Well, there's no reason to get a GeForce 4 now unless you're a software developer or really need those extra 5 FPS in Quake3 (305 FPS instead of 300 FPS)
The words of a true non-gamer willing to expound their wisdom for all to see. I play the game Urban Terror (urbanterror.net), which is a Quake 3 mod, on a medium end system including a GeForce 3 Ti200 : I have to turn a significant number of features down to run smoothly at 1024x768 32-bit, and even still certain parts of certain maps slow to a relative crawl (crawl being 20fps or so : It feels sloggy and throws your timing off, not to mention that it ruins any immersion). Don't even get me started on AA, because in real applications (i.e. not a stock Quake 3 which virtually no one plays anymore) that is a frame rate super killer.
I'm not saying it to quite that degree, but I guess the problem is that during any sort of rush there's a herd mentality (the old geometric chart going to infinity thought process : If there's 500,000 tech jobs last year, 1,000,000 this year, then there'll be 2,000,000 next year!), and schools and institutes were busy pumping out unbelievable number of people for a rapidly changing field : People who want to get a 9-5 job and work away until retirement, entering a field where the foundations are changing under your feet every day. The reality is that the only survivors in the tech world are the VERY dedicated, and the VERY passionate, because otherwise it leaves you behind.
You know, you really hit the nail on the head there: The reality is that there isn't a surplus of software development talent, but rather there is a surplus of unqualified/untalented people jockeying for whatever jobs they are (slashdotting, if you will, recruiters who end up making the choice a random draw). There are so many people out there who claim themselves to be SEs/SSEs, yet they don't have the slightest clue (I've had "n-tier" arguments with these clowns : Usually they're from the school of VB, and they only can parrot they've read without actually analyzing and applying intelligently). Note that the clueless come in all types and sizes: From Masters of Computer Science, to Super-IT-Institute, to MCSE -> There is no particular educational path that separates the flow, though I suppose there is a higher correlation with those who signed up for the type of educational institutes that advertise on late night TV.
This points out that choosing the proper compression format is not common knowledge, and there are still loads of people who confuse one over the other.
JPEG is not better than GIF/PNG, but rather it's for a different purpose: As others have pointed out (hence I'm being redundant), JPEG is for photo-realistic images with lots of smooth gradiants and subtle tone changes. JPEG is lossy, meaning that if you did a perpetual cycle of compression/decompression you continually degrade the image. GIF/PNG is not lossy, and the decompressed image is exactly the same as the original (like LZWing the file), and it is useful where you want precise images (such as icons, banners, graphical text, etc.). GIF can actually compress comic type images to a much greater degree than JPEG can (and, because it's lossless, you don't get the artifacts of JPEGs).
Re:A couple reasons to choose 802.11a over 802.11g
on
802.11b at 22mbps
·
· Score: 1
As a sidenote, it should be noted that in many tests (most recently PC Magazines wireless shootout) have shown a very similar range between 802.11a & 802.11b : The longer range of 802.11b was mostly a hypothetical, but in real world situations they often find them comparable.
Just a point of interest for firms looking at 802.11b because of the hyped extra range.
Is there any reason to prefer it over the upcoming 54Mbps 2.4GHz stuff?
The fact that it's here today, and not "upcoming", perhaps? (Given that 802.11a is available right now, I think a much more reasonable question is "Is there any reason to prefer 802.11g over 802.11a?". To many, the answer is no. The backwards compatability of 802.11g is largely irrelevant because of the ultra-low market presence of 802.11b, hence 802.11a really is the first wireless technology many firms are implementing, so they have little concern if it's backwards compatible with an obsolete standard. On top of that the 2.4Ghz spectrum is rife with interference (cordless phones, bluetooth, etc.).
Your opinion is questionable, then, given the massive proliferation and heavy sales of 802.11a hardware in the industry (some companies putting 802.11a hardware in their entire line of laptops). 802.11g offers no real advantage over 802.11a, so given that it's hitting the market a year or so later, I'd say that it doesn't have much of a chance.
