I suppose I should be more calm, but essentially what he's saying is that he is free to take *my* work and pay nothing for it. He is saying that all the time *I* spent (or some sde brother-in-spirit of mine) is his to take . . . for nothing!
He never claims that Linux isn't a viable desktop os. He just says that you can't claim that MS doesn't have competition if you also claim that Linux (or Mac) is viable.
So, in the end, your response doesn't even address his comment.
You mean the same way there's a difference between KC Cola being a viable soda and it being true competition for Coca-cola? The difference is that Coke is soooo much better that soooo many more people buy it and KC Cola is almost never even mentioned.
I'm not saying necessarily that this is the state of things between Linux and Windows. But the above example is the only difference I can think of between being a viable product and true competition (that is, quality).
The price gouging claim comes from the idea that anything that is not a tangible object should cost nothing.
We better get rid of the FSCKing stock market too, then. Not a lot of TANGIBLE stuff gets traded there. Maybe all the STOCKs should be free too.
You'd expect the price of the service to be proportional to how much work it takes to render the service.
Uh, hundreds of programmers * several years == a lot of work. When you buy software, you are paying just a small part of the total cost of producing the software. THE COST OF PRODUCING THE SOFTWARE IS MUCH GREATER THAN THE COST OF COPYING THE CD. YOU ARE PAYING PART OF THE AMORTIZED COST OF THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
Stop making pathetic excuses for your behavior. If you're going to steal, say, "I'm stealing." If not, then don't, but don't try to delude yourself and especially the rest of us into thinking that you have some kind of moral justification for what you are doing.
I have a lot of trouble using even very high refresh rate CRT monitors. I can't focus on them very well and they hurt my eyes. I guess it's fine if you want the quality of a CRT for what you do, but for any piece of hardware I buy, strobing will need to be disableable.
I honestly believe this is a possibility too, which would be excellent, because it would drive prices down for everyone, and the Mac has a really interesting interface that I'd love to use were it not for compatibility issues with many games.
However, I also believe that Apple may manage to reproduce the mistake that took them out of the dominant place in the market in the first place: not allowing third party manufacturers to clone their products.
Uh . . . that's basically what they're doing in the switch to Intel processors; they're switching to the same kind of architecture that "Windoze computers (sic)" (not the same as PC, but who's counting?) use. Except they'll still charge you more for the hardware than it's worth.
Although there were several lucky happenings that helped MS along, many define luck as opportunity meeting talent. BG had both, to be sure, but it is a narrow view of his and Microsoft's accomplishments to say that he was made by his luck. You should read one of the books about the history of Microsoft before you make such broad and, to be honest, ignorant statements.
Ya should have RTFA then. It's saying that RPG in the traditional sense (as in, a game where you play-act roles) is not what modern MMORPGs are.
So, the lesson is, DO obey that conscience that says you shouldn't leave a comment without RTFA! We know that the light side is in you because you said, "Even though I didn't . ..." You just have to search yourself for it!
How the heck do you know? This was a publicity page, for pete's sake. Did you read the papers they published? Could you even name them? You're reading this like it's the great publication of all their work, but it's really a case of "Hey look at these cool videos we made in the course of our research."
Normally publicity pages have some reference to that which they are publicizing. This one does not; I can't find one reference to a paper published on this topic from the balloon page. I think that your assertion that it's a publicity page is baseless. Do you have any evidence to show that they were publicizing anything through this page? Where are the papers? I've looked on the homepage that the balloon page links back to and can nowhere find them.
It might come to mind, but it shouldn't. First, we're talking experimentation, not programming.
Many people think that programming is experimentation. In any case, how does the different labelling (programming vs. experimentation) in any way suggest that YAGNI cannot also be effectively applied to other things?
Second, YAGNI applied to research essentially says, Do no basic research. In 1930, do I "need" ultrapure silicon wafers?
Well, no, and that's why they weren't developed until the 60s, about the same time as they were becoming needed for the continuing process of miniaturizing the computer.
It doesn't say "do no basic research." It says, "don't do research that won't improve something right now." I think this is good advice for a lot of different researchers, from English PhDs researching the meaning of line 10 of Shakespeare's fifth sonnet to physics researchers popping water balloons at a cost rate of thousands of dollars per balloon (fuel, time, etc.).
Do you think they researched lasers in the 1960s so that you could listen to CDs and watch DVDs? No. They researched lasers because they were interesting quantum phenomena.
About lasers, you are right, there was no purpose for them; they were "a solution looking for a problem," according to Wikipedia. That lasers are specifically noted as an anomaly in that sense suggests that more people than just I think that most of the time, things should be researched for some immediate direct benefit. I'm sure there are other exceptions to this rule, but I don't think it would have hurt anything if research on lasers had been delayed until someone had said, "Hey, I need a really tightly focused beam of energy!"
I can't believe that water balloons being popped in zero g could possibly have the same wide range of applications as lasers do. So before we spend tens of thousands of dollars on doing it, it might be good if we had a reason to.
