No, what he did 13 years ago was his breakthrough. What he has done ever since has also stepped up his fame status. You know, even Da Vinci has fame despite doing something hundreds of years ago. Unfortunately, even morons can walk into the spotlight (not saying he is one, though).
" I know what I'm capable of doing and the people I work with are united in our mission, and they treat me just like they treat each other. The whole fame thing doesn't come into play when we're in development, because we're all a team."
I was thinking the exact same thing before I quit my old job. You know, a lot of people do tell lies and if often turns out that powerful people are getting bullshitted all the time. I thought my staff enjoyed what I was doing and I kept hearing good things about my efforts until it was settled at a party and a few people got too drunk.
I'm not saying your team is doing this on you, John. Maybe you're really a great guy. Truth is, I don't know you and I actually even enjoyed Daikatana more than most other people did. It's just that I don't buy it, because you can't trust anyone until you know what he's thinking - which you probably never will.
I believe that indoor paint with these features would be of even greater use. But instead, it would provide WLAN and so limited that only people from that room can access it. That's good security and a really cool feature if it's going to be cost effective in the future.
I wasn't surprised at all when I read this blog entry. My Macbook (the vanilla version, cheapest of the three) is so hot that I actually burnt my skin. If I put it on a pillow, it gets excessively hot and makes the laptop hum like hell.
I have experienced heat before, but not this kind. I wonder what the airports say about the new portable egg toasters.
It's pretty obvious why Adobe would say such thing about Gimp. After all, no professional graphics artist works in Linux environments. Not only is Photoshop missing, but also the rest of the Adobe products as well as Macromedia products. Web designers are also concerned about making IE compliant web graphics. Point is, PC and Mac is the way to go if you're doing graphics. There is simply no market for Linux and Photoshop combined, which is why Adobe is saying this. Oh, and just because they tell Linux users to use GIMP instead does not mean that they find this application on par with Photoshop.
I don't know all the technical terms of what differenciates Photoshop from Gimp, but I've tested Gimp and can tell you that there are very simple things like anti-aliasing quality, text editing, shape tweaking and more. But all in all, Photoshop is more "neverending". Fact is, the more you learn about Photoshop, you realize that there are endless possibilities in terms of technique and functionality. Once you get past all the filters, you'll probably notice this.
"And please don't respond with intuitive user interface"
Well, fact is that it is important and does matter a lot. Gimp is far behind Photoshop here and it does affect work flow a lot.
Buying Photoshop
on
Beginning GIMP
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
"But with its high price tag, buying Photoshop is akin to putting strain on your bank balance."
Which leaves me asking if this could be one of the most warezed applications ever. Photoshop is a must have for a lot of teenagers nowadays and since no one gives a shit about Photoshop Elements, I wonder how many actually buy it. Sure, I bought my own copy but even I started out with a cracked version because I simply couldn't afford it. Adobe knows it: it is better for them to let pirates copy their software rather than funding competitors like Paint Shop Pro and Gimp, which ultimately results in more competition. They might even turn out to buy Photoshop in the end when they can actually afford it - like I did.
The price of Photoshop is so steep that most people who get it don't even know if they want to use it as a serious tool or not. When I first got it, I only manipulated a few images. When I discovered that I had skills, I purchased the copy. Before that, if there was no pirated version whatsoever, I would NEVER consider buying Photoshop simply because it would seem like buying something I don't have enough time to evaluate.
All in all, Photoshop requires a year of evaluation. Amusing but true:)
There's obviously going to be good games and not so good games, but the biggest problem is the increasing demand of super graphics. My impressions tell me that previous reviews focused a lot more on the story, playability and addictiveness of a game. Now it seems like reviewers take on the graphics more and more, as if it was a necessity. I find it sad that it's - as far as I can tell - impossible to get a top score with mediocre graphics. I'm not saying that graphics aren't important, but I do think that the importance of graphics has been ramped up recently.
My take on the situation is rather obvious. Video cards are getting seriously powerful and realism in games is only a decade away or so. Yes, it's obviously a stunning experience to play the most visually appealing games but that's only a couple of hours of excitement and it goes away, quickly. I still play StarCraft, despite the fact that it looks like crap and only supports 256 colors. Fact is, it has the playability. It has the story and it does have the addictive features. If such game was released today but with perhaps a higher resolution and more colors, without improving much beyond that, it would require far less resources and obviously less personell. It could still be a hit and I doubt anyone in here can prove me wrong on that point. Point is, to create a super pixelated game with the latest and best stuff, you need more developers but that will only add little to the last hours, days, weeks and (hopefully) months you're spending.