Yeah, though of course the dynamics of the game have increased dramatically : For instance I regularly play on a 16 player server in enormously complex environments with dynamic objects and 3D sound of all actions around you, versus the 2D+ Doom world against one other player (could you even jump in Doom? Could you crouch? You didn't even have to aim up and down but rather just had to point the right compass direction).
Your teacher knows more than many others then. Look at the section that contains the following text if you're in a rush:
Even today in discussions of gravity in USENET newsgroups on the Internet, the most frequently asked question and debated topic is "What is the speed of gravity?" It is only heard less often in the classroom because many teachers and most textbooks head off the question by hastily assuring students that gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light, leaving the firm impression, whether intended or not, that the question of gravity's propagation speed has already been answered.
If you really understand gravity, then you're probably the first (yeah, I'm sure some first year physics students can expound about gravity, incorrectly believing that they understand what gravity is and how it works, but the reality is that gravity is mostly an unknown with some guesstimates and postulations [what is the "Speed of Gravity"?] : An invisible, almost magical attraction between objects). As such, the idea that gravity is a wave or a force and therefore can be blocked, or shielded, isn't that absurd. I'm not a physics buff by any measure of the imagination, but it is one of those fascinating fields that can make one curious. IEEE's Spectrum magazine had a fascinating story about how little has actually been proven in the field of quantum mechanics, and it really is stunning.
If you don't understand the EULA of the software, don't install it. Who's forcing you to put this software on your computer?
Because extensive EULAs have become the norm, and even minimal freeware apps have 40 page licenses. If one local store started making you sign a EULA to shop there, I'd stop shopping there, but if they ALL started doing it then what choice do you have? It's at that point that legal protections are the balancing factor.
Besides, shouldn't some warning bell be going off in your head if the legalese in the EULA is overly obfuscated?
Ambiguity that is a fundamental aspect of language led to the creation of "legal-speak": A barely comprehensible, but understandable by lawyers, babbletalk that holds up in court, but has little meaning to the Average Joe that doesn't deal with it day in and day out. Obscurity is the norm in EULAs. The GPL states in 3000 words what I could easily reduce down to 3 sentences.
Most people don't care if their spare computer cycles are used by some company if, in return, they get a good piece of software.
Then how about distributing the software with "price: The Idle time of your PC"? Why are these "ways you pay for the software" always hidden away, usually installed silently in the background, and controlled via a checkbox that was careful placed outside of the visible range on one part of a 30 part install wizard? The reality is that most of this insidious software doesn't state its true intentions, because they know if they did many people would forgo using it, but instead they put "FREE!" all over the product.
There does not need to be LEGISLATION in this matter. There needs to be education. People should not just download and run software from untrusted sites. EVERYONE knows that. So in this case, I do not shed a tear.
Uh, we're talking about mainstream, very popular software : Not software from warez sites. So if Netscape 8.2 read your financial information and sent it on to banks, that's ay okay?
No pity for the majority.
And you work in computer configuration and repair? I feel pity for your customers. I'll guess that you're the type of guy that always has the raised eyebrow, exclaiming about how dumb the average Joe is, while at the same time wallowing in your own ignorance.
Of course, the whole point of the article (if you've read it, though I'll guess that you haven't) is that the complexity of most EULAs are absurdly difficult : The type of convoluted, circular, impossible to read verbage that virtually no one could read through and understand even if they were truly committed to reading the EULA for every single piece of software that they installed.
Personally, I think that there should be basic laws governing software just as there are in the rest of society (i.e. There is a 20 page EULA every time I go to a variety store and buy a can of coke, because there are certain expectations and societal and legal standards that govern the experience : i.e. Drinking a coke doesn't make them own my liver) : For instance, no software can communicate over the internet without explaining, in simple English (not intentionally vague legalize) why it is doing it, and who it's really benefitting.
Actually there is a.us TLD, but in the pre-international days, when the Internet truly was a US entity, the idea of country specific TLDs was unnecessary. However, the US hasn't "owned".com or any other TLD (other than I believe.mil,.gov and.edu) for some time : These are international entities, and having a domain as a.com doesn't put it under "US control". If such was the case, the international community, which vastly outnumbers US citizens surfing the web, would have long replaced the root servers (you do realize how unbelievably trivial, and easily replacable, that the root DNS system is, don't you?)
