I agree, but I also think they should be required by law to provide all this content in the formats I want use: mp3, vorbis, aac, flac, wav, au, mpeg-2, mpeg-4, xvid, wmv, divx, mpeg-1, theora, tarkin, dirac, mov, VHS, CD, DVD, LaserDisc, record, tape, 8-track, all region codes, languages, dialects, and guarantee its on the store shelf when I go to purchase it or its free.
HINT: Its already free in all these formats if you know where to look...
That's because we are cavemen trying to understand our brain. We'd probably have more luck if we took it out and played with it.
Why do people believe they are so intelligent? Because they went to school for 8 years and got a certificate of intelligence? Maybe its because they were the Intelligently Designed? I dont know. We're only just a tad bit more intelligent than our parents. That's not very much, really, when we look at our timeline. What we will learn in the next 20 years will make us look like apes, just like our computer illiterate parents before us.
So one of the variants might have these bug fixes? The code didn't look too complex, I might be able to do some merging.. if it would be less work than rewriting my object.
I bet cheap companies spend a lot of wasted time learning things they should already know. You get what you pay for, but in some cases you get a lot more by doing a google/wikipedia search or reading a book. All I know is I would run things differently. But then I tend to disagree with most styles of business management these days.
Perl SDL::OpenGL is lacking some functions, such as primitives to draw spheres and other geometry from GLU and GLUT. Some of the functions are available. I was able to draw a nurb surface and use hardware OpenGL acceleration and get 60 fps from a perl script. But it was at most 50% the performance of C/C++ without all the functions, making it very difficult to make a game. Maybe one of perl's other OpenGL libraries would work better. If so I'd suggest just using SDL for keyboard, mouse and joystick input, if that isn't easy to do with other libraries.
In its current state I will have to reconfigure my 3D game object over to using just OpenGL.pm once I get it installed. I'm only playing around with about 1000 polys, but I've already hit a wall with SDL unless I figure out a way to use nurbs for EVERYTHING and fix the memory leak that popped up when I use them with SDL. The performance is tolerable, if I could get more primatives. My primary motivation for choosing Perl at this stage is rapid developement and it would be paying off if it weren't for incomplete OpenGL support in Perl's SDL libraries. (NOTE: Its also possible I messed something up during install, but I've tried it on several different distros with the same results)
Yeah, you want power. The power to control people's lives. Hundreds or thousands or millions of people's lives. Through propoganda and censorship. That's what you want.
And how do you go about getting it? Keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.
Its all about trust, for me. Never about money or power. And I don't trust Google. They're too powerful to trust at this point, like IBM, a monopoly or a government. They would have to fully embrace the GPL or some other form of selfless act to be taken seriously. Free wireless is nice, but so are free cell phones.
With regard to GNU software, I trust the code. The license makes that easy for me. I don't have to trust the project leads or copyright holders. They've already given up their power by using the license. But Google isn't like that. They like the money AND the power.
Yes, but the Universe is far more complex than we previously thought. Force might equal mass x acceleration, but the force of gravity might not be so clear cut. It bends physical space. If space is bending how do we account for the bend? For example, take a 2-dimensional graph and bend the graph, then try to graph a function. The function will look different because it has to follow the graph, but try to explain the differences with the function. It can't be done without some reference point of the original non-bent graph. Or something like that. I'm a pothead, not a physicist.
I got news for ya. Us Linux geeks have been cursing Microsoft and Apple for being programmer hacks for years. The only reason my family thinks Apples would be any better is because I told them so. Or else they would be thinking Linux is their only choice for security and protection from spam, worms, spyware and adware, which here in reality is probably is, since Apple seems more concerned about preventing pirates and hackers from running their OS than building a solid core *nix based OS that's secure and stable, like Linux.:)
Come on, what harm will it cause the world to have to learn Linux? Is it really that hard? Kids can do it, why can't you?
That's what we'll be saying if you fail to keep Microsoft and/or Apple profitable and sane. Good luck.
NASA earth science and the rest of NASA have always had a problem with each other.
Oh, of course. Everyone knows this. But I seem to have forgot. Care to provide some evidence?
Now, you might very well disagree with this, but it is certainly not secret sinister plot.
