If AOL can't force you to use thier client, AOL can't force you to see their ads. If AOL can't force you to see their ads, AOL can't make money off of AIM. If AOL can't make money off of AIM, AOL will stop providing AIM as a free service. Would you prefer that AOL charge access fees for AIM?
When 32-bit colors go through 20 rendering passes, the error adds up, and the output looks like crap. To stop this, we need colors to be represented internally by four floating-point values, each one being 32 bits in size. 4*32 = 128.
The output would still be 32-bit. It would only be processed at 128-bit internally.
That's just a few of the new extensions NVidia has added to OpenGL to support the new features of the GeForce 3. They are every bit as good as the DX8 stuff.
The main thing to notice is the combined usage of bump maps and environment maps. This wasn't possible before, and it looks really cool. Trust me, the video card makes a HUGE difference in the "goodness" of the image, provided that the rendering engine is set up to take advantage of it. Image quality is mainly determined by the detail of the art. However, newer cards support better features for displaying higher-detail images. Sure, you could do these shots on a Voodoo, but without hardware accelleration for all the rendering algorithms, it will run very very slowly (measured in spf rather than fps).
Another thing to note is that alot of the really cool effects this thing can do are only noticeable in moving images. Bump mapping, for example, can be faked using regular texturing if nothing is moving. You really only see the difference when you see it in action.
AOL makes money off the ads when people sign up for the service. Duh.
I don't understand your argument. How does the fact that AOL only shows ads for itself mean that you have the right to use their service? It's still free to you, god damnit. THEY are providing YOU with a service, and YOU have not given them ANYTHING. How can you complain? You can make suggestions that they do various things, but you have no right to complain if they don't.
Because they provide the service. If it weren't for them, it would not be there. Therefore, they have the right to put any access restrictions they want on it.
I don't understand you people. Isn't it intuitively obvious to you that if someone makes something, they should have control over it? Why should they be giving you access to their service when you haven't given them anything?
BTW, AOL provides AIM executables for Mac and Linux as well. Why do you keep talking about their "Windows executable"?
This kind of crap makes me glad that I never completely made the move away from IRC. Of course, this isn't the first time AOL has tried to pull this off,
Taco, what the HELL are you talking about!? "This kind of crap"? "tried to pull this off"? IT'S THEIR NETWORK! I use GAIM myself, and I did find myself shut out this afternoon, but I don't blame AOL. It's their network, and they can do as they please with it.
You act like you have some sort of right to use stuff other people maintain, and you expect to have it free. What the hell? Yes, AOL makes money through those banner ads, and they use them to support the service. If the ads aren't showing up on your screen, then they aren't making money off of you, and THEY DON'T OWE YOU ANYTHING!
and it seems that the supposed FCC intervention that was supposed to open the AIM protocol has fallen thru.
That whole thing was exaggerated. I work at an IM company (none you've ever heard of), and while I'm not clear on the details, I have been told that the FCC thing does not apply to AIM itself, or the OSCAR protocol. You still aren't allowed to use it without AOL's permission.
With all of this back and forth on the issue from AOL, do we really need to use their system at all?
If you don't like their system, don't use it! I don't understand... You complain about something you get for free. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT SOMETHING YOU GET FOR FREE! If you don't like it, don't fucking use it.
OTOH, you could always do what I did: Switch to TOC. Voila, GAIM works again. You can't check people's away messages, but it works.
Hmm... what if the sites started making money by selling the info they gather? Then maybe they wouldn't have to have those annoying ads everywhere! Interesting...
Ban the them, and 'if you like cookie files, turn them on, damnit.'
If you did that, sites would stop using cookies, even for good uses. Why? Because many people don't know how to turn on cookies, and won't bother if told. If the majority of people have cookies disabled, web sites won't use them. So, essentially, having cookies default to off would pretty much eliminate their use for any purpose. I don't like that idea.
You appear to have ignored my suggestion of simply disallowing cookies from any site other than the one you are visiting. It seems to me that that would prevent anyone from developing any sort of useful profile on you. They would have to actually install tracking software on every site you visit, which is not likely to happen.
And how can you call it paranoia when you know what they're used for?
The question is, do I care? Personally, I don't care if some companies know where I go on the net. Ads tailored for me specifically? Hey, all the better! But then, that's just me, and I am not going to try to convince you to agree with that one.
The law in question looks reasonable, but I would worry about it being interpreted too broadly, and thus causing some innocent sites to be sued by crazed zealots. Next, other innocent sites would downgrade themselves by not using cookies, and soon the feture is gone.
Cookies are used for both good and evil. They are just a tool. When used for good, they can be extremely convenient, like here on Slashdot. However, if users had to give permission for them to be used, I would expect that many internet sites would stop using them altogether rather than go through the hassle. Meanwhile, the evil people would find some other way to track you, like by IP -- lots of people are going static these days.
Personally, I think browsers should either:
Not accept cookies attached to images.
Not accept cookies from any site other than the one hosting the page the user is looking at.
That would eliminate the ads.