TLDs are an international matter nowadays, as it should be: If the US still controlled TLDs, then you can be damn sure that an internationally sanctioned root server system would have long replaced it. DNS is an absolutely trivial service, and any tolerance of.gov and.edu being US terrority is one of history, not of some sort of ownership.
They don't want to have to deal with keeping track of their usage so that they don't get an unexpected large bill. That's the main reason you don't see micropayment systems.
People always claim that people don't like "micropayment" systems, yet if you told people "We're getting rid of electric and water meters, and instead everyone will support the guy with the pot growing operation in his basement, and the lady who refills her pool every 3 days", how many people would agree? I LOVE that my electricity is metered, which means that I can follow basic conservation practices like turning off lights, and using flourescents.
There is no comparison whatsoever between cable TV and the internet: When I decide that I want to watch a Shakira video on perpetual repeat (I actually did this once by accident) I'm using a percentage of the pipes bandwidth (percentage depending upon the section of the request) : When you watch Greg the Bunny it doesn't make them have to upgrade the cable pipe. The "I don't want to keep track of my usage" argument doesn't make sense anyways: You ARE paying for it, but you're probably paying more because you're also supporting the "geeks" that have the warez server going 24/7.
It seems to be a bizarre notion on here that nature provided an infinite number of internet pipes, and evil ISPs are restricting us unfairly. Instead, small ISPs have to constantly debate whether to upgrade the T3 because a couple of DSL customers are hogging it 24/7. Of course that carries completely up the line.
Like if you started 8 air conditioners [in one house] in USCA you wouldn't make alot of friends. I wouldn't doubt there are laws concerning power usage [there are when there are water shortages].
The short term lack-of-power in California was a artificial shortage, and it was quickly filled in by the private sector. Scarcity increases value, which increases investment, and California is actually a case study of how bandwidth pricing would work.
The reality is that the bandwidth that exists is not some finite amount that cannot be increased, but directly correlates to the amount of money flowing in to finance it. If Jimmy did want to run a P2P server, and he's willing to accordingly support the infrastructure, then he'll be playing a part in lighting up some fiber. Instead we have this antiquated system where bandwidth is largely the same as it was several years ago, and many of the promised services (video teleconferencing) are only marginally possible? Why? These are great things, but the financial support has to be in place for it to work.
As many other people have stated, much more eloquently than I, it is absurd for them to limit usage based on what applications you're using (which is irrelevant to a bandwidth provider that simply shuttles IP packets around), rather than how much bandwidth you use (which IS relevant to someone who shuttles IP packets around).
Let me put it another way: Let's consider ISPs analagous to electric companies -> The electric co doesn't care if I'm running 50 fans, or if I'm cooking hot grits for Natalie Portman, but rather all they care about is that the little meter's gauge spins when I do, and at the end of the month they send me a bill based on it. It would be unacceptable if they started stating that they had a "TV watchers" electric supply, or a "Heavy Computer Users" plan -> They sell electricity, nothing more. All ISPs need to understand that they are no different than an electric co, and all they need to do is shuttle those IP packets around without concern of what they are, or what they're doing, and any premium pricing plan should be based on nothing more than bandwidth : Don't tell me I can't run a port 80 server, or that I can't have GRE VPN packets, just count the packets and their size, and bill me accordingly. Before everyone fears that this would lead to absurdly high prices, realize that competition would take effect under such an honest scheme (versus the current "try to fool you into thinking it's unlimited when really we want you never to use it" plan). Note that this goes both ways : Grandma who uses her cable modem once a month to check her email should be paying basically just for the hookup fee, administration fees, and the cost for a few packets, but Jimmy the P2P warez-d00dz should pay like crazy if he's hogging the line 24/7 all week long.
The only reason there hasn't been a "micropayment" system on connections has been technical, I would presume: Most ISPs just didn't have the infrastructure. However, the time has definitely come that it needs to be implemented.
Indeed, isn't it the default that Opera opens each new page in a separate window (rather than as an MDI)? i.e. the poster must have actually gone and changed it at some point.