How do you know? If I were Mr. Bush and I wanted to drill for oil and NASA's Earth Sciences didn't agree with my goals I probably would have cut their funding too. And I would have been secret and sinister about it. You see, I'm not a coward who hides behind rhetoric and lies. I'd smile and tell you I love you and God bless you while I send your children off to war (I'd send 'em as soon as they could hold a gun). Then I'd blame it on the kids, idiots.
Anyway, If someone with religious beliefs happens to be the President of the United States, it does not make their religion correct. And if their religion happens to disagree with reality and fact, as Christianity does so often, it is not our scientist's job to reword their statements to keep from offending fundamentalist religious fanatics. Religious fundamentalists need to stop reading NASA PR or deal with the evidence that has already been presented, such as reading it, before commenting on how it is somehow preventing them their freedom of religion.
The government might one day state factually that there is no God. But don't let that stop you from worshiping Jesus and believing in Him all you want.
"I wonder how Linux idealists feel about their cute little OS being deployed in machinery of war?"
BTW, I talk casually about killing, but I am a pacifist. I think it is wrong to kill life, be it cute little animals or a certain cute little OS. However, if this isn't a display of our power worthy of the Gods, I can understand man's thirst for horror.
I believe we have the technology to kill every living thing on the planet. And I think we should, if you do... We can first kill off people and large animals with robotics. But I'd rather try to just blow them up or burn them somehow, without using nukes at first. That seems like it would be more fun. Maybe shoot them ourselves.. if its safe.
Then slash and burn as much as possible and eventually we probably would have to resort to nukes, because the place is too big for me to destroy by myself, but maybe if I could get a few billion people to agree with me. We're #1. And the only way to prove it to God is to kill his enemies and make the biggest bombs and hottest fires (out of the enemy's capital). And dance around the fires chanting and playing drums, no wait.. that's burning man.
"I wonder how Linux idealists feel about their cute little OS being deployed in machinery of war?"
I guess someone doesn't know their Linux idealist too well...
Its always a good thing to know your enemy.
I'm also a Linux idealist. But I'm a fucking psycho. If I were to build a war machine with Linux I would go for the most efficient and mass producable fully-automated-killer design, over the overengineered remote-controlled robotic monstrocity.
I'd take a distributed approach to solving the problem of mass murder.
I guess you might also want some features on there, such as spare the innocent civilians, but those could be added later as plugins or something maybe..
Dismantle the patent system completely. Software patents make no sense. As long as someone wants to push for software patents I call for no patents whatsoever.
Either way Bill Gates is lying. You can get free software that is well-maintained. The software developers may not be financially motivated, but they are motivated to improve the software AND keep it free. Whatever motivation it is that drives Free Software, if I were a capitalist I'd stop and think a moment about the factors that are motivating hundreds or thousands of computer scientists to give of their time freely. But since I'm not a capitalist I wouldn't spend any time trying to think of a way to exploit this, no, just admire, encourage and support it. Because its a good thing, unlike capitalism.
Can it read signs? Judge weather conditions and drive appropriately? Respond appropriately if the vehicle gets out of control (say, crosses a patch of ice?), or if something unexpected happens?
Can you? Can the average computer user?
You might think people are more intelligent than a machine, but I've been on the other line of their tech support calls. I know how they think and how they don't. I know at any moment they can become distracted by shiny objects or sounds. And rarely do they consider how their actions affect others around them.
I think we should make the driving tests harder and give people less clues about how to be safe. If they can't think about the safety of others, if all they can do is remember and recite information, they shouldn't be given a license.
Or:
I think we should let everyone drive, even when they can barely see or think straight, even if they're a machine.
Either excessive regulation to protect our security, or absolutely liberty to protect my way of life and my pursuit of happiness. Either lock me up or get out of my way because I can't stand the hypocrisy.
If there are higher physical dimensions, an accurate model might require equations that included all of them. Its nice to say we should keep it simple, but General Relativity had to be complex in order to explain our observations when Neuton's model fell short, and even General Relativity isn't completely accurate.
We can simplify it as much as possible, but its unlikely we'll get anything accurate that's as nice as F=ma, V=IR or PV=nRT.