There is a solution, however. Games have become more complex and it is almost impossible to create a game that would generate some interest with the work of only a handful of people. Nowadays that number is more likely 30-50, sometimes even twice, three times or even four times as much. Therefore, the only way of making a game more profitable and less risky would be to slash the amount of developers who are working on a game title. This could be done if developers started exchanging technology and graphics. A lot of code and graphics can be reused in many other games and altered only a little without risking repetitiveness. Think about it: great-looking grass is always grass and a wooden crate is always a wooden crate. Just change the colors of it, add different shapes. We don't need artists to redo all that stuff over and over again. Instead, recycle what's still good and create games that last (read: story, playability and addictiveness).
A hot tip is to check out google's own currency conversion. Simply type in something like "500 usd in gbp" (without the quotes) and you will get the result, looking like this:
500 U.S. dollars = 271.783443 British pounds
Works the same way for converting Celcius to Kelvin, metrics to other systems and so forth. Calculator included!
The way I see it, the congress is worried about the billions of Dollars that's sipping out of the country. Online gambling will always be there, so if we don't want all the money to end up in hands of tropical islands, why not just vote for legalizing this industry instead?
I doubt the republicans are doing this to "save us" from the evilness of gambling. After all, the vast majority of all Americans gamble responsively. Blaming the industry too much would be like blaming television for murderers becoming who they are (read: artificial violence). If people have a problem with spending money, it will end up in pockets of other people no matter what, simply because gambling is only one way to canal it.
So once again, my point is, the US authorities should look at options of keeping as much of the industry within the US as possible instead of messing with peoples' habits and hobbies.
All major search engines have been doing this for quite some time. Google is probably the best hunter of them all and the most recent update, which occured on June 27, banned a large number of spammers who had billions of sites indexed. Unfortunately, the war on spam is quite difficult. They spammers are working with non-content pages but it is a matter of time before they start generating non-jibberish content to spam with, too.
Hopefully, Microsoft's approach will give some effect and push other operators to work harder on preventing the web spam.
Amusingly, you're most likely getting affected only if you're searching for penis pumps, pornographic content and gambling.
Microsoft will never make Windows secure. They can only improve its software and make it harder for the hackers, but these things usually end up like at any other game - if there's a bigger challenge, there's also a bigger prize at stake and more competition.
Microsoft does have a good operating system in their hands and I'm sure Vista is going to take a huge leap ahead. However, history tells us that all attempts have been futile so far and I honestly think - no matter what you Linux geeks here say - that if Linux was on 95% of all PC:s, we'd see the same thing going on for Torvald's armada. If Microsoft was the small competitor, it would have been considered a clever runner-up with bold ambitions and virtually no viruses available, nor any known hacks. The biggest, baddest of all companies gets the most crap thrown at it. Simple as that.
I wonder why these numbers are so greatly exaggerated. Why can't scientists leave the theoretical figures behind and talk about realistic numbers?
Anyway, once we actually reach data storage of that magnitude on a disk, we'll have to face the problem of seek time and transfers. It would be ridiculous to post so much data on a disk, so when this technology is mature, I'm sure disks will be obsolete.
Scientists should spend more time on figuring out how to leave the world of milliseconds and approach the nanoseconds. Remember, the only thing that's running on milliseconds in a computer is based on platters. I'd rather move on from that and get my 50 TB later.
There is no real need for a Vista release anytime soon, really. Judging from what we've heard so far, people complain about the hardware requirements. Microsoft should not have had a public release date on this product and it seems people are upset only because they missed it. Well, guess what, Windows XP is still here and I doubt anyone in here can actually give me a good reason why we HAVE TO get Vista right away. I wouldn't mind waiting another year.
I think Opera is a great browser (although I personally prefer Firefox because of all the plugins), but it is also the most feature-packed browser. That's a good thing, but too much is crammed into into this thing. Most people use only the most fundamental basics of a browser. What I would like to see is an ultra lite version of Opera with all the nifty features removed, or at least scalability in the full version.
Internet Explorer is great because it allows the user to remove stupid buttons, move around the menus and so forth, making the browser only one length thick on top. That's great if you want more space for viewing web sites and such. I personally prefer compact applications. When I look at Opera, I don't see that. I see a lot of cool stuff but I don't really need most of it and would prefer to add these nifty things once that I need them.