Personally I LOVE the way Opera does that (or alternately using XP and task button combining) : Maybe I'm alone in this, but there was a certain weird tension stress I'd get when my taskbar was full of 40 different windows, yet I do often treat "browsing" as one task, so merging them together works remarkable for me.
I absolutely believe that id should reap rewards for making a great engine that is highly expandable! My only issue is that mod makers make nothing out of the deal, in general, because most people have a "well I already paid for the game" mentality.
I bought Quake 3 when it hit the shelves not because I thought it was good (indeed, as a game itself it is incredibly weak), but because I knew that Carmack and crew were bound to learn from the previous Quake experiences (Action Quake was one of the best games ever, but was a mod) and they'd make it versatile, and that they did. Now I'm a big fan of Urban Terror and it has made my Q3 purchase absolutely worthwhile.
The saddest thing though is that mod workers are usually compensated by accolades alone: Urban Terror, as an example, represents an unbelievable amount of work and talent, yet while id is pulling in $50 from every player, The Urban Terror crew is pulling in nothing.
Which cars would you consider a "tin can" nowadays? The reality is that safety has permeated all levels of cars, and even a Toyota Corolla has side airbags, anti-log brakes, side impact beams, and other structural enhancements that greatly improve your changes of living. Indeed, the reduced kinetic energy of a smaller car can save you, and the people in the other car.
The "bigger cars are safer" philosophy is the tragedy of the commons playing out on our highways, and it's sad. It's a "as long as it's the other guy that dies" philosophy that truly is disturbing.
Uh, no, my point is that well designed highways (again there are very few short onramps where I live) don't require you to merge in 20 feet, using far less fuel, and improving the life of the cars merging (they aren't being abused just to get up to speed in an insufficient period of time).
Your point is idiotic, anyways, given (exactly as I mentioned) that transport trucks DO use these highways, or are you proposing that all transports be equipped with triple V12s with triple superchargers so they can 0-60 in 6 seconds?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there's no reason to get a GeForce 4 now unless you're a software developer or really need those extra 5 FPS in Quake3 (305 FPS instead of 300 FPS)
The words of a true non-gamer willing to expound their wisdom for all to see. I play the game Urban Terror (urbanterror.net), which is a Quake 3 mod, on a medium end system including a GeForce 3 Ti200 : I have to turn a significant number of features down to run smoothly at 1024x768 32-bit, and even still certain parts of certain maps slow to a relative crawl (crawl being 20fps or so : It feels sloggy and throws your timing off, not to mention that it ruins any immersion). Don't even get me started on AA, because in real applications (i.e. not a stock Quake 3 which virtually no one plays anymore) that is a frame rate super killer.
I'm not saying it to quite that degree, but I guess the problem is that during any sort of rush there's a herd mentality (the old geometric chart going to infinity thought process : If there's 500,000 tech jobs last year, 1,000,000 this year, then there'll be 2,000,000 next year!), and schools and institutes were busy pumping out unbelievable number of people for a rapidly changing field : People who want to get a 9-5 job and work away until retirement, entering a field where the foundations are changing under your feet every day. The reality is that the only survivors in the tech world are the VERY dedicated, and the VERY passionate, because otherwise it leaves you behind.
You know, you really hit the nail on the head there: The reality is that there isn't a surplus of software development talent, but rather there is a surplus of unqualified/untalented people jockeying for whatever jobs they are (slashdotting, if you will, recruiters who end up making the choice a random draw). There are so many people out there who claim themselves to be SEs/SSEs, yet they don't have the slightest clue (I've had "n-tier" arguments with these clowns : Usually they're from the school of VB, and they only can parrot they've read without actually analyzing and applying intelligently). Note that the clueless come in all types and sizes: From Masters of Computer Science, to Super-IT-Institute, to MCSE -> There is no particular educational path that separates the flow, though I suppose there is a higher correlation with those who signed up for the type of educational institutes that advertise on late night TV.
Just meandering.
This points out that choosing the proper compression format is not common knowledge, and there are still loads of people who confuse one over the other.
