As excited as I am for the new film (And this is from someone who was never a fan of TOS), I'm not sure continuing on the reboot with a new series is such a good idea. I don't feel the Star Trek universe is in any way "finished", 2 of it's most successful incarnations had nothing to do with the Enterprise, while one of them that did was a near-failure on nearly all fronts. There's a lot of scope left there that could easily be looked into.
My issue with the reboot is that it's set to create two completely different star trek universes, which I feel will do more harm than good. It'd be like George Lucas recreating Star Wars, with all the same characters, except in an alternate universe. Sure, it might be a bit cool as a one-off, ala Superman growing up in the USSR, but if you run with it, you end up dividing the fanbase.
You can't install anything but the "official" PS3 Linux.
Well that's wrong right there. I installed Fedora on my PS3 and my PS3 has never had YDL on it.
Maybe you can't install anything but the official PS3 Linux (Why didn't you call it YDL? Did you even know that was it's name?), but I, someone who has quite literally never used Linux for more than 5mins at a time, managed to install Fedora 9, accidentally corrupt the bootloader trying to increase my default screen resolution, fix it through vi (now I see what all the fuss is about) and, finally, rebuild the kernel so it was a little bit faster.
More often than not, you get good video with rubbish audio and rubbish video with good audio, so occasionally some people mix and match them for the best effect while waiting for a screener or whatever. Some people will even use multiple sources of both to get the best experience, particularly on major releases. I remember getting a fairly good copy of Transformers with "decent" video, yet excellent sound. However, for about 5 seconds in the middle of the film, the sound dropped to a clearly substandard cam recording. Most likely, the excellent audio came from a source that missed this one part of the film (Changing tapes in the recorder, perhaps?).
Yes, I admit to pirating films, but you'll be pleased to know that I bought Transformers on Blu-ray.
Just because something is controversial doesn't mean it's useless. I think you'll find that Science in general has a habit of being controversial (e.g. "Big Bang vs. God"), but that doesn't make the findings any less valuable or useful. Who knows what this research might lead into, it might be something really cool, it might be nothing, but there's a good chance that in future, OTHER research will be based upon it.
Not ONCE in the actual article does it claim any of these to be "new features", merely changes since build 7000 (aka "the beta"). Blame/.'s stupid editors for claiming they're 38 new features.
Surely any content I create with an application belongs to me, so what about all those programs and websites that claim it belongs to them in their own EULAs?
Indeed, I myself find it rather strange that they aren't allowing people to revert back to the good old Classic theme, however I believe this is because of the guy in charge. I forget his name, but he's the same person that brought us the Office Ribbon - and the same person who decided upon making it mandatory. I believe his reasoning is something along the lines of "it IS better, people just need to suck it up and get used to it". So at least you know it's not because you aren't being heard, it's more because you're being completely ignored. Father knows best.
I would absolutely love to see a good, solid comparison of the number of devices each of the Major OSs out there purported to supporting both out of the box and after an automatic system update.
I'm sure Windows 7 would be near the top of the list, but I'd be very interested in knowing just how much hardware something like Ubuntu supports. Linux, by it's very nature, runs on almost anything - but does almost anything run on Linux?
And, of course, I'd expect MacOSX to be somewhere near the bottom, but still nicely ahead of *BSD and co.
That's funny, I read this blog post from Microsoft today that detailed some of the changes made since the beta, all thanks to feedback from said beta.
It's quite a sizeable list and apparently only a small amount of the changes made so far. Considering nobody outside of Redmond (With the exception of a few select partners) is supposed to have access to anything other the beta, who's actually making the claim that the feedback is falling on deaf ears? Sounds to me like Microsoft IS actually listening for once.
Wow! You posted a link without even reading it! Well done!
Let me quote something from the very link you posted:
But this being Redmond there is a caveat: XP customers have to perform a clean install of Windows 7. This means wiping their computer hard driveâ(TM)s data first, which doesnâ(TM)t sound much like an upgrade to us.
It's going to be a very obscure, niche problem. Not many companies ever decided to "upgrade" to Vista, most of them stuck with XP and only used Vista on new machines. There's almost no reason, business-wise, to upgrade to Windows 7 from XP or Vista, especially as it's compatibility is very similar to Vistas. It may be a bit faster in some places and the new taskbar MIGHT be a little more productive, but I doubt many businesses are going to justify the upgrade cost.
This is true, actually. I believe the first two guitar hero games came with bonus tracks from some of the developers themselves (I couldn't reliably name names, but I think "Freezepop" was one of them) and they were just as fun to play (if not more) as the rest of the songs on the game.
