12 billion a year versus $9 billion).
if our money was certainly no good internationally, or if countries like China decided to collect on our debts, we would be royally screwed.
don't project your personal values onto others.
many people like to invent things and come up with new, innovative ideas because it pleases them. they enjoy sharing their ideas with others and contributing to society--yea, it's a novel concept, i know. people were inventing ways to make life better long before capitalism and the subsequent commercialization of our society. it's in our nature to create, invent, and innovate. that's why people write open source software, conduct academic research, and create art.
the patent system simply promotes the attitude you demonstrate, which is that inventions are simply commodities to be commercially exploited. that's why we have patent trolls that don't contribute to society in any meaningful way, and instead go around suing people who actually do.
patents no longer serve their original purpose of promoting innovation while expanding the corpus of human knowledge. most patents these days are held by corporations, and the majority of them are of obvious or trivial ideas, which are simply patented to prevent others from using them, and contribute nothing to the wealth of human knowledge.
that's a poor way to grant patents. just because something has market value doesn't make it an innovation or an invention. anything that is useful has market value--especially if you're able to patent it and force others to pay you licensing/royalty fees to use it. the ultimate goal of the patent and copyright system is to promote public good and societal progress. public interest should always be placed above economic interest, not the other way around.
one of the inherent flaws with most patent systems is that once something is patented, even if someone else with no knowledge of the patent filing independently invents the same idea, they will either, be forced to pay royalties to the first inventor, or simply forbidden from using their own invention. it's a means of excluding others from the use of the patented idea, essentially giving the patent holder a monopoly. but why should someone be prevented from implementing an idea they invented independently just because they came up with the idea later? should being born 10 years earlier give a person the right to monopolize an obvious concept?
software patents exacerbate the problem when companies are allowed to patent mathematical algorithms or trivial/obvious functionality. things like UI interfaces, JavaScript popups, portable e-mail, etc. should not be patentable. these patents do not benefit society in any way, and they have hindered technological progress rather than promote it.
at the very least, non-commercial uses of patented ideas should not be prohibited. give the first inventor exclusive rights to commercial the idea, but if someone else comes along and re-invents the same concept for personal use, they should be free to do so. otherwise the patent system is just restricting free expression and stifling innovation.
you're referring to overrun fuel shutoffs, right? if so, what percentage of cars have this feature?
because, driving a 2001 Honda Accord, i was under the impression that when i use active engine breaking going downhill on steep mountain roads i was sacrificing fuel efficiency for brake life. is it noticeable when the overrun protection is engaged? i'm just curious because i haven't noticed the engine shutting off when engine braking downhill.
i mean, if the engine isn't idling and the throttle is completely closed, shouldn't you hear the engine going silent?
the article only mentions that it's free for eligible testers; it doesn't indicate whether it will be a free add-on to Windows when it's actually released.
frankly, i don't think there will ever be a software replacement for repair technicians. if such software could be designed then we'd already have self-repairing OSes.
but perhaps a centralized database for device drivers could be created online, where hardware manufacturers could post their drivers so that users can automatically fetch driver updates from a centralized server. this could be integrated into the operating system so that it's handled seamlessly.
for hardware troubleshooting, i think it's still very much a trial and error process requiring an experience human technician. that is, unless it's possible to build an error detection system into every piece of hardware that might possibly fail. for instance, don't most new hard drives come with SMART (Self-Monitoring, Analysis, and Reporting Technology)? it should be possible for the OS to recognize the warning signs for potential disk failure and alert the user before a catastrophic event.
i'm not sure not sure if things like memory, motherboards, printers, etc. can perform similar self-diagnostics. but it might be worthwhile for other hardware manufacturers to work together on creating something similar to SMART for their respective devices.
hey, i'm not tailgating, i'm drafting!
where exactly does the review say that?
the author's major complaints against the tool seem to be:
it sounds like the author's evaluation that this program offers non-fixes for non-problems seems like a pretty accurate one. he does give the program benefit of the doubt and states:
i think they were just expecting what MS tried to promise--a program that would actually help troubleshoot computer problems. but in the end, Microsoft's PC Advisor Repair Tool suffers the same problem as other PC repair programs--they don't work.