This pricing model would make sense; bandwidth is priced according to the actual laws of supply and demand, rather than whatever the ISP feels like charging.
That's why ISPs won't do it.
Because most customers are doing just fine the way it is. The customers getting 'screwed' are the ones that want to transfer 1000s of GB per month for 35$ flat rate.
If the ISPs ever actually switched to a supply/demand pricing model, with tiered bandwidth, guess what, the same customers that are moaning about getting 'screwed' now by throttling, are going to be moaning that their internet costs $1500/mo when they they run torrents at 25down:2up Mbps 24x7.
Meanwhile 'regular' people will be complaining because they don't understand their up/down ratios, why bandwidth costs more going in one direction than the other, why they had to pay $5 extra one month when they didn't do anything out of the ordinary.... except update windows to sp3... and according to the MS page, thats only a 97kb download.
It was predictable enough, and many of us did point out the terribly obvious flaw in the OLPC plan -- that people experiencing shortages in food, potable water, basic shelter, education facilities, farmable land, etc, etc, need those survival basics covered far more than they need a laptop. I still don't really see how this was not obvious to Negroponte et al.
Well, you see, there is this gigantic group of people who aren't experiencing shortages in food, potable water, basic shelter, etc etc etc. People who've got the survival basics covered, yet are still extremely poor. They are the target market for this laptop.
This isn't for that tragic starving child with no clothes no food no medicine and flies all over his body that you see on those interminably long "Christian Children's Fund" commercials. This is for his distant neighbor 6000 miles away who lives in a home, on a farm, enjoying a meagre lifestyle, while the children work on the farm, or the local mine, or pick fruit, or help chop down the nearby rainforest for additional income. This is for them.
There are lots of countries who have met the basic requirements for survival, but who lack the infrastructure and wealth we enjoy in 1st world countries. This is for them.
Will this then apply to books who have had their cover torn off and returned to the publisher? Most of those books carry a "if the cover is missing this book cannot be resold" blurb. Booksellers who can't sell a quantity of trade paperbacks return the front cover in lieu of the entire book for a refund. It saves on shipping and the publisher doesn't want the unsold books back anyway. So would these be considered 'gifts' to the bookseller, and presumably under this ruling also viable for resale?
Yes and No. Mostly No.
Think about how that process works. You buy up a bunch of inventory. You then don't sell it and want to return it to get your money back. The publisher could just say screw you, you bought it, its your problem to sell. (And that's the case with a lot of books... and why there are those bins with hard covers for $1.00 in them.)
But some publishers with some titles for a number of reasons, give you the option to return the book for full or partial credit if it doesn't sell within a time frame. Of course, they don't really want the book back and it costs a bundle to ship heavy books around so instead they simply require you to destroy the book and they compensate you. The whole 'tear off and send in the covers' is just part of the 'auditing and accounting processes' to ensure disreputable dealers don't just claim they destroyed them and ask for piles of money back while selling the books. Plus by tearing the covers off and having the disclaimer in the book it renders the books nearly worthless even if they aren't destroyed, because a) the cover is missing, and b) consumers know that someone got paid to destroy these books and now is trying to sell them.
The book seller was essentially paid to destroy and discard them, if they didn't destroy them then they are in violation of their contract and liable to be sued etc. Its no different than you contract a company to come to your office to shred your documents, and then instead they take your documents and sell them on ebay, they are in serious violation of the contract. Same deal here.
So in most cases if you came into possession of such a book it would mean that the contract was not fulfilled and the publisher could seek damages from the book seller that was supposed to have destroyed it. If you worked at a book store and just kept copies for yourself, it gets messy, those copies could legally amount to stolen, and reselling them would amount to selling stolen property. If your being paid to destroy or discard something and you keep it, the question of whether its theft or not is complicated. Normally it would be ok... like if your boss said throw that printer away and you took it home instead. But if your boss said destroy this book of customer contact and account information and you took it home instead... that would be theft.
But here the illegality has really nothing to do with the cover being missing, or the disclaimer on the book, and everything to do with the fact that the publisher paid for these books to be destroyed and they weren't.
HOWEVER. ALL THAT SAID.
If you somehow legally came into possession of a book with its cover ripped off, you can sell it. You are not bound by any contract. Nor are you bound by the disclaimer on the first page about the missing cover.
If you bought a book and then tore its cover off for example you'd still be able to sell it without question. Or if you found it on the street that would be fine.
If you pulled it out of a dumpster that would really depend on the circumstances. It would probably be legal in most cases of simple dumpster diving... but illegal theft if it were a more systematic enterprise, especially if you were involved or related to the bookstore putting them there.
Because if I you have a question there are lots of real people around that can answer it. Sure linux has great online support, but nothing beats asking your grandkids/kids/friends or being able to phone the number on the box to figure out how to do something.
And as easy as apt-get is to use, the software that comes on a disk bundled with your new ipod is even easier to find.
Popularity of iTunes does not make it any less inferior to Amarok, that is free and provides the same useful functionality on Linux.