JPEG is not better than GIF/PNG, but rather it's for a different purpose: As others have pointed out (hence I'm being redundant), JPEG is for photo-realistic images with lots of smooth gradiants and subtle tone changes. JPEG is lossy, meaning that if you did a perpetual cycle of compression/decompression you continually degrade the image. GIF/PNG is not lossy, and the decompressed image is exactly the same as the original (like LZWing the file), and it is useful where you want precise images (such as icons, banners, graphical text, etc.). GIF can actually compress comic type images to a much greater degree than JPEG can (and, because it's lossless, you don't get the artifacts of JPEGs).
As a sidenote, it should be noted that in many tests (most recently PC Magazines wireless shootout) have shown a very similar range between 802.11a & 802.11b : The longer range of 802.11b was mostly a hypothetical, but in real world situations they often find them comparable.
Just a point of interest for firms looking at 802.11b because of the hyped extra range.
Is there any reason to prefer it over the upcoming 54Mbps 2.4GHz stuff?
The fact that it's here today, and not "upcoming", perhaps? (Given that 802.11a is available right now, I think a much more reasonable question is "Is there any reason to prefer 802.11g over 802.11a?". To many, the answer is no. The backwards compatability of 802.11g is largely irrelevant because of the ultra-low market presence of 802.11b, hence 802.11a really is the first wireless technology many firms are implementing, so they have little concern if it's backwards compatible with an obsolete standard. On top of that the 2.4Ghz spectrum is rife with interference (cordless phones, bluetooth, etc.).
Your opinion is questionable, then, given the massive proliferation and heavy sales of 802.11a hardware in the industry (some companies putting 802.11a hardware in their entire line of laptops). 802.11g offers no real advantage over 802.11a, so given that it's hitting the market a year or so later, I'd say that it doesn't have much of a chance.
Doesn't Who's going to admit buying Intel these days? sort of conflict with A monopolist company?
In case you missed the humor, it's an ironic twist about the standard open source/free software spiel advocated by many frequenters of Slashdot.
Yeah, though of course the dynamics of the game have increased dramatically : For instance I regularly play on a 16 player server in enormously complex environments with dynamic objects and 3D sound of all actions around you, versus the 2D+ Doom world against one other player (could you even jump in Doom? Could you crouch? You didn't even have to aim up and down but rather just had to point the right compass direction).
Your teacher knows more than many others then. Look at the section that contains the following text if you're in a rush:
Even today in discussions of gravity in USENET newsgroups on the Internet, the most frequently asked question and debated topic is "What is the speed of gravity?" It is only heard less often in the classroom because many teachers and most textbooks head off the question by hastily assuring students that gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light, leaving the firm impression, whether intended or not, that the question of gravity's propagation speed has already been answered.
If you really understand gravity, then you're probably the first (yeah, I'm sure some first year physics students can expound about gravity, incorrectly believing that they understand what gravity is and how it works, but the reality is that gravity is mostly an unknown with some guesstimates and postulations [what is the "Speed of Gravity"?] : An invisible, almost magical attraction between objects). As such, the idea that gravity is a wave or a force and therefore can be blocked, or shielded, isn't that absurd. I'm not a physics buff by any measure of the imagination, but it is one of those fascinating fields that can make one curious. IEEE's Spectrum magazine had a fascinating story about how little has actually been proven in the field of quantum mechanics, and it really is stunning.
If you don't understand the EULA of the software, don't install it. Who's forcing you to put this software on your computer?
Because extensive EULAs have become the norm, and even minimal freeware apps have 40 page licenses. If one local store started making you sign a EULA to shop there, I'd stop shopping there, but if they ALL started doing it then what choice do you have? It's at that point that legal protections are the balancing factor.
Besides, shouldn't some warning bell be going off in your head if the legalese in the EULA is overly obfuscated?
Ambiguity that is a fundamental aspect of language led to the creation of "legal-speak": A barely comprehensible, but understandable by lawyers, babbletalk that holds up in court, but has little meaning to the Average Joe that doesn't deal with it day in and day out. Obscurity is the norm in EULAs. The GPL states in 3000 words what I could easily reduce down to 3 sentences.