If you don't like cookies, turn them off, damnit. Don't make the rest of us suffer for your paranoia. Personally, I like it when I go to Amazon and it immediately gives me a list of new, highly-rated graphics programming books.
Well, someone decided to proclaim that the moderators were stupid for modding the thing to 5. For some reason, the mods actually listenned to the guy, and modded me back down. Oh well. I don't particularily care, but some people really take this site too seriously.
I see your post got modded down, too. Why anyone would go to all the effort of spending a moderator point to mark you off-topic is beyond me. Like I said, people take this site too seriously.
You must be unlucky. I have had Win2k going on three boxes for the last eight months or so. One of them is my mom's computer (which she uses all the time), and the other two are secondary computers of mine, which I actually use quite regularly and usually leave on 24x7. I have seen one blue screen in that time, and it was due to my mom forcibly installing some sort of CDR drivers meant for Win9x. The funny thing is, the bluescreen actually gave instructions on how to fix the problem, and the instructions worked!
On one of the three computers, I had uptimes well over a month before I had to turn the computer off for some reason -- usually in order to transport it to a LAN party. The other two were not quite as stable (reboot every, oh, week or two), but clearly that indicates driver issues, not OS issues. Namely, the NVidia reference drivers are not perfect.
In the same time, I have had one Linux kernel panic (kernel 2.4.2 paniced on shutdown of lpd) and several Linux hard crashes (all driver problems). I have also, in the past, had many more problems with Linux stability. Of course, it was usually the fault of some driver. It also seems that I have to recompile my kernel every other week to fix the latest IDE write corruption bug or some crap like that.
Actually, the computer of mine with the most uptime right now is the Mac running OSX beta: 24 days. And no, the last reboot wasn't due to any sort of crash.
Look, Linux isn't perfect. Neither is Win2k. Depending on how you use them, and on what hardware you use them, you can get all kinds of results for stability. However, at the core, both systems are stable. It's only crappy drivers that take them down.
I think Win2k would be a better workstation solution, unless your company is having financial difficulty. It doesn't "blow up" either.
BTW, VMWare fully emulates the instability of the emulated OS, so it won't really help in the way you suggest. Win4Lin -- haven't used it, but I doubt it is more stable than running native. (Especially since running native Win2k is just as stable as running native Linux in my experience.)
If you can name me a situation when command line is the only option I'll be impressed.
You're kidding, right? I can't imagine going through a day without the command line in Linux, even if I tried.
You want examples? Well, with most Linux programs, you need to use the command line to build and install them. In some cases (ok, a lot of cases) you might be lucky enough to find an RPM. Well, so what? You install the RPM, and then what? How do you start the program?
This is a problem my cousin was having. He complained that he'd try to install an RPM, and it would claim to have succeeded, but then the program wasn't installed. In fact, the program simply wasn't showing up in his start menu (or whatever you call the GNOME equivalent -- the foot menu if you will). Whe I heard him say this, I was shocked. I said, "You mean you don't know how to use the command line?" I then explained to him that you can do very little without the CLI in Linux, and I taught him how to use it.
Another example -- drivers. How do you install new drivers in Linux? Well, frankly, every freeking driver is different. My sound driver is a kernel module. My video driver is a combo kernel module / X driver. Both of these had to be installed from the command line, and in very different ways. On Windows, OTOH, you have the convenient hardware manager, which is a nice, consistent interface for any kind of driver installations and updates. I don't have to read the readme when I download a Windows driver -- I just go to the hardware manager, click the hardware I want to update, and update the driver.
I have been using Linux for two and a half years, BTW. It has been my primary OS for most of that time. I am running on a custom-compiled 2.4.2 kernel under Debian/unstable right now -- I know how Linux works. But the simple fact is that Linux is not (yet) as easy to use as Windows. I eagerly await the day when it is, but there is just so much work that needs to be done before that happens. I'm sorry, but it's the truth.
I think that the RIAA would just assume have Napster completely shut down. Napster is lucky that there is such an easily accessable database of music titles to use as a filter.
OK, assume for a moment here that they have some way to separate RIAA music from independent music. In that case, why does anyone object to this? It will only help them block the illegal stuff. Are you upset that your contributions to the CDDB are helping to prevent you from illegally downloading copyrighted music? If so, are you also upset that the money you pay in taxes helps prevent you from stealing your neighbor's car?
On the other hand, if they don't have any way to separate RIAA music from independents, then this is bad. Some of the musicians with matierial listed on CDDB might want their music to be shared on Napster, in which case it isn't illegal. I would expect that Napster and Gracenote have figured out some way to separate RIAA music from independent music, though. One easy way they could do it is to get a list of artist names from the RIAA and filter the CDDB stuff based on that (would be *much* easier then getting the whole list of songs from the RIAA).
Well, OK, that all makes sense. But what about the end user? Is it possible to run a business which writes open source software for end users? How might they make money? Tech support is not an option, since that would encourage the company to make hard-to-use software. Selling copies of the software is not really an option, since competitors can buy one copy and start selling it themselves. What other options exist?
Slashdot Mirror
It's still their choice, whether you think that choice is good or bad.