That's a load. It is simply not remotely out of the box compatible with an ipod. There are lots of gotchas when using the newest ipods. Amarok doesn't work at all with an iPod touch or iphone unless you jailbreak it and then jump through hoops, and that has its own set of gotchas.
Sure Amarok might be a pretty robust music player, but its no substitute for itunes given that most of the people running itunes are either using a Mac, or an iPod, or both.
In other words, the risk analysis to determine how fast you are prepared to drive without killing yourself.
Unlike games, and street racing, in professional race conditions, drivers are usually going as fast as they can go without losing control. The question is more about control (holding the line, maintaining ideal friction during turns), and efficiency (drafting, tire wear, fuel). Its really not about going faster. They're pushing the car as hard as they can.
In my limited race track experience the gas pedal is usually floored, except when the brakes are floored. And choosing when to switch from one to the other is part of holding the line. The only exception is through tight S-curves - where you are still going as fast as you can go while holding the line go without your wheels losing traction.
There is rarely a situation where a driver could be going faster, and not be immediately involved in an accident.
Risk analysis is a factor, to be sure, but good professional drivers are pretty good at getting right up against the edge of losing control without going over.
Personally I think the vast majority of gamers will lose to the pros everytime if the simulation is any good. It is much harder to gauge where the control line is in a video game... you don't have the g-force feedback, nor the feel of the tires that you'd have in real life. A pro driver can tell the difference without even trying between wet track, dry track, tell his air pressure is off, how worn his tires are, how warm his tires are, and how tight a turn he can take at what speed without slipping more than 10-15% based on all that... when was the last time you played a game where that was really relevant...or that you could really tell the difference?
For the gamers to stand a chance the simulations will have to be markedly more forgiving than the real world... and that sort of defeats the point.
Although imho you would replace "killing yourself" with "destroying your employer's vehicle which costs millions of dollars and forever to repair".
One of my favorite quotes from a driving instructor/professional driver was "If the driver doesn't come back with just the steering wheel once in a while, the rest of the team thinks he's not trying hard enough."
So... hardware design is a "real" engineering (deals with whole range of nastiness the physical reality slaps you with), unlike the hack that software "engineering" is... Is that what you're saying?:-)
Well... there's "real" software engineering too...stuff involving resource deadlock, race conditions, critical section synchronization, in applications like virtual memory management, network protocols, time sync, file systems, security, fault tolerance, etc that are subject to all sorts of 'physical reality nastiness'.
Its not all wizards and automatic code completion you know.:-)
They conveniently ignore the Inconvenient Truth that it was about Obstruction of Justice because that doesn't fit into the way they want things to have been.
Reminds me of that CSI episode where some guy gets nailed with a 'child molester' designation, thanks to having gotten high on shrooms when he was 20 and then while high as a kite going outside to perform a sun-dance while nude... and exposing himself to a bunch of kids as an incidental result.
The guy did something stupid but completely non-threatening while high on shrooms as young adult, and is effectively for life a pedophile. (Really, one of the very few decent recent episodes.)
That about sums up this grand sounding charge of 'Obstruction of Justice'. Yeah it happened. Clinton lied in a court. It was utterly stupid, it was completely wrong, and it was utterly and completely blown out of all proportion.
Clinton's lie was 'obstruction of justice' to the same degree that the guy in the csi episode was a 'pedophile'.
Actually, if a game is recompiled against winelib, it can run on any CPU architecture winelib will run on. That includes PPC. It'd become a Mac-native game that has an internal implementation of Win32 and DirectX.
That's a pretty BIG if.
However, unlike Wine itself, TransGaming's fork doesn't support PPC.
PPC hasn't been used in a mainstream desktop, not even an Apple one, for a couple years now. What would be the point of supporting a platform that is too slow to run the games coming down the pipe, even if they were running natively? Transgaming is a business, not a labour of love.
On the other hand there's a special linux-on-linux mode in qemu that let you run linux binaries from one architecture on a linux box installed for a different architecture.
Performance in actual emulation software is a fraction of what can be done natively. Transgaming/Cedgega is primarily working on modern games that push modern hardware running natively for crying out loud. Nobody in their right mind would really expect them to run remotely well in EMULATION on a PC/Mac that was a few years old.
And yeah, qemu bridging and running the API natively, speeds up considerably over an all emulated system, but its STILL ridiculous. No matter how you twist it, it amounts to trying to run a new game designed for the newest systems by EMULATING a faster processor on an OLDER SLOWER one. Its absurd.
With such a stack, executing x86 windows binaries on a PPC Mac would have been possible.
There is a big gap between running x86 binaries and running modern games. Getting MSOffice going might have been doable, and it might have been possible to get an old Win2000 era title running well enough, but the orangebox? Quake 4? Crysis? Forget it.
Back in the days when this users picked his G5, only PPC processor where available in Macs. So he didn't have any choice to begin with./i
If he expected to ever run windows games, he would not have selected a Mac.