When I watched the guy who does the voice of Homer Simpson, I realized that this guy must be the funniest guy at the party. Imagine how hillarious it would be to meet someone who actually can sound like the legendary Homer. I'd donate my balls to see this guy have a conversation with the Homer guy. In real life, that is.
When I read this story on Slashdot, it occured to me how funny the news post was. Print it out and let your parents read it. See how much they get. It's rare to see this many shortcuts and technical terms even on Slashdot, don't you think?
I'm not going to comment all of your opinions, but the two that I reacted to the most were the following:
When I state concern that such an unimaginablely large amount of wealth and power have been placed in the hands of just two people, who are not responsible or accountable to anybody else at all, I'd expect you to take that concern seriously even if you don't agree with it.
In case you didn't know this already, the Gates foundation has employees who reach out with open arms to see what to fund. I doubt that it's in the hands of two people, they're just the heads of the organisation. This goes out to many other organisations too (read: Red Cross, etc). Besides, they are donating the money for good causes and it IS their money. The only difference here is that this is an insanely large amount of money, but telling them what to do with the money is as unjust as you telling me what I should do with my remainings.
I already "donated" several times by buying copies of Windows. [..] I would rather I was able to allocate my wealth to charities of my choosing rather than letting Gates do it for me.
So, what you're saying is that your boss, who is paying for your services, should also have an influence on who or what you are donating money to? Or, would you mail the developers of a small piece of software with revenues smaller than $100,000 that they are required to donate money to X or Y? No, this is not a different case at all. You're obviously just thinking this way because we're talking about billions of Dollars, not tens or hundreds. If you make a thousand Dollars on an idea, why should anyone gain the influence to tell you what to do with it? And if it was a million bucks, would that change? Or if it was a billion?
My point is, you purchased a product from Microsoft. Where that money goes is none of your business. Some of it pays someone's salary who has to buy porrige for his or her daughter, but you can't tell that guy he should buy something else because you "donated" it. It is not stated that you are donating any money. You are buying something for your money and that's the end of it. There's no agreement between you and Microsoft, saying that you are entitled to have a word on Bill's private economy, because that's exactly what it is. His foundation is HIS PRIVATE ECONOMY.
Slashdot Mirror
"The Quadro Plex 1000 family is due to ship in September."
Oh, so now we finally know the reason why the PS3 is so delayed. Does this Plex 1000 come with a Blue-Ray?
I am definitely going to get one of these to protect myself from my wife.
Man, to find a thing of that kind is like finding a needle in an enormous amoeba-like structure.
To solve this problem, we must look into the future. Put Hawkins on a dozen Star Trek tapes and see if he can get a hint of what's really going on.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five cores."
A year after that we will see an Intel Core 4 Penta Overdrive addon, adding a Tri core solution.
No, what he did 13 years ago was his breakthrough. What he has done ever since has also stepped up his fame status. You know, even Da Vinci has fame despite doing something hundreds of years ago. Unfortunately, even morons can walk into the spotlight (not saying he is one, though).
" I know what I'm capable of doing and the people I work with are united in our mission, and they treat me just like they treat each other. The whole fame thing doesn't come into play when we're in development, because we're all a team."
I was thinking the exact same thing before I quit my old job. You know, a lot of people do tell lies and if often turns out that powerful people are getting bullshitted all the time. I thought my staff enjoyed what I was doing and I kept hearing good things about my efforts until it was settled at a party and a few people got too drunk.
I'm not saying your team is doing this on you, John. Maybe you're really a great guy. Truth is, I don't know you and I actually even enjoyed Daikatana more than most other people did. It's just that I don't buy it, because you can't trust anyone until you know what he's thinking - which you probably never will.
I believe that indoor paint with these features would be of even greater use. But instead, it would provide WLAN and so limited that only people from that room can access it. That's good security and a really cool feature if it's going to be cost effective in the future.
I wasn't surprised at all when I read this blog entry. My Macbook (the vanilla version, cheapest of the three) is so hot that I actually burnt my skin. If I put it on a pillow, it gets excessively hot and makes the laptop hum like hell.
I have experienced heat before, but not this kind. I wonder what the airports say about the new portable egg toasters.
It's pretty obvious why Adobe would say such thing about Gimp. After all, no professional graphics artist works in Linux environments. Not only is Photoshop missing, but also the rest of the Adobe products as well as Macromedia products. Web designers are also concerned about making IE compliant web graphics. Point is, PC and Mac is the way to go if you're doing graphics. There is simply no market for Linux and Photoshop combined, which is why Adobe is saying this. Oh, and just because they tell Linux users to use GIMP instead does not mean that they find this application on par with Photoshop.