It's not an experiment unless there are testable hypothesis that one can disprove or expand upon. The results of this test do/did not increase our understanding of the way fluid flows work.
On top of that, when you say, "the payoff is uncertain," the rule "YAGNI" comes to mind.
Actually, almost all online games use some sort of prediction. For instance, the Source engine has client-side predictive collision for particles, ballistics, and physics objects.
I agree that it would be more effective on a flight simulator, simply because the valid set of spaces that could be moved to on the next tick/(n set of ticks) is a thin lens rather than a sphere.
This method involves the introduction of excess latency to the system so that the player who is working in slow motion can be allowed to "catch up" to the server's actual state for as long as he is in bullet time. The problem with this method is twofold.
First of all, there is the issue of lag in the standard game. Unless the server-side prediction is able to perfectly determine the paths of the slowed player, it will not be able to send an accurate picture of where that player is to his opponents. This will make a bullet-time'd player either invulnerable or just very difficult to damage. The other problem arises when a player is bullet-timing and kills another player. The player could perhaps be completely out of site from the bullet-timing player, but because his lagged position is still visible to the bullet-timing player, the hidden opponent could still be killed. The frustration this would add could never make up for the gameplay benefits of such a system.
In my book, the real problem is that most technical people are incapable even of writing to a technical audience. That, my friends, is what is embarrassing about the current state of affairs.
What about the Numa-Numa dance, the fad that became so popular that the guy who started it overflowed the sign bit straight from ecstatic joy into deep depression. Look, guys, the popularity counter has to get pretty big to overflow the sign bit.
Nobody can force you to do anything. Noncomp is standard, even for entry level workers, sometimes for as much as three years (however, if you are prevented from getting a job by the noncomp agreement you signed, your former employer normally has to meet your wages as they were when you worked for them).
I suppose for a helpdesk position, this is fine. OTOH, if ping is good enough to get the job done (and it is), then I don't understand the point of making a decision based on tracert.
The computer science he's talking about is not the kind practiced by most CS PhDs. Although I understand where he's coming from, I find his pronouncement just slightly arrogant or else he's just entirely missing the point. CS has expanded beyond what Djikstra was talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
For anyone who doesn't know, "Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!" was said by Steve Ballmer (works with MS).
But I've gotta give it to you, I think in some respects they have lost sight of that mission.
I suppose I should be more calm, but essentially what he's saying is that he is free to take *my* work and pay nothing for it. He is saying that all the time *I* spent (or some sde brother-in-spirit of mine) is his to take . . . for nothing!
He never claims that Linux isn't a viable desktop os. He just says that you can't claim that MS doesn't have competition if you also claim that Linux (or Mac) is viable.
So, in the end, your response doesn't even address his comment.
You mean the same way there's a difference between KC Cola being a viable soda and it being true competition for Coca-cola? The difference is that Coke is soooo much better that soooo many more people buy it and KC Cola is almost never even mentioned.
I'm not saying necessarily that this is the state of things between Linux and Windows. But the above example is the only difference I can think of between being a viable product and true competition (that is, quality).
The price gouging claim comes from the idea that anything that is not a tangible object should cost nothing.
We better get rid of the FSCKing stock market too, then. Not a lot of TANGIBLE stuff gets traded there. Maybe all the STOCKs should be free too.
You'd expect the price of the service to be proportional to how much work it takes to render the service.
Uh, hundreds of programmers * several years == a lot of work. When you buy software, you are paying just a small part of the total cost of producing the software. THE COST OF PRODUCING THE SOFTWARE IS MUCH GREATER THAN THE COST OF COPYING THE CD. YOU ARE PAYING PART OF THE AMORTIZED COST OF THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
Stop making pathetic excuses for your behavior. If you're going to steal, say, "I'm stealing." If not, then don't, but don't try to delude yourself and especially the rest of us into thinking that you have some kind of moral justification for what you are doing.
Assertions like yours just make me ill.
I have a lot of trouble using even very high refresh rate CRT monitors. I can't focus on them very well and they hurt my eyes. I guess it's fine if you want the quality of a CRT for what you do, but for any piece of hardware I buy, strobing will need to be disableable.
I honestly believe this is a possibility too, which would be excellent, because it would drive prices down for everyone, and the Mac has a really interesting interface that I'd love to use were it not for compatibility issues with many games.
However, I also believe that Apple may manage to reproduce the mistake that took them out of the dominant place in the market in the first place: not allowing third party manufacturers to clone their products.
Uh . . . that's basically what they're doing in the switch to Intel processors; they're switching to the same kind of architecture that "Windoze computers (sic)" (not the same as PC, but who's counting?) use. Except they'll still charge you more for the hardware than it's worth.
Although there were several lucky happenings that helped MS along, many define luck as opportunity meeting talent. BG had both, to be sure, but it is a narrow view of his and Microsoft's accomplishments to say that he was made by his luck. You should read one of the books about the history of Microsoft before you make such broad and, to be honest, ignorant statements.
=/
Although many will be up in arms about this, it's no different than having a rated R movie that kids cannot see without a parent or guardian around.