Or alternatively, the moment he selected a Mac he gave up any reasonable expectation that it would ever run the Windows games that would be coming out over the next two years.
I am so sick of this. Clinton LIED under oath in a federal court after taking an oath to tell the truth. He lied ABOUT sex. I love how for some people it is just about sex...no big deal.
The lie *was* just about sex. The whole thing was a farce. He shouldn't have lied, no question, but seriously, its not like he lied to get the country into a war, or lied about tampering with elections... he lied about whether he'd had oral sex. He should never have been in a federal court being asked those questions in the first place.
Anyone else would have been buried in jail for contempt.
Most people actually don't go to jail for perjury. Fines are common.
If I was issued a subpoena, then lied, I would either be charged with perjury and jailed or charged with contempt and jailed.
Perjury is often punished with a Fine. Look it up. And light sentences (not that 90k is that light) is common when the item lied about was not terribly significant, the level of harm done by it, etc...
I would have more respect for Bill Clinton if he had just said "Yeah I fucked her, what of it?"
Or maybe should have just said "I don't recall." Or maybe he should have invoked executive priviledge over national security? Those seem to work pretty well when you don't want to answer a federal court.
When you commit a crime, you are in debt to the community. The sentance is your repayment of that debbt.
That is part of the rationale behind punishment. But really, society is actively trying to discourage you from going into 'debt' in the first place. Passing a law and making you pay $35 for parking is primarily to dissuade you from parking by stop signs in the first place. It was not intended to be 'rich persons parking'.
When my freedoms are taken away.
But that happens in all the cases I cited.
We do, and you can do whatever you want with your stuff. If you were to put handcuffs on everyone just in case they might B&E, we have a problem.
Agreed. But at the same time, the moment I put a lock on my door I took away your freedom to open it. Some small measure of your freedom to 'break the law' and tresspass at will has been clearly taken away.
Now at the same time I agree you shouldn't be forced into wearing handcuffs 24x7 just in case, and I certainly don't advocate that we submit to being clockwork oranges. But at the same time...
How is an ISP that scans for viruses and spam any different than wearing handcuffs all the time? All your traffic flows fine until you try to move a virus or spam... then it clamps down and blocks it. Is that acceptable or not?
How is an ISP filtering childporn any different from that? Is it ok for them to block viruses and spam but not childporn?
Besides you should only ever notice when you try to access child porn. Assuming you don't do this, it doesn't affect you. The moment you try, the filters block the attempt. The filters are there all the time, but they don't clamp down and restrict you until you try to do something illegal. Do you consider that being handcuffed 24x7? or just when they clamp down?
Its an interesting problem, and I mentioned clockwork orange because that is -exactly- the situation in A Clockwork Orange. The restraints on Alex clamped down the moment he tried to engage in rape or violence.
Filtering the internet is similar to handcuffing everyone. Similiar maybe. But is it the same? Do you realy object to your ISP blocking spam or viruses?
I'm really not trying to comtinue a flame war, and really do appreciate your point of view. I'd add you to my friends list if I could figure it out. Basically i'm just sick and tired of the gov't telling me what I can and can't do. I'm sure that you can appreciate that. Good day to you good sir!
I didn't really see this as a flame war. And I appreciate your point of view. I wholeheartedly agree that becoming clockwork oranges where our ability to even choose to commit a crime has been effectively taken from us is a very bad thing. But at the same time, I can't find it in me to object to isps filtering spam and viruses.
And I'm having a hard time seeing how an ISP filtering child porn and an ISP filtering viruses are truly different.
And of course, it's actually just Intel-based Macs
What? are you serious?
Transgaming/Cedega is basically an enhancement/fork/product based on the WINE project that lets you run Windows apps on the *nix OSes. As I'm sure you know, WINE is one one of those recursive acronyms... Wine is not an emulator. Meaning that it lets you run Windows software by implementing the Windows API, and then running the code against.
Given that Wine is not an emulator, and the software running on it was compiled for x86 by its respective makers, why exactly would you expect it to run on a G5?
If I had an Intel Mac, I'd just put Windows on a partition.
The point of transgaming/cedega WINE is to run software -without- buying a copy of windows. It doesn't let you run windows software without x86 machines, it lets you run windows software without windows.
Kind of pointless, if you ask me.
If saving you having to buy and install windows to run a game on your Mac is pointless. Then yes, it is pointless. Most people however think there is a clear and obvious point.
Not every Mac user buys a new computer every time Apple comes out with a new product line.
If you wanted/expected to ever run Windows games on that computer, you would never have selected a G5 in the first place.
This can work. After all, most spammers comply with the rest of the act and are legitimate, honest and upright business owners, right?
Your being sarcastic, but you are more right than you think.
The CAN SPAM act isn't REALLY directed at the "Get V1-a--g-ri-alis". Those guys don't provide any sort of optout anyway. The CAN-SPAM act really just regulates legitimate newsletters and their behaviour, and this little tweak makes life a little easier for them.
