most open source zealots are damn good coders, and yes, many of them even have jobs and a house/apartment!
Everything was great until I came across this: Most open source zealots haven't written a line of code in their life. Most open source authors are pragmatic and appreciate the benefits in particular areas, and their approach is anything but zealotry. There is a vast chasm of difference between the attitudes of a Slashdot Warrior advocating the true way of enlightenment, and the people who are behind the usable open source.
Do you really lose mod points given if the person then posts? I thought the rule was simply that the person can't mod in a thread that they've already posted into, but it doesn't hurt them retroactively.
Anyways, doesn't meta-moderation cancel out moderation points?
If I interpret correctly, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with speculating on domain names: If I think motorizedmonkeys will be a big thing and acquire the domain, then tough cookies for MondoCorp when they want to sell motorizedmonkeys (and I have no duty to do anything with the domain: I don't have to prove I'm using it). The problem is if people sit on the trademarks or trade names of established companies with the sole purpose of being bought out by said company (i.e. the first proof of this is when someone sends an email to said big company saying "Hi, I own www.yourproduct.com, and will sell it to you for $500000").
It's a Buddhist philosophy that need breeds suffering (because it's circular and can never be satiated) : A poor person is unhappy because they aren't middle class, and a middle class person is unhappy because aren't "upper class", etc.
Having said that I laugh whenever I hear studies about wealthy people being unhappier than middle class/poor people, or about wealthy people claiming that it's such a burden, etc: While I don't think wealth buys happiness, I do think that wealth buys the ability to pursue happiness. When you can travel the world, or go on that 6 month hiking expedition, or donate to charitable causes making a difference, you have a bit more leeway than John the auto assembler who is barely eaking by a living for his family and is praying that his employer doesn't temporarily boost the stock price to allow the CEO and friends to cash out with a multi-million dollar yearly incoming by shutting down some plants.
Just tried out this mod for Q3A, and in the urban settings they've taken ads that you see in real life and slightly changed them: Coca Pola, 8dfx video cards, etc. Personally I'd prefer that they used the real thing for a greater sense of reality, but perhaps they feared legal repercussions.
Different "editors" respond to stories very differently. On top of that often an accepted submission sits on the queue for up to a couple of weeks, so nothing says that this story wasn't submitted a week ago.
BTW: Mentioning that you'll get modded down doesn't act as some sort of negative karma force field (though it works in inverse: Claim that you'll be modded down can get you karma points if you're making an "alternative" statement, at least as far as Slashdot is concerned). There should be a -1 : Mentioned getting modded down mod category.
There's actually something to that: Several studies have shown that several brief sleeps throughout the day are more effective that one long slumber. Of course this doesn't work that well in the workplace: "Hey Mary do you mind if I hop in there with you?"
You post currently has a score of 2, but there's a single mod on it of -1 Troll : Is it a discontinuity thing with Slash? Just seems weird, unless you can post starting at 3 somehow.
Sorry if I implied the wrong thing, however you are replying to a story about people who are using a shareware product past the evaluation period without paying for it: These people can make no claims about the software being a commodity or being lesser than freeware stuff because obviously they continue to use it. If those BBS Doors were so incredibly easy to spit off, then why were they relied upon? The reality is that is seldom as easy as people like to imagine, and throwing together a quick and dirty utility for yourself is WORLD'S away from the work people have to do often to make a consumer friendly product: I might be able to download freeware zip backend libraries, but that doesn't mean that I can emulate Winzip without an incredible amount of work.
You, sir, just dictated the thieves creed, and it's the justification that bands of criminals have used throughout time to justify their ways. Do you rob banks because the teller is a bitch anyways? Do you dine and dash because there's always some reason that the dinner wasn't worthwhile?
You have ABSOLUTELY no right to set the price on other people's software ventures: If you don't like it, DON'T USE IT. If those utils and BBS doors are so common, then why the hell don't you use a free one or write one yourself? Oh, right, because you couldn't do what they did (that's "so easy") if you tried your hardest.
Well I think you might want to give a call to just about every regional "hydro" company in Ontario, because just about all of them (I couldn't find a single example that doesn't) are responsible for both water and electricity. The entymology of the word "hydro" and misuse of it is one for debate, however I was specifically talking about the regional companies that are putting down fiber, and in all cases they are exactly what I stated, which is combo electricity/water.
If you were able to file that patent, you probably wouldn't have to worry about money again.