ATI provides tv-out support for their cards in their closed binary drivers, but it looks like nvidia is still more compatible with Linux with a wider range of their products.
Why is it so hard for people to believe in the possibility of higher dimensions?
Is it fear of the unknown or change?
Is it a disbelief that 3D space bends or a rationalization for this bending to somehow be within our 3 physical dimensions?
Is it that higher dimensions opens up the possibility for the existence of God(s), yet at the same time disproves almost all preexisting legends and disrupts and subverts tradition and religions that would rather maintain authority and control?
Is it just too far fetched for you to consider possible? The Sun is too far fetched for me to consider possible. Same goes for that giant black hole at the center of our galaxy.
But if higher dimensions do exist and we can learn how to use them... well... maybe we aren't ready for this knowledge at this time. Maybe we have a lot of other psychelogical and social problems to solve before we should be allowed to manipulate gravity. Perhaps the Department of Homeland Security should outlaw all higher dimensional research for our own security...
If we're dealing with higher dimensions, which is what the bending of space suggests, then something like dark matter may be a shadow or a reflection or a symptom of some other reaction, possibly happening in some other dimension. Gravity may have similar properties as well. At this point its difficult for me to understand how a scientist could get so caught up in the belief that dark matter must exist to explain observed phenomena. There's so much we have not yet observed.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, but I also think they should be required by law to provide all this content in the formats I want use: mp3, vorbis, aac, flac, wav, au, mpeg-2, mpeg-4, xvid, wmv, divx, mpeg-1, theora, tarkin, dirac, mov, VHS, CD, DVD, LaserDisc, record, tape, 8-track, all region codes, languages, dialects, and guarantee its on the store shelf when I go to purchase it or its free.
HINT: Its already free in all these formats if you know where to look...
I agree. I live in California.
Fuck you Ed!
Wish I could yell it to his face.
That's because we are cavemen trying to understand our brain. We'd probably have more luck if we took it out and played with it.
Why do people believe they are so intelligent? Because they went to school for 8 years and got a certificate of intelligence? Maybe its because they were the Intelligently Designed? I dont know. We're only just a tad bit more intelligent than our parents. That's not very much, really, when we look at our timeline. What we will learn in the next 20 years will make us look like apes, just like our computer illiterate parents before us.
So one of the variants might have these bug fixes? The code didn't look too complex, I might be able to do some merging.. if it would be less work than rewriting my object.
I bet cheap companies spend a lot of wasted time learning things they should already know. You get what you pay for, but in some cases you get a lot more by doing a google/wikipedia search or reading a book. All I know is I would run things differently. But then I tend to disagree with most styles of business management these days.
Yes and no.
Perl SDL::OpenGL is lacking some functions, such as primitives to draw spheres and other geometry from GLU and GLUT. Some of the functions are available. I was able to draw a nurb surface and use hardware OpenGL acceleration and get 60 fps from a perl script. But it was at most 50% the performance of C/C++ without all the functions, making it very difficult to make a game. Maybe one of perl's other OpenGL libraries would work better. If so I'd suggest just using SDL for keyboard, mouse and joystick input, if that isn't easy to do with other libraries.
In its current state I will have to reconfigure my 3D game object over to using just OpenGL.pm once I get it installed. I'm only playing around with about 1000 polys, but I've already hit a wall with SDL unless I figure out a way to use nurbs for EVERYTHING and fix the memory leak that popped up when I use them with SDL. The performance is tolerable, if I could get more primatives. My primary motivation for choosing Perl at this stage is rapid developement and it would be paying off if it weren't for incomplete OpenGL support in Perl's SDL libraries. (NOTE: Its also possible I messed something up during install, but I've tried it on several different distros with the same results)
I don't want just... money. Money's not enough.
Yeah, you want power. The power to control people's lives. Hundreds or thousands or millions of people's lives. Through propoganda and censorship. That's what you want.
And how do you go about getting it? Keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.
Its all about trust, for me. Never about money or power. And I don't trust Google. They're too powerful to trust at this point, like IBM, a monopoly or a government. They would have to fully embrace the GPL or some other form of selfless act to be taken seriously. Free wireless is nice, but so are free cell phones.