Calm down, it'll be another decade or two before they stop the production of such games and ban free speech.
So the algorithms logged daily routines of cell phone users . . . then predicted that they would follow their daily routines? How is this impressive?
Ya should have RTFA then. It's saying that RPG in the traditional sense (as in, a game where you play-act roles) is not what modern MMORPGs are.
.." You just have to search yourself for it!
So, the lesson is, DO obey that conscience that says you shouldn't leave a comment without RTFA! We know that the light side is in you because you said, "Even though I didn't . .
Point by point:
How the heck do you know? This was a publicity page, for pete's sake. Did you read the papers they published? Could you even name them? You're reading this like it's the great publication of all their work, but it's really a case of "Hey look at these cool videos we made in the course of our research."
Normally publicity pages have some reference to that which they are publicizing. This one does not; I can't find one reference to a paper published on this topic from the balloon page. I think that your assertion that it's a publicity page is baseless. Do you have any evidence to show that they were publicizing anything through this page? Where are the papers? I've looked on the homepage that the balloon page links back to and can nowhere find them.
It might come to mind, but it shouldn't. First, we're talking experimentation, not programming.
Many people think that programming is experimentation. In any case, how does the different labelling (programming vs. experimentation) in any way suggest that YAGNI cannot also be effectively applied to other things?
Second, YAGNI applied to research essentially says, Do no basic research. In 1930, do I "need" ultrapure silicon wafers?
Well, no, and that's why they weren't developed until the 60s, about the same time as they were becoming needed for the continuing process of miniaturizing the computer.
It doesn't say "do no basic research." It says, "don't do research that won't improve something right now." I think this is good advice for a lot of different researchers, from English PhDs researching the meaning of line 10 of Shakespeare's fifth sonnet to physics researchers popping water balloons at a cost rate of thousands of dollars per balloon (fuel, time, etc.).
Do you think they researched lasers in the 1960s so that you could listen to CDs and watch DVDs? No. They researched lasers because they were interesting quantum phenomena.
About lasers, you are right, there was no purpose for them; they were "a solution looking for a problem," according to Wikipedia. That lasers are specifically noted as an anomaly in that sense suggests that more people than just I think that most of the time, things should be researched for some immediate direct benefit. I'm sure there are other exceptions to this rule, but I don't think it would have hurt anything if research on lasers had been delayed until someone had said, "Hey, I need a really tightly focused beam of energy!"
I can't believe that water balloons being popped in zero g could possibly have the same wide range of applications as lasers do. So before we spend tens of thousands of dollars on doing it, it might be good if we had a reason to.
It's not an experiment unless there are testable hypothesis that one can disprove or expand upon. The results of this test do/did not increase our understanding of the way fluid flows work.
On top of that, when you say, "the payoff is uncertain," the rule "YAGNI" comes to mind.
Thus, those who can isolate themselves from such communication and be creative are destined for the top!
I hope!
Actually, almost all online games use some sort of prediction. For instance, the Source engine has client-side predictive collision for particles, ballistics, and physics objects.
I agree that it would be more effective on a flight simulator, simply because the valid set of spaces that could be moved to on the next tick/(n set of ticks) is a thin lens rather than a sphere.
This method involves the introduction of excess latency to the system so that the player who is working in slow motion can be allowed to "catch up" to the server's actual state for as long as he is in bullet time. The problem with this method is twofold.
First of all, there is the issue of lag in the standard game. Unless the server-side prediction is able to perfectly determine the paths of the slowed player, it will not be able to send an accurate picture of where that player is to his opponents. This will make a bullet-time'd player either invulnerable or just very difficult to damage. The other problem arises when a player is bullet-timing and kills another player. The player could perhaps be completely out of site from the bullet-timing player, but because his lagged position is still visible to the bullet-timing player, the hidden opponent could still be killed. The frustration this would add could never make up for the gameplay benefits of such a system.
Some things are not merely hard, but impossible.
In my book, the real problem is that most technical people are incapable even of writing to a technical audience. That, my friends, is what is embarrassing about the current state of affairs.
It's not a fad, it's a religion.
What about the Numa-Numa dance, the fad that became so popular that the guy who started it overflowed the sign bit straight from ecstatic joy into deep depression. Look, guys, the popularity counter has to get pretty big to overflow the sign bit.
Nobody can force you to do anything. Noncomp is standard, even for entry level workers, sometimes for as much as three years (however, if you are prevented from getting a job by the noncomp agreement you signed, your former employer normally has to meet your wages as they were when you worked for them).
On a database that large, it would still take a long time for this op to complete. =P
I hope you're not serious.
I suppose for a helpdesk position, this is fine. OTOH, if ping is good enough to get the job done (and it is), then I don't understand the point of making a decision based on tracert.
The computer science he's talking about is not the kind practiced by most CS PhDs. Although I understand where he's coming from, I find his pronouncement just slightly arrogant or else he's just entirely missing the point. CS has expanded beyond what Djikstra was talking about.