Games like Rock Band and Guitar hero are now incredibly popular, so the music industry wants to cash in on it and fleece everyone for every single penny they can.
Indeed, however my point was that the main article we're all commenting on was a little misleading and DID NOT do what Microsoft recommended. I know we all like to scoff at software recommendations, but it's possible Microsoft made said recommendation with a good reason - half the time, anything else just doesn't work.
âoeI can confirm that customers will be able to purchase upgrade media and an upgrade license to move from Windows XP to Windows 7 - however, they will need to do a clean installation of Windows 7,â a Microsoft spokesperson confirmed
I get the feeling this article was deliberately misleading on several fronts. Here's an example:
Yes, this is an older, though not ancient, system we were trying to upgrade. Yet, it boggles the mind that the laptop upgraded fairly easy to Vista Service Pack 1 and then flat-lined with Windows 7. So much for the Microsoft mantra "If it works in Vista, it will work in Windows 7."
They claim that the machine they're running this test on did not boot windows 7 correctly, but did boot Vista correctly. This is only half the truth. They first installed XP, then upgraded to Vista, then Upgraded to 7 - something Microsoft themselves does not recommend. Then, when it all doesn't work, they blame Windows 7. They do NOT test if a clean install of Windows 7 worked without issues and I strongly suspect that it would.
No sysadmin in their right mind would ever perform a task like this, it's far too time consuming and ultimately pointless - why install an XP system, install all the software you need, then two two major OS upgrades just to create an image you can format other machines with? Why not just install a fresh copy of 7, then the appropriate software and image that?
Indeed, however the parent to my comment seems to be suggesting that multiple (smaller) textures are used to increase performance rather than visual appeal. I may be wrong, but I believe they are referring to mipmapping and as far as I'm aware, they actually suffer a performance disadvantage as changing textures is quite costly. However, if I am mistaken about this, by all means feel free to correct me.
I believe this was a side effect from the PS2 port. If I'm not mistaken, the Gamecube's cut scenes used higher resolution models for the characters than the main game, however the PS2 couldn't handle this so they pre-rendered them instead. They then made a few engine/game tweaks and improvements and all subsequent ports (PC and Wii) were then based off of this code.
Slashdot Mirror
As excited as I am for the new film (And this is from someone who was never a fan of TOS), I'm not sure continuing on the reboot with a new series is such a good idea.
I don't feel the Star Trek universe is in any way "finished", 2 of it's most successful incarnations had nothing to do with the Enterprise, while one of them that did was a near-failure on nearly all fronts. There's a lot of scope left there that could easily be looked into.
My issue with the reboot is that it's set to create two completely different star trek universes, which I feel will do more harm than good. It'd be like George Lucas recreating Star Wars, with all the same characters, except in an alternate universe. Sure, it might be a bit cool as a one-off, ala Superman growing up in the USSR, but if you run with it, you end up dividing the fanbase.
Where do you think baby coat hangers come from?
Well that's wrong right there. I installed Fedora on my PS3 and my PS3 has never had YDL on it.
Maybe you can't install anything but the official PS3 Linux (Why didn't you call it YDL? Did you even know that was it's name?), but I, someone who has quite literally never used Linux for more than 5mins at a time, managed to install Fedora 9, accidentally corrupt the bootloader trying to increase my default screen resolution, fix it through vi (now I see what all the fuss is about) and, finally, rebuild the kernel so it was a little bit faster.
More often than not, you get good video with rubbish audio and rubbish video with good audio, so occasionally some people mix and match them for the best effect while waiting for a screener or whatever.
Some people will even use multiple sources of both to get the best experience, particularly on major releases. I remember getting a fairly good copy of Transformers with "decent" video, yet excellent sound. However, for about 5 seconds in the middle of the film, the sound dropped to a clearly substandard cam recording. Most likely, the excellent audio came from a source that missed this one part of the film (Changing tapes in the recorder, perhaps?).
Yes, I admit to pirating films, but you'll be pleased to know that I bought Transformers on Blu-ray.
Controversy is still controversy.
Just because something is controversial doesn't mean it's useless. I think you'll find that Science in general has a habit of being controversial (e.g. "Big Bang vs. God"), but that doesn't make the findings any less valuable or useful. Who knows what this research might lead into, it might be something really cool, it might be nothing, but there's a good chance that in future, OTHER research will be based upon it.
Not ONCE in the actual article does it claim any of these to be "new features", merely changes since build 7000 (aka "the beta"). Blame /.'s stupid editors for claiming they're 38 new features.