The idea here if I read it right, seems to be that if I send out legitimate newsletter and company-X advertises in it, and then you opt out of my newsletter, under the old can-spam rules if company-X advertises in another newsletter that you receive, you could complain that you opted out, and charge them with spamming... which is really a bit absurd. Its like cancelling your subscription to forbes and then being offended the same ads for Lexus showed up in your subscription to Times!
As you observed the "real" spammers don't give a crap about CANSPAM. This doesn't affect them, because CANSPAM never really affected them. So opening this 'loophole' is primarily about making it easier for legitimate newsletters to operate.
To use your words "call it what you will". Its all the same, each action has a price. If you pay the price, you can do the action... park in a lot for $18, park by a stop sign for $35, park on top of a homeless man for some time in the can. No real difference between them except the price.
but my argument still holds. If I were to beat someone to death with a baseball bat, the penaly would no longer be $35, but 5-25 years in prison (depending on the charge). Depending on the person I am sh*t kicking, it may, or may not, be worth 5-25 years of ass pounding in jail.
So if you deem it worth the price, its ok to do it?
Also you are comparing civil actions, to criminal actions.
"Call it what you will."
Those labels are just needless distinctions. They are all just actions, each with a price, right?
The $35 dollar parking ticket is unlikely to come back and haunt me, while a murder charge carries significantly more baggage.
Part of the price.
I, personally think that it should be a human right to be allowed to break the law. After you break the law, you should be hunted down like a dog, and prosecuted (or for a parking ticket, pay the $$$).
So if sending a virus on purpose were against the law (and it is to my knowledge) if an ISP installs effective antivirus on their mail servers preventing you from being able to send their subscribers a virus, they would be violating your human right to break the law?
At what point does societies desire to protect itself from you breaking the law infringe on your right to "break the law". Because societies do all kinds of things to prevent people from breaking the law... we put locks on our doors to prevent invasion, tresspass, and theft. We have all manner of anti-counterfeiting technology in our currency. Stores tag merchandise to prevent shoplifting. The FDA audits labs to ensure hygenic conditions and proper quality process controls are in place... etc etc etc, all seemingly at odds with your human right to break the law.
I've been pulled over for 'driving suspiciously'. Apparently being downtown, late at night, and spending a few extra moments at a stop sign to swap CD's in the stereo is 'suspicious'...
If an upgrade to a router caused Windows to enter a reboot cycle would we be blaming the router manufacturer or Microsoft?
Would anyone notice?
Kidding aside, my first thought was this is CLEARLY a router problem. Even if SP3 is completely defective and sending out complete garbage to the router, the router should cope better than going into a 'crash and reboot cycle'.
Deep Zoom works by letting you meld several images in such a way as pretend its one image.
That's still very useful.
Basically, its a con job of transitioning several different images, where one is a re-photograph of sub portion of the original.
'con job' has needless connotations of an intent to deceive.
The implication of the article is that this is all one image containing a nearly infinite level of detail, which it most emphatically is NOT.
No. The implication of the article is that you can provide this as a user interface, which is very cool. Google Earth isn't interesting because its a 'con job' to let us think we can zoom in and out of a single monster image of the planet. Its interesting because its a natural and convenient UI to use.
And we don't have to download every single pixel of every single higher res image of a tree in Nigeria to have a closeup look at a parking lot in London. Detail is loaded on the fly, as needed, while the user gets a 'seamless' and comparatively low bandwidth experience.
Its not particularly new as an idea. Or even as an implementation. But maybe Microsoft's tools make setting it up substantially easier, and that alone would be a nice bit of progress.
The author is probably equally impressed by street corner magic tricks.
I am impressed by street corner magicians too. Not because I think they're magical, but because I am impressed at their showmanship, sleight of hand, dexterity, and general ability to appear magical.
Fighters now have "tanking" abilities that "force" the monster to attack them...What the hell is that about? Didn't everyone and their mother used to role play that? Instead of being a simple framework, D&D is more like a complete game.
Why should the monster do that? It should attack whoever it wants to attack. And the smarter it is the more intelligent its selection and tactics should be.
The whole MMO inspired 'all the monsters wail on the tank, while the rest of the group focuses on one target at a time and burns it down' is the most absurd thing going.
Slashdot Mirror
This pricing model would make sense; bandwidth is priced according to the actual laws of supply and demand, rather than whatever the ISP feels like charging.
That's why ISPs won't do it.
Because most customers are doing just fine the way it is. The customers getting 'screwed' are the ones that want to transfer 1000s of GB per month for 35$ flat rate.
If the ISPs ever actually switched to a supply/demand pricing model, with tiered bandwidth, guess what, the same customers that are moaning about getting 'screwed' now by throttling, are going to be moaning that their internet costs $1500/mo when they they run torrents at 25down:2up Mbps 24x7.