While I think many software patents are absurd (people basically taking existing processes and obscuring it in "mumble-jumble" and getting a patent), the reality is that sneaking a patent in gets you next to nothing and is mostly a waste for the submitter (and I'd say about 95% of the software patents are just such a beast): Prior art and obviousness to people in the industry would quash it the second you tried to enforce it.
And you think a city run fiber link that appears to be free will bend over backwards to get you up and running? Double bwahahahahaha. Yeah reliability and service levels almost always directly correspond to what you pay (and the old addage comes so true), so at $40 CDN a month I'm not going to cry if I don't get the same service as someone paying $1500 a month. However, my point was merely that it's goofy to disparage North America as being a backwaters, and the point about home users was specifically just an interesting point (Though I did overstate the numbers by saying "most". In Canada broadband is in `just' 20% of homes now).
Telco grade? So when I've downloaded 4GB (as I recently had to with the.NET release) my bits are lesser quality? Somehow the fact that I grabbed it at 200KB/second is not indicative of the real quality? Is there some sort of non-"telco grade" bit rot going on?
Isn't the term for the type of network they're creating a "MAN", or Metropolitan Area Network? There was a big push for these several years ago. Indeed, and I'm not diminishing the accomplishment involved in getting this done in NZ, I know of several towns in Southern Ontario that outfitted their entire town with fiber optics for control systems (because of attenuation problems/distance they couldn't use copper), and they offered businesses internet access at least 3 years ago: I think this is a pretty common thing for `hydro' (which is what we call combo electricity/water companies here) to do. Now they don't sign everyone up for free, nor do I think they should: Why should the city foot a giant bill because a guy is hosting a mega porn server when the next business is using it to check hotmail once a day?
Yeah but the point is that many US organizations can afford, and do afford, a lot more than a T1. Wiring a city solves the last mile problem, but 9 times out of ten the organizations that a company wants to video or audio teleconference isn't conveniently in the same town.
The article seems to be full of errors. Firstly they say that it's 1,000 Mbps, but then call it Fast Ethernet (which is 100Mbps), and then state that it's 67x faster than a T1 (which would imply 100Mbps). Later in the article they say "With 100 Mbps of capacity, businesses can easily implement video conferencing and voice over IP (VoIP)." 1000, 100, Fast Ethernet, 67x T1...blah.
Citylink runs at Fast Ethernet speeds of up to 1,000Mbps, about 65 times faster than a T1 line.
Isn't a T1 1.544Mbps? If so then 1Gbps is 647x faster. However the following sentence is a bit silly:
Considering that many U.S. organizations use T1 lines to connect to faster Internet backbone providers, Citylink is offering speeds generally unmatched here.
The Gbps is extremely nice, but it's silly to presume that everyone in North America is using a T1 : Hell most home users are using cable high speed running at 2Mbps downstream.
That's a common fallacy that is grossly and completely wrong, and it's most disturbing because it's so readily apparent it's wrong.
Do you run your computer monitor at 30 Hz? Do you even run it at 60 Hz? How about 75Hz? For most of us it isn't even acceptable until it his 85Hz. To put that more into perspective though (for those who think "Well then the eye can see 85fps"), the reason monitors start to look better at higher frequenecies is not because of limits in the eye, but rather because of shortmedium persistence phosphor on the inside of the tube which acts as a light capacitor of sorts: It glows just long enough for the next refresh to come around. If it wasn't for the phosphor the monitor would send you into mental fits.
Of course people will always bring up motion pictures, which are I believe filmed at 24 fps. Now barring the fact that it's pretty hard to confuse a film as "reality" (it's a proximity thereof), it is acceptable as an emulation of reality because each frame is pretty much the entire content of what happened during that 1/24 period : If you look at single frames and someone was moving you'll see motion blurs around them appropriately. This is very similar to how the eye works, so they complement each other and the trick works. Computer video cards don't do this though, and instead are presenting a slideshow of distinctly different imagines, so to achieve a sense of motion a much higher update rate is required.
Translation: I have a Virge 3D and to justify owning it will mock those who seek something better every chance I get. I don't care for it, therefore no one should care for it.
115 fps in Q3 is firstly an average (meaning there are times where it is much less), and secondly is on a game that is very dated: I'm sure modern systems can get about 500 fps on Duke Nukem 3D (despite it not being 3D accelerated), so does that mean that we've passed the point of never needing more? Ridiculous. The next Unreal and Doom engines will seriously tax the best of today's hardware. Operation Flashpoint, as I already mentioned, is barely even as complex as it could be, yet it sends a GeForce Ti500 begging for mommy.
People who yap about video cards being more than anyone needs don't have a clue and needn't offer up their opinion. It's like Grandma going down to the car dealer and complaining that Jimmy wants the 255HP Maxima, because "Who ever goes over 30 anyways!".