I don't know all the technical terms of what differenciates Photoshop from Gimp, but I've tested Gimp and can tell you that there are very simple things like anti-aliasing quality, text editing, shape tweaking and more. But all in all, Photoshop is more "neverending". Fact is, the more you learn about Photoshop, you realize that there are endless possibilities in terms of technique and functionality. Once you get past all the filters, you'll probably notice this.
"And please don't respond with intuitive user interface"
Well, fact is that it is important and does matter a lot. Gimp is far behind Photoshop here and it does affect work flow a lot.
"But with its high price tag, buying Photoshop is akin to putting strain on your bank balance."
:)
Which leaves me asking if this could be one of the most warezed applications ever. Photoshop is a must have for a lot of teenagers nowadays and since no one gives a shit about Photoshop Elements, I wonder how many actually buy it. Sure, I bought my own copy but even I started out with a cracked version because I simply couldn't afford it. Adobe knows it: it is better for them to let pirates copy their software rather than funding competitors like Paint Shop Pro and Gimp, which ultimately results in more competition. They might even turn out to buy Photoshop in the end when they can actually afford it - like I did.
The price of Photoshop is so steep that most people who get it don't even know if they want to use it as a serious tool or not. When I first got it, I only manipulated a few images. When I discovered that I had skills, I purchased the copy. Before that, if there was no pirated version whatsoever, I would NEVER consider buying Photoshop simply because it would seem like buying something I don't have enough time to evaluate.
All in all, Photoshop requires a year of evaluation. Amusing but true
This sounds like a job for Zapp Brannigan! Quick, Kif, to the shag mobile!
There's obviously going to be good games and not so good games, but the biggest problem is the increasing demand of super graphics. My impressions tell me that previous reviews focused a lot more on the story, playability and addictiveness of a game. Now it seems like reviewers take on the graphics more and more, as if it was a necessity. I find it sad that it's - as far as I can tell - impossible to get a top score with mediocre graphics. I'm not saying that graphics aren't important, but I do think that the importance of graphics has been ramped up recently.
My take on the situation is rather obvious. Video cards are getting seriously powerful and realism in games is only a decade away or so. Yes, it's obviously a stunning experience to play the most visually appealing games but that's only a couple of hours of excitement and it goes away, quickly. I still play StarCraft, despite the fact that it looks like crap and only supports 256 colors. Fact is, it has the playability. It has the story and it does have the addictive features. If such game was released today but with perhaps a higher resolution and more colors, without improving much beyond that, it would require far less resources and obviously less personell. It could still be a hit and I doubt anyone in here can prove me wrong on that point. Point is, to create a super pixelated game with the latest and best stuff, you need more developers but that will only add little to the last hours, days, weeks and (hopefully) months you're spending.
There is a solution, however. Games have become more complex and it is almost impossible to create a game that would generate some interest with the work of only a handful of people. Nowadays that number is more likely 30-50, sometimes even twice, three times or even four times as much. Therefore, the only way of making a game more profitable and less risky would be to slash the amount of developers who are working on a game title. This could be done if developers started exchanging technology and graphics. A lot of code and graphics can be reused in many other games and altered only a little without risking repetitiveness. Think about it: great-looking grass is always grass and a wooden crate is always a wooden crate. Just change the colors of it, add different shapes. We don't need artists to redo all that stuff over and over again. Instead, recycle what's still good and create games that last (read: story, playability and addictiveness).
A hot tip is to check out google's own currency conversion. Simply type in something like "500 usd in gbp" (without the quotes) and you will get the result, looking like this:
500 U.S. dollars = 271.783443 British pounds
Works the same way for converting Celcius to Kelvin, metrics to other systems and so forth. Calculator included!
The way I see it, the congress is worried about the billions of Dollars that's sipping out of the country. Online gambling will always be there, so if we don't want all the money to end up in hands of tropical islands, why not just vote for legalizing this industry instead?
I doubt the republicans are doing this to "save us" from the evilness of gambling. After all, the vast majority of all Americans gamble responsively. Blaming the industry too much would be like blaming television for murderers becoming who they are (read: artificial violence). If people have a problem with spending money, it will end up in pockets of other people no matter what, simply because gambling is only one way to canal it.
So once again, my point is, the US authorities should look at options of keeping as much of the industry within the US as possible instead of messing with peoples' habits and hobbies.
So half the population of the US goes: "Man, the recordings of the world's first Hollywood simulation of the moon are all gone".
