I remember it's one of the first things I tried when we got our first phone in the early 90's.
Reminds me of the first time I tried the Internet, at a stand in a mall; they suggested people to visit the site for (then upcoming) Independence Day, but it was slow as all hell. Didn't know what else to do so I left.
For instance, imagine you're given a set of parts with simulated physics and physical+logical interconnects. I figure with real robots there would be a lot of welding and metal-piece-shaping involved, but imagine if somehow all that was virtual/programmable, and the whole thing moved according to your programming (lower leg goes up to xx degrees, has such and such torque/force/movement curve)..... we could have competitions to see who can program the fastest running bot!
I can't help but contrast this with the kernel driver project's message, where they call for open HW specifications so they can maintain code for them. I realize that contributing specs isn't the same as contributing shabby code, but save for that difference, it almost seems like a contradictory message: * on one hand it's ok for hardware companies to just drop specs and leave it to the community to code and maintain drivers * on the other, it's not ok if Microsoft drops code and then doesn't maintain it.
It would seem as though no one wants to maintain Microsoft code. If that was so, I wonder how much of it is due to community bias against MS, and how much because of a lack of community interest. Also, no use cases maybe?
MAYBE not every group of friends is in a 30min drive radio from each other, ever think about that? in other words, i think this push is to overcome too long distances, not to overcome too short distances.
i work as data entry in my university, in one of the labs used for classes. the machines there are 1.6ghz pentium 4's with 128mb of ram (not too much i know).
their win2k os just staggers along miserably: it's slow, folder windows hang all the time, OS and application loadup times are absolutely ridiculous (>5min from a cold boot up to the desktop).
stability wise, the os feels A LOT more like win98 than winXP. it's back to the days of w98 where you had to be careful and zig zag your way around, knowing that half of the simple things you can do end up stalling the OS.
i know the stability and loadup time issues are tightly coupled with the lack of ram, but then not too many computers had 128mb of ram in '97, and it was slower ram too. disks were quite slower too so disk cache was also slower.
i don't want to begin imagining that software setup in our labs, in a pentium II 300 with 64mb of ram.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember it's one of the first things I tried when we got our first phone in the early 90's.
Reminds me of the first time I tried the Internet, at a stand in a mall; they suggested people to visit the site for (then upcoming) Independence Day, but it was slow as all hell. Didn't know what else to do so I left.
That was me BTW.
For instance, imagine you're given a set of parts with simulated physics and physical+logical interconnects. .... we could have competitions to see who can program the fastest running bot!
I figure with real robots there would be a lot of welding and metal-piece-shaping involved, but imagine if somehow all that was virtual/programmable, and the whole thing moved according to your programming (lower leg goes up to xx degrees, has such and such torque/force/movement curve).
BOT DANCE COMPETITIONS!
AMERICA'S NEXT TOP ROBOT!
I can't help but contrast this with the kernel driver project's message, where they call for open HW specifications so they can maintain code for them.
I realize that contributing specs isn't the same as contributing shabby code, but save for that difference, it almost seems like a contradictory message:
* on one hand it's ok for hardware companies to just drop specs and leave it to the community to code and maintain drivers
* on the other, it's not ok if Microsoft drops code and then doesn't maintain it.
It would seem as though no one wants to maintain Microsoft code. If that was so, I wonder how much of it is due to community bias against MS, and how much because of a lack of community interest. Also, no use cases maybe?
gynecology.
MAYBE not every group of friends is in a 30min drive radio from each other, ever think about that?
in other words, i think this push is to overcome too long distances, not to overcome too short distances.
or so i read on some linux guide on wireless. it makes sense, after all NICs are dirt cheap and cables too.
anyone else read "Elton John" from a first glance?
i work as data entry in my university, in one of the labs used for classes. the machines there are 1.6ghz pentium 4's with 128mb of ram (not too much i know). their win2k os just staggers along miserably: it's slow, folder windows hang all the time, OS and application loadup times are absolutely ridiculous (>5min from a cold boot up to the desktop). stability wise, the os feels A LOT more like win98 than winXP. it's back to the days of w98 where you had to be careful and zig zag your way around, knowing that half of the simple things you can do end up stalling the OS. i know the stability and loadup time issues are tightly coupled with the lack of ram, but then not too many computers had 128mb of ram in '97, and it was slower ram too. disks were quite slower too so disk cache was also slower. i don't want to begin imagining that software setup in our labs, in a pentium II 300 with 64mb of ram.
"introducing patch manager"
hehehe same line of thought here