With regard to GNU software, I trust the code. The license makes that easy for me. I don't have to trust the project leads or copyright holders. They've already given up their power by using the license. But Google isn't like that. They like the money AND the power.
Yes, but the Universe is far more complex than we previously thought. Force might equal mass x acceleration, but the force of gravity might not be so clear cut. It bends physical space. If space is bending how do we account for the bend? For example, take a 2-dimensional graph and bend the graph, then try to graph a function. The function will look different because it has to follow the graph, but try to explain the differences with the function. It can't be done without some reference point of the original non-bent graph. Or something like that. I'm a pothead, not a physicist.
But you get the idea, right?
I got news for ya. Us Linux geeks have been cursing Microsoft and Apple for being programmer hacks for years. The only reason my family thinks Apples would be any better is because I told them so. Or else they would be thinking Linux is their only choice for security and protection from spam, worms, spyware and adware, which here in reality is probably is, since Apple seems more concerned about preventing pirates and hackers from running their OS than building a solid core *nix based OS that's secure and stable, like Linux. :)
Come on, what harm will it cause the world to have to learn Linux? Is it really that hard? Kids can do it, why can't you?
That's what we'll be saying if you fail to keep Microsoft and/or Apple profitable and sane. Good luck.
If China managed to make themselves seem "good" in the eyes of the average joe...
Well, at least they can learn by example. Capitalism! The freedom to pwn stuff.
This looks interesting:
http://www.tipic.com/node/view/139924
I bet we won't hear any comments from OSDL. They're probably too cowardly to admit they don't know how to use Linux.
I use Linux for all my work. I only play games on Windows, or occationally use OpenOffice or a cygwin terminal and ssh.
I expect more from Linux advocates. Unless I'm the only one.
DNA sequencing, stem cell research, cloning, nano-tech, and genetic engineering.. all patented.
We can't teach you anything about these topics unless you sign this NDA right here.
If you want to work in these fields go out and rediscover it for yourself, then hire a patent attorney before selling anything.
Thanks,
The American Way of Life.
So your point is people are stupid. Well, duh, we knew that already. Now be quiet about it. You don't want to make them nervous.
NASA earth science and the rest of NASA have always had a problem with each other.
Oh, of course. Everyone knows this. But I seem to have forgot. Care to provide some evidence?
Now, you might very well disagree with this, but it is certainly not secret sinister plot.
How do you know? If I were Mr. Bush and I wanted to drill for oil and NASA's Earth Sciences didn't agree with my goals I probably would have cut their funding too. And I would have been secret and sinister about it. You see, I'm not a coward who hides behind rhetoric and lies. I'd smile and tell you I love you and God bless you while I send your children off to war (I'd send 'em as soon as they could hold a gun). Then I'd blame it on the kids, idiots.
Anyway, If someone with religious beliefs happens to be the President of the United States, it does not make their religion correct. And if their religion happens to disagree with reality and fact, as Christianity does so often, it is not our scientist's job to reword their statements to keep from offending fundamentalist religious fanatics. Religious fundamentalists need to stop reading NASA PR or deal with the evidence that has already been presented, such as reading it, before commenting on how it is somehow preventing them their freedom of religion.
The government might one day state factually that there is no God. But don't let that stop you from worshiping Jesus and believing in Him all you want.
"I wonder how Linux idealists feel about their cute little OS being deployed in machinery of war?"
BTW, I talk casually about killing, but I am a pacifist. I think it is wrong to kill life, be it cute little animals or a certain cute little OS. However, if this isn't a display of our power worthy of the Gods, I can understand man's thirst for horror.
I believe we have the technology to kill every living thing on the planet. And I think we should, if you do... We can first kill off people and large animals with robotics. But I'd rather try to just blow them up or burn them somehow, without using nukes at first. That seems like it would be more fun. Maybe shoot them ourselves.. if its safe.
Then slash and burn as much as possible and eventually we probably would have to resort to nukes, because the place is too big for me to destroy by myself, but maybe if I could get a few billion people to agree with me. We're #1. And the only way to prove it to God is to kill his enemies and make the biggest bombs and hottest fires (out of the enemy's capital). And dance around the fires chanting and playing drums, no wait.. that's burning man.
"I wonder how Linux idealists feel about their cute little OS being deployed in machinery of war?"