Meanwhile 'regular' people will be complaining because they don't understand their up/down ratios, why bandwidth costs more going in one direction than the other, why they had to pay $5 extra one month when they didn't do anything out of the ordinary.... except update windows to sp3... and according to the MS page, thats only a 97kb download.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=68C48DAD-BC34-40BE-8D85-6BB4F56F5110&displaylang=en#filelist
In effect: everybody loses.
I use iTunes, and my family has an ipod, an ipod nano, an ipod touch, and even an Alpine iDA-X001 'made for ipod' car stereo.
And yet we also rip all our CD's to mp3 and have no DRM'd files.
Rights management isn't a new concept, whereas fair use is. ...For him that stealeth, or borroweth and returneth not, this book from its owner...
Right. The difference being that back then the OWNER of the book had all the rights.
Today, the OWNER of the book is the one being cursed.
It was predictable enough, and many of us did point out the terribly obvious flaw in the OLPC plan -- that people experiencing shortages in food, potable water, basic shelter, education facilities, farmable land, etc, etc, need those survival basics covered far more than they need a laptop. I still don't really see how this was not obvious to Negroponte et al.
Well, you see, there is this gigantic group of people who aren't experiencing shortages in food, potable water, basic shelter, etc etc etc. People who've got the survival basics covered, yet are still extremely poor. They are the target market for this laptop.
This isn't for that tragic starving child with no clothes no food no medicine and flies all over his body that you see on those interminably long "Christian Children's Fund" commercials. This is for his distant neighbor 6000 miles away who lives in a home, on a farm, enjoying a meagre lifestyle, while the children work on the farm, or the local mine, or pick fruit, or help chop down the nearby rainforest for additional income. This is for them.
There are lots of countries who have met the basic requirements for survival, but who lack the infrastructure and wealth we enjoy in 1st world countries. This is for them.
Will this then apply to books who have had their cover torn off and returned to the publisher? Most of those books carry a "if the cover is missing this book cannot be resold" blurb. Booksellers who can't sell a quantity of trade paperbacks return the front cover in lieu of the entire book for a refund. It saves on shipping and the publisher doesn't want the unsold books back anyway. So would these be considered 'gifts' to the bookseller, and presumably under this ruling also viable for resale?
Yes and No. Mostly No.
Think about how that process works. You buy up a bunch of inventory. You then don't sell it and want to return it to get your money back. The publisher could just say screw you, you bought it, its your problem to sell. (And that's the case with a lot of books... and why there are those bins with hard covers for $1.00 in them.)
But some publishers with some titles for a number of reasons, give you the option to return the book for full or partial credit if it doesn't sell within a time frame. Of course, they don't really want the book back and it costs a bundle to ship heavy books around so instead they simply require you to destroy the book and they compensate you. The whole 'tear off and send in the covers' is just part of the 'auditing and accounting processes' to ensure disreputable dealers don't just claim they destroyed them and ask for piles of money back while selling the books. Plus by tearing the covers off and having the disclaimer in the book it renders the books nearly worthless even if they aren't destroyed, because a) the cover is missing, and b) consumers know that someone got paid to destroy these books and now is trying to sell them.
The book seller was essentially paid to destroy and discard them, if they didn't destroy them then they are in violation of their contract and liable to be sued etc. Its no different than you contract a company to come to your office to shred your documents, and then instead they take your documents and sell them on ebay, they are in serious violation of the contract. Same deal here.
So in most cases if you came into possession of such a book it would mean that the contract was not fulfilled and the publisher could seek damages from the book seller that was supposed to have destroyed it. If you worked at a book store and just kept copies for yourself, it gets messy, those copies could legally amount to stolen, and reselling them would amount to selling stolen property. If your being paid to destroy or discard something and you keep it, the question of whether its theft or not is complicated. Normally it would be ok... like if your boss said throw that printer away and you took it home instead. But if your boss said destroy this book of customer contact and account information and you took it home instead... that would be theft.
But here the illegality has really nothing to do with the cover being missing, or the disclaimer on the book, and everything to do with the fact that the publisher paid for these books to be destroyed and they weren't.
HOWEVER. ALL THAT SAID.
If you somehow legally came into possession of a book with its cover ripped off, you can sell it. You are not bound by any contract. Nor are you bound by the disclaimer on the first page about the missing cover.
If you bought a book and then tore its cover off for example you'd still be able to sell it without question. Or if you found it on the street that would be fine.
If you pulled it out of a dumpster that would really depend on the circumstances. It would probably be legal in most cases of simple dumpster diving... but illegal theft if it were a more systematic enterprise, especially if you were involved or related to the bookstore putting them there.
Why do you need a "popular" application?
Because if I you have a question there are lots of real people around that can answer it. Sure linux has great online support, but nothing beats asking your grandkids/kids/friends or being able to phone the number on the box to figure out how to do something.
And as easy as apt-get is to use, the software that comes on a disk bundled with your new ipod is even easier to find.
Popularity of iTunes does not make it any less inferior to Amarok, that is free and provides the same useful functionality on Linux.