And when I use Photoshop to create art or upload my collection of family pictures to Facebook, who decides what happens to that content?
Surely any content I create with an application belongs to me, so what about all those programs and websites that claim it belongs to them in their own EULAs?
"Don't break Copyright Law. That's our job"?
Indeed, I myself find it rather strange that they aren't allowing people to revert back to the good old Classic theme, however I believe this is because of the guy in charge. I forget his name, but he's the same person that brought us the Office Ribbon - and the same person who decided upon making it mandatory.
I believe his reasoning is something along the lines of "it IS better, people just need to suck it up and get used to it". So at least you know it's not because you aren't being heard, it's more because you're being completely ignored. Father knows best.
I would absolutely love to see a good, solid comparison of the number of devices each of the Major OSs out there purported to supporting both out of the box and after an automatic system update.
I'm sure Windows 7 would be near the top of the list, but I'd be very interested in knowing just how much hardware something like Ubuntu supports. Linux, by it's very nature, runs on almost anything - but does almost anything run on Linux?
And, of course, I'd expect MacOSX to be somewhere near the bottom, but still nicely ahead of *BSD and co.
That's funny, I read this blog post from Microsoft today that detailed some of the changes made since the beta, all thanks to feedback from said beta.
It's quite a sizeable list and apparently only a small amount of the changes made so far. Considering nobody outside of Redmond (With the exception of a few select partners) is supposed to have access to anything other the beta, who's actually making the claim that the feedback is falling on deaf ears? Sounds to me like Microsoft IS actually listening for once.
With a game like Rock Band, you're never going to like all the tracks, are you?
Wow! You posted a link without even reading it! Well done!
Let me quote something from the very link you posted:
Maybe you should have done your research!
Dumbass!
Indeed they are and one of it's members is a producer for Harmonix.
It's going to be a very obscure, niche problem. Not many companies ever decided to "upgrade" to Vista, most of them stuck with XP and only used Vista on new machines.
There's almost no reason, business-wise, to upgrade to Windows 7 from XP or Vista, especially as it's compatibility is very similar to Vistas. It may be a bit faster in some places and the new taskbar MIGHT be a little more productive, but I doubt many businesses are going to justify the upgrade cost.
This is true, actually. I believe the first two guitar hero games came with bonus tracks from some of the developers themselves (I couldn't reliably name names, but I think "Freezepop" was one of them) and they were just as fun to play (if not more) as the rest of the songs on the game.
Oh and I forgot to add: They're all greedy, money-grabbing bastards.
Let me rephrase and re-summarise the article:
Games like Rock Band and Guitar hero are now incredibly popular, so the music industry wants to cash in on it and fleece everyone for every single penny they can.
Ummm...they're ZOMBIES, they're not supposed to have skills or brains (Well, unless they're someone else's)...
Indeed, however my point was that the main article we're all commenting on was a little misleading and DID NOT do what Microsoft recommended. I know we all like to scoff at software recommendations, but it's possible Microsoft made said recommendation with a good reason - half the time, anything else just doesn't work.
WRONG...
The *MICROSOFT RECOMMENDED* Upgrade path from XP to Win 7 is to do a COMPLETELY FRESH INSTALL[1]
[1] http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-xp-7-upgrade-vista,6965.html
I get the feeling this article was deliberately misleading on several fronts. Here's an example:
They claim that the machine they're running this test on did not boot windows 7 correctly, but did boot Vista correctly. This is only half the truth. They first installed XP, then upgraded to Vista, then Upgraded to 7 - something Microsoft themselves does not recommend. Then, when it all doesn't work, they blame Windows 7. They do NOT test if a clean install of Windows 7 worked without issues and I strongly suspect that it would.
No sysadmin in their right mind would ever perform a task like this, it's far too time consuming and ultimately pointless - why install an XP system, install all the software you need, then two two major OS upgrades just to create an image you can format other machines with? Why not just install a fresh copy of 7, then the appropriate software and image that?
Indeed, however the parent to my comment seems to be suggesting that multiple (smaller) textures are used to increase performance rather than visual appeal. I may be wrong, but I believe they are referring to mipmapping and as far as I'm aware, they actually suffer a performance disadvantage as changing textures is quite costly. However, if I am mistaken about this, by all means feel free to correct me.
I believe this was a side effect from the PS2 port. If I'm not mistaken, the Gamecube's cut scenes used higher resolution models for the characters than the main game, however the PS2 couldn't handle this so they pre-rendered them instead. They then made a few engine/game tweaks and improvements and all subsequent ports (PC and Wii) were then based off of this code.