Yeah but unfortunately the options on this new, super high end PowerMac are the Radeon 7500, or the Geforce 4 MX. Being a GF4 I think a lot of people were expecting it to really kick ass (regardless of being an MX), with the full version to kick even more ass.
Granted, they have reached the point where they're "damn fast", however the desire for higher frame rates isn't to brag about it, but rather:
-To not have noticable slow-downs whenever there are lots of overdraw situations. In Q3 with a GF2MX you'll see major slowdowns in intense battle. Just because the average was 110 doesn't mean that for 1/4 of second intervals it doesn't drop to 15.
-To be able to support the next generation of games (or even THIS generation of games). Q3 is a very old game, really, and the design of it was largely driven by limits of technology (hell the genre is still following the Descent "in a tunnel" type of design). Operation Flashpoint, on the other hand, has hilled, heavily forested areas that bring the best of the best video cards crying for mercy, and it's only starting to touch what could be: There are tonnes of limitations in the level designs because the hardware just can't keep up.
-Anti-aliasing. This is an awesome technology that makes a GF3Ti500 unusable at higher resolution. If a card can do 200FPS at 1024x768, then it might be able to do half decent FPS with AA on.
The clock speed is normally less than its brothers in the same product line, but more importantly they cripple it by chopping the memory pipeline in half, effectively limiting the card to lower resolutions and limiting its usefulness in memory intensive things like anti-aliasing.
In a case where the end FPS result doesn't always tell the whole story, I've found that my GF2MX equipped machine, while getting better end FPS numbers on average, exhibits far more noticable and irritating slowdowns in high overdraw situations (in Q3 that's when there is smoke, lots of explosions, etc.) compared to my GF(1)256 DDR.
While I despise their drivers and software development arm, I would have thought the Radeon 8500 would have been the best choice for the higher end machine: Not only would it smoke the GF4MX (presumably), but it's a huge bargain compared to the Ti500 that it also beats. Can you use the 8500 in the PowerMacs?
It is fantastic seeing ATI so competitive. Against my better judgement I'm on the verge of getting myself a 8500 OEM.
Slashdot Mirror
most open source zealots are damn good coders, and yes, many of them even have jobs and a house/apartment!
Everything was great until I came across this: Most open source zealots haven't written a line of code in their life. Most open source authors are pragmatic and appreciate the benefits in particular areas, and their approach is anything but zealotry. There is a vast chasm of difference between the attitudes of a Slashdot Warrior advocating the true way of enlightenment, and the people who are behind the usable open source.
Do you really lose mod points given if the person then posts? I thought the rule was simply that the person can't mod in a thread that they've already posted into, but it doesn't hurt them retroactively.
Anyways, doesn't meta-moderation cancel out moderation points?
If I interpret correctly, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with speculating on domain names: If I think motorizedmonkeys will be a big thing and acquire the domain, then tough cookies for MondoCorp when they want to sell motorizedmonkeys (and I have no duty to do anything with the domain: I don't have to prove I'm using it). The problem is if people sit on the trademarks or trade names of established companies with the sole purpose of being bought out by said company (i.e. the first proof of this is when someone sends an email to said big company saying "Hi, I own www.yourproduct.com, and will sell it to you for $500000").
It's a Buddhist philosophy that need breeds suffering (because it's circular and can never be satiated) : A poor person is unhappy because they aren't middle class, and a middle class person is unhappy because aren't "upper class", etc.
Having said that I laugh whenever I hear studies about wealthy people being unhappier than middle class/poor people, or about wealthy people claiming that it's such a burden, etc: While I don't think wealth buys happiness, I do think that wealth buys the ability to pursue happiness. When you can travel the world, or go on that 6 month hiking expedition, or donate to charitable causes making a difference, you have a bit more leeway than John the auto assembler who is barely eaking by a living for his family and is praying that his employer doesn't temporarily boost the stock price to allow the CEO and friends to cash out with a multi-million dollar yearly incoming by shutting down some plants.
Just tried out this mod for Q3A, and in the urban settings they've taken ads that you see in real life and slightly changed them: Coca Pola, 8dfx video cards, etc. Personally I'd prefer that they used the real thing for a greater sense of reality, but perhaps they feared legal repercussions.
Different "editors" respond to stories very differently. On top of that often an accepted submission sits on the queue for up to a couple of weeks, so nothing says that this story wasn't submitted a week ago.