That's a load. It is simply not remotely out of the box compatible with an ipod. There are lots of gotchas when using the newest ipods. Amarok doesn't work at all with an iPod touch or iphone unless you jailbreak it and then jump through hoops, and that has its own set of gotchas.
Sure Amarok might be a pretty robust music player, but its no substitute for itunes given that most of the people running itunes are either using a Mac, or an iPod, or both.
In other words, the risk analysis to determine how fast you are prepared to drive without killing yourself.
... when was the last time you played a game where that was really relevant...or that you could really tell the difference?
Unlike games, and street racing, in professional race conditions, drivers are usually going as fast as they can go without losing control. The question is more about control (holding the line, maintaining ideal friction during turns), and efficiency (drafting, tire wear, fuel). Its really not about going faster. They're pushing the car as hard as they can.
In my limited race track experience the gas pedal is usually floored, except when the brakes are floored. And choosing when to switch from one to the other is part of holding the line. The only exception is through tight S-curves - where you are still going as fast as you can go while holding the line go without your wheels losing traction.
There is rarely a situation where a driver could be going faster, and not be immediately involved in an accident.
Risk analysis is a factor, to be sure, but good professional drivers are pretty good at getting right up against the edge of losing control without going over.
Personally I think the vast majority of gamers will lose to the pros everytime if the simulation is any good. It is much harder to gauge where the control line is in a video game... you don't have the g-force feedback, nor the feel of the tires that you'd have in real life. A pro driver can tell the difference without even trying between wet track, dry track, tell his air pressure is off, how worn his tires are, how warm his tires are, and how tight a turn he can take at what speed without slipping more than 10-15% based on all that
For the gamers to stand a chance the simulations will have to be markedly more forgiving than the real world... and that sort of defeats the point.
Although imho you would replace "killing yourself" with "destroying your employer's vehicle which costs millions of dollars and forever to repair".
One of my favorite quotes from a driving instructor/professional driver was "If the driver doesn't come back with just the steering wheel once in a while, the rest of the team thinks he's not trying hard enough."
So... hardware design is a "real" engineering (deals with whole range of nastiness the physical reality slaps you with), unlike the hack that software "engineering" is... Is that what you're saying? :-)
:-)
Well... there's "real" software engineering too...stuff involving resource deadlock, race conditions, critical section synchronization, in applications like virtual memory management, network protocols, time sync, file systems, security, fault tolerance, etc that are subject to all sorts of 'physical reality nastiness'.
Its not all wizards and automatic code completion you know.
They conveniently ignore the Inconvenient Truth that it was about Obstruction of Justice because that doesn't fit into the way they want things to have been.
Reminds me of that CSI episode where some guy gets nailed with a 'child molester' designation, thanks to having gotten high on shrooms when he was 20 and then while high as a kite going outside to perform a sun-dance while nude... and exposing himself to a bunch of kids as an incidental result.
The guy did something stupid but completely non-threatening while high on shrooms as young adult, and is effectively for life a pedophile. (Really, one of the very few decent recent episodes.)
That about sums up this grand sounding charge of 'Obstruction of Justice'. Yeah it happened. Clinton lied in a court. It was utterly stupid, it was completely wrong, and it was utterly and completely blown out of all proportion.
Clinton's lie was 'obstruction of justice' to the same degree that the guy in the csi episode was a 'pedophile'.
Actually, if a game is recompiled against winelib, it can run on any CPU architecture winelib will run on. That includes PPC. It'd become a Mac-native game that has an internal implementation of Win32 and DirectX.
That's a pretty BIG if.
However, unlike Wine itself, TransGaming's fork doesn't support PPC.
PPC hasn't been used in a mainstream desktop, not even an Apple one, for a couple years now. What would be the point of supporting a platform that is too slow to run the games coming down the pipe, even if they were running natively? Transgaming is a business, not a labour of love.
On the other hand there's a special linux-on-linux mode in qemu that let you run linux binaries from one architecture on a linux box installed for a different architecture.
Performance in actual emulation software is a fraction of what can be done natively. Transgaming/Cedgega is primarily working on modern games that push modern hardware running natively for crying out loud. Nobody in their right mind would really expect them to run remotely well in EMULATION on a PC/Mac that was a few years old.
And yeah, qemu bridging and running the API natively, speeds up considerably over an all emulated system, but its STILL ridiculous. No matter how you twist it, it amounts to trying to run a new game designed for the newest systems by EMULATING a faster processor on an OLDER SLOWER one. Its absurd.
With such a stack, executing x86 windows binaries on a PPC Mac would have been possible.
There is a big gap between running x86 binaries and running modern games. Getting MSOffice going might have been doable, and it might have been possible to get an old Win2000 era title running well enough, but the orangebox? Quake 4? Crysis? Forget it.
Back in the days when this users picked his G5, only PPC processor where available in Macs. So he didn't have any choice to begin with./i
If he expected to ever run windows games, he would not have selected a Mac.
Or alternatively, the moment he selected a Mac he gave up any reasonable expectation that it would ever run the Windows games that would be coming out over the next two years.