I guess someone doesn't know their Linux idealist too well...
Its always a good thing to know your enemy.
I'm also a Linux idealist. But I'm a fucking psycho. If I were to build a war machine with Linux I would go for the most efficient and mass producable fully-automated-killer design, over the overengineered remote-controlled robotic monstrocity.
I'd take a distributed approach to solving the problem of mass murder.
I guess you might also want some features on there, such as spare the innocent civilians, but those could be added later as plugins or something maybe..
Microsoft Proprietary Software, Intended to Reduce Hobbyists.
.!..
I mean, well, duh! They're not a hobbyist friendly business. They work for food, not give it away.
Besides, long ago hobbyists were created as a cross between a hacker and a pirate. They're unethical by nature, and thus should be made illegal.
Microsoft is only trying to provide for the safety and security of all mankind. Such an honorable and noble cause. All Hail Microsoft
Dismantle the patent system completely. Software patents make no sense. As long as someone wants to push for software patents I call for no patents whatsoever.
I vote to dismantle the patent office.
Who's with me?
Either way Bill Gates is lying. You can get free software that is well-maintained. The software developers may not be financially motivated, but they are motivated to improve the software AND keep it free. Whatever motivation it is that drives Free Software, if I were a capitalist I'd stop and think a moment about the factors that are motivating hundreds or thousands of computer scientists to give of their time freely. But since I'm not a capitalist I wouldn't spend any time trying to think of a way to exploit this, no, just admire, encourage and support it. Because its a good thing, unlike capitalism.
Can it read signs? Judge weather conditions and drive appropriately? Respond appropriately if the vehicle gets out of control (say, crosses a patch of ice?), or if something unexpected happens?
Can you? Can the average computer user?
You might think people are more intelligent than a machine, but I've been on the other line of their tech support calls. I know how they think and how they don't. I know at any moment they can become distracted by shiny objects or sounds. And rarely do they consider how their actions affect others around them.
I think we should make the driving tests harder and give people less clues about how to be safe. If they can't think about the safety of others, if all they can do is remember and recite information, they shouldn't be given a license.
Or:
I think we should let everyone drive, even when they can barely see or think straight, even if they're a machine.
Either excessive regulation to protect our security, or absolutely liberty to protect my way of life and my pursuit of happiness. Either lock me up or get out of my way because I can't stand the hypocrisy.
If there are higher physical dimensions, an accurate model might require equations that included all of them. Its nice to say we should keep it simple, but General Relativity had to be complex in order to explain our observations when Neuton's model fell short, and even General Relativity isn't completely accurate.
We can simplify it as much as possible, but its unlikely we'll get anything accurate that's as nice as F=ma, V=IR or PV=nRT.
That makes the decision a tough one.
I chose to opt for nVidia recently because their drivers are acceptable, albeit a bit painful, and they have this: http://sourceforge.net/projects/nv-tv-out/
ATI provides tv-out support for their cards in their closed binary drivers, but it looks like nvidia is still more compatible with Linux with a wider range of their products.
Why is it so hard for people to believe in the possibility of higher dimensions?
Is it fear of the unknown or change?
Is it a disbelief that 3D space bends or a rationalization for this bending to somehow be within our 3 physical dimensions?
Is it that higher dimensions opens up the possibility for the existence of God(s), yet at the same time disproves almost all preexisting legends and disrupts and subverts tradition and religions that would rather maintain authority and control?
Is it just too far fetched for you to consider possible? The Sun is too far fetched for me to consider possible. Same goes for that giant black hole at the center of our galaxy.
But if higher dimensions do exist and we can learn how to use them... well... maybe we aren't ready for this knowledge at this time. Maybe we have a lot of other psychelogical and social problems to solve before we should be allowed to manipulate gravity. Perhaps the Department of Homeland Security should outlaw all higher dimensional research for our own security...
some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
If we're dealing with higher dimensions, which is what the bending of space suggests, then something like dark matter may be a shadow or a reflection or a symptom of some other reaction, possibly happening in some other dimension. Gravity may have similar properties as well. At this point its difficult for me to understand how a scientist could get so caught up in the belief that dark matter must exist to explain observed phenomena. There's so much we have not yet observed.