BTW: Mentioning that you'll get modded down doesn't act as some sort of negative karma force field (though it works in inverse: Claim that you'll be modded down can get you karma points if you're making an "alternative" statement, at least as far as Slashdot is concerned). There should be a -1 : Mentioned getting modded down mod category.
There's actually something to that: Several studies have shown that several brief sleeps throughout the day are more effective that one long slumber. Of course this doesn't work that well in the workplace: "Hey Mary do you mind if I hop in there with you?"
I think you have your oceans screwed up. The Pacific is a bitch to cross, but the Atlantic isn't that bad really.
You post currently has a score of 2, but there's a single mod on it of -1 Troll : Is it a discontinuity thing with Slash? Just seems weird, unless you can post starting at 3 somehow.
Sorry if I implied the wrong thing, however you are replying to a story about people who are using a shareware product past the evaluation period without paying for it: These people can make no claims about the software being a commodity or being lesser than freeware stuff because obviously they continue to use it. If those BBS Doors were so incredibly easy to spit off, then why were they relied upon? The reality is that is seldom as easy as people like to imagine, and throwing together a quick and dirty utility for yourself is WORLD'S away from the work people have to do often to make a consumer friendly product: I might be able to download freeware zip backend libraries, but that doesn't mean that I can emulate Winzip without an incredible amount of work.
You, sir, just dictated the thieves creed, and it's the justification that bands of criminals have used throughout time to justify their ways. Do you rob banks because the teller is a bitch anyways? Do you dine and dash because there's always some reason that the dinner wasn't worthwhile?
You have ABSOLUTELY no right to set the price on other people's software ventures: If you don't like it, DON'T USE IT. If those utils and BBS doors are so common, then why the hell don't you use a free one or write one yourself? Oh, right, because you couldn't do what they did (that's "so easy") if you tried your hardest.
Doesn't the patent owner have to sue you to try to enforce their patent?
Well I think you might want to give a call to just about every regional "hydro" company in Ontario, because just about all of them (I couldn't find a single example that doesn't) are responsible for both water and electricity. The entymology of the word "hydro" and misuse of it is one for debate, however I was specifically talking about the regional companies that are putting down fiber, and in all cases they are exactly what I stated, which is combo electricity/water.
If you were able to file that patent, you probably wouldn't have to worry about money again.
While I think many software patents are absurd (people basically taking existing processes and obscuring it in "mumble-jumble" and getting a patent), the reality is that sneaking a patent in gets you next to nothing and is mostly a waste for the submitter (and I'd say about 95% of the software patents are just such a beast): Prior art and obviousness to people in the industry would quash it the second you tried to enforce it.
And you think a city run fiber link that appears to be free will bend over backwards to get you up and running? Double bwahahahahaha. Yeah reliability and service levels almost always directly correspond to what you pay (and the old addage comes so true), so at $40 CDN a month I'm not going to cry if I don't get the same service as someone paying $1500 a month. However, my point was merely that it's goofy to disparage North America as being a backwaters, and the point about home users was specifically just an interesting point (Though I did overstate the numbers by saying "most". In Canada broadband is in `just' 20% of homes now).
Telco grade? So when I've downloaded 4GB (as I recently had to with the .NET release) my bits are lesser quality? Somehow the fact that I grabbed it at 200KB/second is not indicative of the real quality? Is there some sort of non-"telco grade" bit rot going on?
Isn't the term for the type of network they're creating a "MAN", or Metropolitan Area Network? There was a big push for these several years ago. Indeed, and I'm not diminishing the accomplishment involved in getting this done in NZ, I know of several towns in Southern Ontario that outfitted their entire town with fiber optics for control systems (because of attenuation problems/distance they couldn't use copper), and they offered businesses internet access at least 3 years ago: I think this is a pretty common thing for `hydro' (which is what we call combo electricity/water companies here) to do. Now they don't sign everyone up for free, nor do I think they should: Why should the city foot a giant bill because a guy is hosting a mega porn server when the next business is using it to check hotmail once a day?
Yeah but the point is that many US organizations can afford, and do afford, a lot more than a T1. Wiring a city solves the last mile problem, but 9 times out of ten the organizations that a company wants to video or audio teleconference isn't conveniently in the same town.
The article seems to be full of errors. Firstly they say that it's 1,000 Mbps, but then call it Fast Ethernet (which is 100Mbps), and then state that it's 67x faster than a T1 (which would imply 100Mbps). Later in the article they say "With 100 Mbps of capacity, businesses can easily implement video conferencing and voice over IP (VoIP)." 1000, 100, Fast Ethernet, 67x T1...blah.