I am so sick of this. Clinton LIED under oath in a federal court after taking an oath to tell the truth. He lied ABOUT sex. I love how for some people it is just about sex...no big deal.
The lie *was* just about sex. The whole thing was a farce. He shouldn't have lied, no question, but seriously, its not like he lied to get the country into a war, or lied about tampering with elections... he lied about whether he'd had oral sex. He should never have been in a federal court being asked those questions in the first place.
Anyone else would have been buried in jail for contempt.
Most people actually don't go to jail for perjury. Fines are common.
he paid a fine ($10,000.00 US?)
90,000 US.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/29/clinton.contempt/
If I was issued a subpoena, then lied, I would either be charged with perjury and jailed or charged with contempt and jailed.
Perjury is often punished with a Fine. Look it up. And light sentences (not that 90k is that light) is common when the item lied about was not terribly significant, the level of harm done by it, etc...
I would have more respect for Bill Clinton if he had just said "Yeah I fucked her, what of it?"
Or maybe should have just said "I don't recall." Or maybe he should have invoked executive priviledge over national security? Those seem to work pretty well when you don't want to answer a federal court.
When you commit a crime, you are in debt to the community. The sentance is your repayment of that debbt.
That is part of the rationale behind punishment. But really, society is actively trying to discourage you from going into 'debt' in the first place. Passing a law and making you pay $35 for parking is primarily to dissuade you from parking by stop signs in the first place. It was not intended to be 'rich persons parking'.
When my freedoms are taken away.
But that happens in all the cases I cited.
We do, and you can do whatever you want with your stuff. If you were to put handcuffs on everyone just in case they might B&E, we have a problem.
Agreed. But at the same time, the moment I put a lock on my door I took away your freedom to open it. Some small measure of your freedom to 'break the law' and tresspass at will has been clearly taken away.
Now at the same time I agree you shouldn't be forced into wearing handcuffs 24x7 just in case, and I certainly don't advocate that we submit to being clockwork oranges. But at the same time...
How is an ISP that scans for viruses and spam any different than wearing handcuffs all the time? All your traffic flows fine until you try to move a virus or spam... then it clamps down and blocks it. Is that acceptable or not?
How is an ISP filtering childporn any different from that?
Is it ok for them to block viruses and spam but not childporn?
Besides you should only ever notice when you try to access child porn. Assuming you don't do this, it doesn't affect you. The moment you try, the filters block the attempt. The filters are there all the time, but they don't clamp down and restrict you until you try to do something illegal. Do you consider that being handcuffed 24x7? or just when they clamp down?
Its an interesting problem, and I mentioned clockwork orange because that is -exactly- the situation in A Clockwork Orange. The restraints on Alex clamped down the moment he tried to engage in rape or violence.
Filtering the internet is similar to handcuffing everyone.
Similiar maybe. But is it the same? Do you realy object to your ISP blocking spam or viruses?
I'm really not trying to comtinue a flame war, and really do appreciate your point of view. I'd add you to my friends list if I could figure it out. Basically i'm just sick and tired of the gov't telling me what I can and can't do. I'm sure that you can appreciate that. Good day to you good sir!
I didn't really see this as a flame war. And I appreciate your point of view. I wholeheartedly agree that becoming clockwork oranges where our ability to even choose to commit a crime has been effectively taken from us is a very bad thing. But at the same time, I can't find it in me to object to isps filtering spam and viruses.
And I'm having a hard time seeing how an ISP filtering child porn and an ISP filtering viruses are truly different.
And of course, it's actually just Intel-based Macs
What? are you serious?
Transgaming/Cedega is basically an enhancement/fork/product based on the WINE project that lets you run Windows apps on the *nix OSes. As I'm sure you know, WINE is one one of those recursive acronyms... Wine is not an emulator. Meaning that it lets you run Windows software by implementing the Windows API, and then running the code against.
Given that Wine is not an emulator, and the software running on it was compiled for x86 by its respective makers, why exactly would you expect it to run on a G5?
If I had an Intel Mac, I'd just put Windows on a partition.
The point of transgaming/cedega WINE is to run software -without- buying a copy of windows. It doesn't let you run windows software without x86 machines, it lets you run windows software without windows.
Kind of pointless, if you ask me.
If saving you having to buy and install windows to run a game on your Mac is pointless. Then yes, it is pointless. Most people however think there is a clear and obvious point.
Not every Mac user buys a new computer every time Apple comes out with a new product line.
If you wanted/expected to ever run Windows games on that computer, you would never have selected a G5 in the first place.
This can work. After all, most spammers comply with the rest of the act and are legitimate, honest and upright business owners, right?
Your being sarcastic, but you are more right than you think.
The CAN SPAM act isn't REALLY directed at the "Get V1-a--g-ri-alis". Those guys don't provide any sort of optout anyway. The CAN-SPAM act really just regulates legitimate newsletters and their behaviour, and this little tweak makes life a little easier for them.