Most people don't care if their spare computer cycles are used by some company if, in return, they get a good piece of software.
Then how about distributing the software with "price: The Idle time of your PC"? Why are these "ways you pay for the software" always hidden away, usually installed silently in the background, and controlled via a checkbox that was careful placed outside of the visible range on one part of a 30 part install wizard? The reality is that most of this insidious software doesn't state its true intentions, because they know if they did many people would forgo using it, but instead they put "FREE!" all over the product.
There does not need to be LEGISLATION in this matter. There needs to be education. People should not just download and run software from untrusted sites. EVERYONE knows that. So in this case, I do not shed a tear.
Uh, we're talking about mainstream, very popular software : Not software from warez sites. So if Netscape 8.2 read your financial information and sent it on to banks, that's ay okay?
No pity for the majority.
And you work in computer configuration and repair? I feel pity for your customers. I'll guess that you're the type of guy that always has the raised eyebrow, exclaiming about how dumb the average Joe is, while at the same time wallowing in your own ignorance.
Of course, the whole point of the article (if you've read it, though I'll guess that you haven't) is that the complexity of most EULAs are absurdly difficult : The type of convoluted, circular, impossible to read verbage that virtually no one could read through and understand even if they were truly committed to reading the EULA for every single piece of software that they installed.
Personally, I think that there should be basic laws governing software just as there are in the rest of society (i.e. There is a 20 page EULA every time I go to a variety store and buy a can of coke, because there are certain expectations and societal and legal standards that govern the experience : i.e. Drinking a coke doesn't make them own my liver) : For instance, no software can communicate over the internet without explaining, in simple English (not intentionally vague legalize) why it is doing it, and who it's really benefitting.
Actually there is a .us TLD, but in the pre-international days, when the Internet truly was a US entity, the idea of country specific TLDs was unnecessary. However, the US hasn't "owned" .com or any other TLD (other than I believe .mil, .gov and .edu) for some time : These are international entities, and having a domain as a .com doesn't put it under "US control". If such was the case, the international community, which vastly outnumbers US citizens surfing the web, would have long replaced the root servers (you do realize how unbelievably trivial, and easily replacable, that the root DNS system is, don't you?)
TLDs are an international matter nowadays, as it should be: If the US still controlled TLDs, then you can be damn sure that an internationally sanctioned root server system would have long replaced it. DNS is an absolutely trivial service, and any tolerance of .gov and .edu being US terrority is one of history, not of some sort of ownership.
They don't want to have to deal with keeping track of their usage so that they don't get an unexpected large bill. That's the main reason you don't see micropayment systems.
People always claim that people don't like "micropayment" systems, yet if you told people "We're getting rid of electric and water meters, and instead everyone will support the guy with the pot growing operation in his basement, and the lady who refills her pool every 3 days", how many people would agree? I LOVE that my electricity is metered, which means that I can follow basic conservation practices like turning off lights, and using flourescents.
There is no comparison whatsoever between cable TV and the internet: When I decide that I want to watch a Shakira video on perpetual repeat (I actually did this once by accident) I'm using a percentage of the pipes bandwidth (percentage depending upon the section of the request) : When you watch Greg the Bunny it doesn't make them have to upgrade the cable pipe. The "I don't want to keep track of my usage" argument doesn't make sense anyways: You ARE paying for it, but you're probably paying more because you're also supporting the "geeks" that have the warez server going 24/7.
It seems to be a bizarre notion on here that nature provided an infinite number of internet pipes, and evil ISPs are restricting us unfairly. Instead, small ISPs have to constantly debate whether to upgrade the T3 because a couple of DSL customers are hogging it 24/7. Of course that carries completely up the line.
Like if you started 8 air conditioners [in one house] in USCA you wouldn't make alot of friends. I wouldn't doubt there are laws concerning power usage [there are when there are water shortages].
The short term lack-of-power in California was a artificial shortage, and it was quickly filled in by the private sector. Scarcity increases value, which increases investment, and California is actually a case study of how bandwidth pricing would work.