Citylink runs at Fast Ethernet speeds of up to 1,000Mbps, about 65 times faster than a T1 line.
Isn't a T1 1.544Mbps? If so then 1Gbps is 647x faster. However the following sentence is a bit silly:
Considering that many U.S. organizations use T1 lines to connect to faster Internet backbone providers, Citylink is offering speeds generally unmatched here.
The Gbps is extremely nice, but it's silly to presume that everyone in North America is using a T1 : Hell most home users are using cable high speed running at 2Mbps downstream.
That's a common fallacy that is grossly and completely wrong, and it's most disturbing because it's so readily apparent it's wrong.
Do you run your computer monitor at 30 Hz? Do you even run it at 60 Hz? How about 75Hz? For most of us it isn't even acceptable until it his 85Hz. To put that more into perspective though (for those who think "Well then the eye can see 85fps"), the reason monitors start to look better at higher frequenecies is not because of limits in the eye, but rather because of shortmedium persistence phosphor on the inside of the tube which acts as a light capacitor of sorts: It glows just long enough for the next refresh to come around. If it wasn't for the phosphor the monitor would send you into mental fits.
Of course people will always bring up motion pictures, which are I believe filmed at 24 fps. Now barring the fact that it's pretty hard to confuse a film as "reality" (it's a proximity thereof), it is acceptable as an emulation of reality because each frame is pretty much the entire content of what happened during that 1/24 period : If you look at single frames and someone was moving you'll see motion blurs around them appropriately. This is very similar to how the eye works, so they complement each other and the trick works. Computer video cards don't do this though, and instead are presenting a slideshow of distinctly different imagines, so to achieve a sense of motion a much higher update rate is required.
Translation: I have a Virge 3D and to justify owning it will mock those who seek something better every chance I get. I don't care for it, therefore no one should care for it.
115 fps in Q3 is firstly an average (meaning there are times where it is much less), and secondly is on a game that is very dated: I'm sure modern systems can get about 500 fps on Duke Nukem 3D (despite it not being 3D accelerated), so does that mean that we've passed the point of never needing more? Ridiculous. The next Unreal and Doom engines will seriously tax the best of today's hardware. Operation Flashpoint, as I already mentioned, is barely even as complex as it could be, yet it sends a GeForce Ti500 begging for mommy.
People who yap about video cards being more than anyone needs don't have a clue and needn't offer up their opinion. It's like Grandma going down to the car dealer and complaining that Jimmy wants the 255HP Maxima, because "Who ever goes over 30 anyways!".
Yeah but unfortunately the options on this new, super high end PowerMac are the Radeon 7500, or the Geforce 4 MX. Being a GF4 I think a lot of people were expecting it to really kick ass (regardless of being an MX), with the full version to kick even more ass.
Granted, they have reached the point where they're "damn fast", however the desire for higher frame rates isn't to brag about it, but rather:
-To not have noticable slow-downs whenever there are lots of overdraw situations. In Q3 with a GF2MX you'll see major slowdowns in intense battle. Just because the average was 110 doesn't mean that for 1/4 of second intervals it doesn't drop to 15.
-To be able to support the next generation of games (or even THIS generation of games). Q3 is a very old game, really, and the design of it was largely driven by limits of technology (hell the genre is still following the Descent "in a tunnel" type of design). Operation Flashpoint, on the other hand, has hilled, heavily forested areas that bring the best of the best video cards crying for mercy, and it's only starting to touch what could be: There are tonnes of limitations in the level designs because the hardware just can't keep up.
-Anti-aliasing. This is an awesome technology that makes a GF3Ti500 unusable at higher resolution. If a card can do 200FPS at 1024x768, then it might be able to do half decent FPS with AA on.
The clock speed is normally less than its brothers in the same product line, but more importantly they cripple it by chopping the memory pipeline in half, effectively limiting the card to lower resolutions and limiting its usefulness in memory intensive things like anti-aliasing.
In a case where the end FPS result doesn't always tell the whole story, I've found that my GF2MX equipped machine, while getting better end FPS numbers on average, exhibits far more noticable and irritating slowdowns in high overdraw situations (in Q3 that's when there is smoke, lots of explosions, etc.) compared to my GF(1)256 DDR.
While I despise their drivers and software development arm, I would have thought the Radeon 8500 would have been the best choice for the higher end machine: Not only would it smoke the GF4MX (presumably), but it's a huge bargain compared to the Ti500 that it also beats. Can you use the 8500 in the PowerMacs?
It is fantastic seeing ATI so competitive. Against my better judgement I'm on the verge of getting myself a 8500 OEM.