The idea here if I read it right, seems to be that if I send out legitimate newsletter and company-X advertises in it, and then you opt out of my newsletter, under the old can-spam rules if company-X advertises in another newsletter that you receive, you could complain that you opted out, and charge them with spamming... which is really a bit absurd. Its like cancelling your subscription to forbes and then being offended the same ads for Lexus showed up in your subscription to Times!
As you observed the "real" spammers don't give a crap about CANSPAM. This doesn't affect them, because CANSPAM never really affected them. So opening this 'loophole' is primarily about making it easier for legitimate newsletters to operate.
Not legal, no,
To use your words "call it what you will". Its all the same, each action has a price. If you pay the price, you can do the action... park in a lot for $18, park by a stop sign for $35, park on top of a homeless man for some time in the can. No real difference between them except the price.
but my argument still holds. If I were to beat someone to death with a baseball bat, the penaly would no longer be $35, but 5-25 years in prison (depending on the charge). Depending on the person I am sh*t kicking, it may, or may not, be worth 5-25 years of ass pounding in jail.
So if you deem it worth the price, its ok to do it?
Also you are comparing civil actions, to criminal actions.
"Call it what you will."
Those labels are just needless distinctions. They are all just actions, each with a price, right?
The $35 dollar parking ticket is unlikely to come back and haunt me, while a murder charge carries significantly more baggage.
Part of the price.
I, personally think that it should be a human right to be allowed to break the law. After you break the law, you should be hunted down like a dog, and prosecuted (or for a parking ticket, pay the $$$).
So if sending a virus on purpose were against the law (and it is to my knowledge) if an ISP installs effective antivirus on their mail servers preventing you from being able to send their subscribers a virus, they would be violating your human right to break the law?
At what point does societies desire to protect itself from you breaking the law infringe on your right to "break the law". Because societies do all kinds of things to prevent people from breaking the law... we put locks on our doors to prevent invasion, tresspass, and theft. We have all manner of anti-counterfeiting technology in our currency. Stores tag merchandise to prevent shoplifting. The FDA audits labs to ensure hygenic conditions and proper quality process controls are in place... etc etc etc, all seemingly at odds with your human right to break the law.
Surely you don't really object to all that stuff?
Even if I have to make up the lost week in unpaid overtime? Good for my soul, maybe.
Rule #1. Don't work unpaid overtime.
Call it what you want, I can still park under a stop sign every day if i'm prepared to pay the $35 fee.
And you can bludgeon a man to death with a baseball bat too if your prepared to pay the price too. Does that make it somehow legal?
Mind you, this is less of a burden than...
than nothing.
I've been pulled over for 'driving suspiciously'. Apparently being downtown, late at night, and spending a few extra moments at a stop sign to swap CD's in the stereo is 'suspicious'...
A metric cup or an imperial cup?
I use a tea cup.
If an upgrade to a router caused Windows to enter a reboot cycle would we be blaming the router manufacturer or Microsoft?
Would anyone notice?
Kidding aside, my first thought was this is CLEARLY a router problem. Even if SP3 is completely defective and sending out complete garbage to the router, the router should cope better than going into a 'crash and reboot cycle'.
I have to wonder how effective he would be as president.
On the flipside, he could and probably would veto pretty much any needless expansion of government, funding bills, etc...
Total Stalemate.
On the plus side, in my experience a government that does nothing is doing better than usual.
Deep Zoom works by letting you meld several images in such a way as pretend its one image.
That's still very useful.
Basically, its a con job of transitioning several different images, where one is a re-photograph of sub portion of the original.
'con job' has needless connotations of an intent to deceive.
The implication of the article is that this is all one image containing a nearly infinite level of detail, which it most emphatically is NOT.
No. The implication of the article is that you can provide this as a user interface, which is very cool. Google Earth isn't interesting because its a 'con job' to let us think we can zoom in and out of a single monster image of the planet. Its interesting because its a natural and convenient UI to use.
And we don't have to download every single pixel of every single higher res image of a tree in Nigeria to have a closeup look at a parking lot in London. Detail is loaded on the fly, as needed, while the user gets a 'seamless' and comparatively low bandwidth experience.
Its not particularly new as an idea. Or even as an implementation. But maybe Microsoft's tools make setting it up substantially easier, and that alone would be a nice bit of progress.
The author is probably equally impressed by street corner magic tricks.
I am impressed by street corner magicians too. Not because I think they're magical, but because I am impressed at their showmanship, sleight of hand, dexterity, and general ability to appear magical.
Fighters now have "tanking" abilities that "force" the monster to attack them...What the hell is that about? Didn't everyone and their mother used to role play that? Instead of being a simple framework, D&D is more like a complete game.
Why should the monster do that? It should attack whoever it wants to attack. And the smarter it is the more intelligent its selection and tactics should be.
The whole MMO inspired 'all the monsters wail on the tank, while the rest of the group focuses on one target at a time and burns it down' is the most absurd thing going.