The reality is that the bandwidth that exists is not some finite amount that cannot be increased, but directly correlates to the amount of money flowing in to finance it. If Jimmy did want to run a P2P server, and he's willing to accordingly support the infrastructure, then he'll be playing a part in lighting up some fiber. Instead we have this antiquated system where bandwidth is largely the same as it was several years ago, and many of the promised services (video teleconferencing) are only marginally possible? Why? These are great things, but the financial support has to be in place for it to work.
As many other people have stated, much more eloquently than I, it is absurd for them to limit usage based on what applications you're using (which is irrelevant to a bandwidth provider that simply shuttles IP packets around), rather than how much bandwidth you use (which IS relevant to someone who shuttles IP packets around).
Let me put it another way: Let's consider ISPs analagous to electric companies -> The electric co doesn't care if I'm running 50 fans, or if I'm cooking hot grits for Natalie Portman, but rather all they care about is that the little meter's gauge spins when I do, and at the end of the month they send me a bill based on it. It would be unacceptable if they started stating that they had a "TV watchers" electric supply, or a "Heavy Computer Users" plan -> They sell electricity, nothing more. All ISPs need to understand that they are no different than an electric co, and all they need to do is shuttle those IP packets around without concern of what they are, or what they're doing, and any premium pricing plan should be based on nothing more than bandwidth : Don't tell me I can't run a port 80 server, or that I can't have GRE VPN packets, just count the packets and their size, and bill me accordingly. Before everyone fears that this would lead to absurdly high prices, realize that competition would take effect under such an honest scheme (versus the current "try to fool you into thinking it's unlimited when really we want you never to use it" plan). Note that this goes both ways : Grandma who uses her cable modem once a month to check her email should be paying basically just for the hookup fee, administration fees, and the cost for a few packets, but Jimmy the P2P warez-d00dz should pay like crazy if he's hogging the line 24/7 all week long.
The only reason there hasn't been a "micropayment" system on connections has been technical, I would presume: Most ISPs just didn't have the infrastructure. However, the time has definitely come that it needs to be implemented.
Indeed, isn't it the default that Opera opens each new page in a separate window (rather than as an MDI)? i.e. the poster must have actually gone and changed it at some point.
Personally I LOVE the way Opera does that (or alternately using XP and task button combining) : Maybe I'm alone in this, but there was a certain weird tension stress I'd get when my taskbar was full of 40 different windows, yet I do often treat "browsing" as one task, so merging them together works remarkable for me.
I absolutely believe that id should reap rewards for making a great engine that is highly expandable! My only issue is that mod makers make nothing out of the deal, in general, because most people have a "well I already paid for the game" mentality.
I bought Quake 3 when it hit the shelves not because I thought it was good (indeed, as a game itself it is incredibly weak), but because I knew that Carmack and crew were bound to learn from the previous Quake experiences (Action Quake was one of the best games ever, but was a mod) and they'd make it versatile, and that they did. Now I'm a big fan of Urban Terror and it has made my Q3 purchase absolutely worthwhile.
The saddest thing though is that mod workers are usually compensated by accolades alone: Urban Terror, as an example, represents an unbelievable amount of work and talent, yet while id is pulling in $50 from every player, The Urban Terror crew is pulling in nothing.
Which cars would you consider a "tin can" nowadays? The reality is that safety has permeated all levels of cars, and even a Toyota Corolla has side airbags, anti-log brakes, side impact beams, and other structural enhancements that greatly improve your changes of living. Indeed, the reduced kinetic energy of a smaller car can save you, and the people in the other car.
The "bigger cars are safer" philosophy is the tragedy of the commons playing out on our highways, and it's sad. It's a "as long as it's the other guy that dies" philosophy that truly is disturbing.
Uh, no, my point is that well designed highways (again there are very few short onramps where I live) don't require you to merge in 20 feet, using far less fuel, and improving the life of the cars merging (they aren't being abused just to get up to speed in an insufficient period of time).
Your point is idiotic, anyways, given (exactly as I mentioned) that transport trucks DO use these highways, or are you proposing that all transports be equipped with triple V12s with triple superchargers so they can 0-60 in 6 seconds?