All major search engines have been doing this for quite some time. Google is probably the best hunter of them all and the most recent update, which occured on June 27, banned a large number of spammers who had billions of sites indexed. Unfortunately, the war on spam is quite difficult. They spammers are working with non-content pages but it is a matter of time before they start generating non-jibberish content to spam with, too.
Hopefully, Microsoft's approach will give some effect and push other operators to work harder on preventing the web spam.
Amusingly, you're most likely getting affected only if you're searching for penis pumps, pornographic content and gambling.
Microsoft will never make Windows secure. They can only improve its software and make it harder for the hackers, but these things usually end up like at any other game - if there's a bigger challenge, there's also a bigger prize at stake and more competition.
Microsoft does have a good operating system in their hands and I'm sure Vista is going to take a huge leap ahead. However, history tells us that all attempts have been futile so far and I honestly think - no matter what you Linux geeks here say - that if Linux was on 95% of all PC:s, we'd see the same thing going on for Torvald's armada. If Microsoft was the small competitor, it would have been considered a clever runner-up with bold ambitions and virtually no viruses available, nor any known hacks. The biggest, baddest of all companies gets the most crap thrown at it. Simple as that.
I wonder why these numbers are so greatly exaggerated. Why can't scientists leave the theoretical figures behind and talk about realistic numbers?
Anyway, once we actually reach data storage of that magnitude on a disk, we'll have to face the problem of seek time and transfers. It would be ridiculous to post so much data on a disk, so when this technology is mature, I'm sure disks will be obsolete.
Scientists should spend more time on figuring out how to leave the world of milliseconds and approach the nanoseconds. Remember, the only thing that's running on milliseconds in a computer is based on platters. I'd rather move on from that and get my 50 TB later.
There is no real need for a Vista release anytime soon, really. Judging from what we've heard so far, people complain about the hardware requirements. Microsoft should not have had a public release date on this product and it seems people are upset only because they missed it. Well, guess what, Windows XP is still here and I doubt anyone in here can actually give me a good reason why we HAVE TO get Vista right away. I wouldn't mind waiting another year.
I think Opera is a great browser (although I personally prefer Firefox because of all the plugins), but it is also the most feature-packed browser. That's a good thing, but too much is crammed into into this thing. Most people use only the most fundamental basics of a browser. What I would like to see is an ultra lite version of Opera with all the nifty features removed, or at least scalability in the full version.
Internet Explorer is great because it allows the user to remove stupid buttons, move around the menus and so forth, making the browser only one length thick on top. That's great if you want more space for viewing web sites and such. I personally prefer compact applications. When I look at Opera, I don't see that. I see a lot of cool stuff but I don't really need most of it and would prefer to add these nifty things once that I need them.
"I hereby agree that I did not consider a computer equipped with an AMD processor. In fact, I don't even know what it tastes like."
When I watched the guy who does the voice of Homer Simpson, I realized that this guy must be the funniest guy at the party. Imagine how hillarious it would be to meet someone who actually can sound like the legendary Homer. I'd donate my balls to see this guy have a conversation with the Homer guy. In real life, that is.
When I read this story on Slashdot, it occured to me how funny the news post was. Print it out and let your parents read it. See how much they get. It's rare to see this many shortcuts and technical terms even on Slashdot, don't you think?
In case you didn't know this already, the Gates foundation has employees who reach out with open arms to see what to fund. I doubt that it's in the hands of two people, they're just the heads of the organisation. This goes out to many other organisations too (read: Red Cross, etc). Besides, they are donating the money for good causes and it IS their money. The only difference here is that this is an insanely large amount of money, but telling them what to do with the money is as unjust as you telling me what I should do with my remainings.
So, what you're saying is that your boss, who is paying for your services, should also have an influence on who or what you are donating money to? Or, would you mail the developers of a small piece of software with revenues smaller than $100,000 that they are required to donate money to X or Y? No, this is not a different case at all. You're obviously just thinking this way because we're talking about billions of Dollars, not tens or hundreds. If you make a thousand Dollars on an idea, why should anyone gain the influence to tell you what to do with it? And if it was a million bucks, would that change? Or if it was a billion?
My point is, you purchased a product from Microsoft. Where that money goes is none of your business. Some of it pays someone's salary who has to buy porrige for his or her daughter, but you can't tell that guy he should buy something else because you "donated" it. It is not stated that you are donating any money. You are buying something for your money and that's the end of it. There's no agreement between you and Microsoft, saying that you are entitled to have a word on Bill's private economy, because that's exactly what it is. His foundation is HIS PRIVATE ECONOMY.