------
What part of capitolism don't you understand?
------
The output would still be 32-bit. It would only be processed at 128-bit internally.
------
That's just a few of the new extensions NVidia has added to OpenGL to support the new features of the GeForce 3. They are every bit as good as the DX8 stuff.
------
Another thing to note is that alot of the really cool effects this thing can do are only noticeable in moving images. Bump mapping, for example, can be faked using regular texturing if nothing is moving. You really only see the difference when you see it in action.
------
------
I don't understand you people. Isn't it intuitively obvious to you that if someone makes something, they should have control over it? Why should they be giving you access to their service when you haven't given them anything?
BTW, AOL provides AIM executables for Mac and Linux as well. Why do you keep talking about their "Windows executable"?
------
That seemed like such a Taco-esque statement. Doh. Well, call me stupid.
------
Taco, what the HELL are you talking about!? "This kind of crap"? "tried to pull this off"? IT'S THEIR NETWORK! I use GAIM myself, and I did find myself shut out this afternoon, but I don't blame AOL. It's their network, and they can do as they please with it.
You act like you have some sort of right to use stuff other people maintain, and you expect to have it free. What the hell? Yes, AOL makes money through those banner ads, and they use them to support the service. If the ads aren't showing up on your screen, then they aren't making money off of you, and THEY DON'T OWE YOU ANYTHING!
That whole thing was exaggerated. I work at an IM company (none you've ever heard of), and while I'm not clear on the details, I have been told that the FCC thing does not apply to AIM itself, or the OSCAR protocol. You still aren't allowed to use it without AOL's permission.
If you don't like their system, don't use it! I don't understand... You complain about something you get for free. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT SOMETHING YOU GET FOR FREE! If you don't like it, don't fucking use it.
OTOH, you could always do what I did: Switch to TOC. Voila, GAIM works again. You can't check people's away messages, but it works.
------
Whoah... who might you be? You must be someone who hasn't talked to me in over a year. Please e-mail me... I'm curious. :)
------
yes yes... that's what I meant! :)
------
Hmm... what if the sites started making money by selling the info they gather? Then maybe they wouldn't have to have those annoying ads everywhere! Interesting...
------
Ban the them, and 'if you like cookie files, turn them on, damnit.'
If you did that, sites would stop using cookies, even for good uses. Why? Because many people don't know how to turn on cookies, and won't bother if told. If the majority of people have cookies disabled, web sites won't use them. So, essentially, having cookies default to off would pretty much eliminate their use for any purpose. I don't like that idea.
You appear to have ignored my suggestion of simply disallowing cookies from any site other than the one you are visiting. It seems to me that that would prevent anyone from developing any sort of useful profile on you. They would have to actually install tracking software on every site you visit, which is not likely to happen.
And how can you call it paranoia when you know what they're used for?
The question is, do I care? Personally, I don't care if some companies know where I go on the net. Ads tailored for me specifically? Hey, all the better! But then, that's just me, and I am not going to try to convince you to agree with that one.
The law in question looks reasonable, but I would worry about it being interpreted too broadly, and thus causing some innocent sites to be sued by crazed zealots. Next, other innocent sites would downgrade themselves by not using cookies, and soon the feture is gone.
------
Cookies are used for both good and evil. They are just a tool. When used for good, they can be extremely convenient, like here on Slashdot. However, if users had to give permission for them to be used, I would expect that many internet sites would stop using them altogether rather than go through the hassle. Meanwhile, the evil people would find some other way to track you, like by IP -- lots of people are going static these days.
Personally, I think browsers should either:
That would eliminate the ads.
If you don't like cookies, turn them off, damnit. Don't make the rest of us suffer for your paranoia. Personally, I like it when I go to Amazon and it immediately gives me a list of new, highly-rated graphics programming books.
------
Sure. Would take a bit of work, but I'm pretty damned sure it can be done. But... it just seems so wrong! :)
------
:-)
------
I see your post got modded down, too. Why anyone would go to all the effort of spending a moderator point to mark you off-topic is beyond me. Like I said, people take this site too seriously.
------
Remember that the nVidia XFree86 3d drivers only support XFree86 versions 4.0 and 4.1.
I'm running them in 4.0.2 just fine. Haven't tried 4.0.3 yet.
------
Actually, only three people after the +1 bonus.
------
Don't you just hate it when people brag about something they're supposed to do?
I just read that ZDNet article linked above...
You're a Slashdot editor. You're supposed to read the god damn article! God damn editors bragging about something they're supposed to do!
:-)
------
You must be unlucky. I have had Win2k going on three boxes for the last eight months or so. One of them is my mom's computer (which she uses all the time), and the other two are secondary computers of mine, which I actually use quite regularly and usually leave on 24x7. I have seen one blue screen in that time, and it was due to my mom forcibly installing some sort of CDR drivers meant for Win9x. The funny thing is, the bluescreen actually gave instructions on how to fix the problem, and the instructions worked!
On one of the three computers, I had uptimes well over a month before I had to turn the computer off for some reason -- usually in order to transport it to a LAN party. The other two were not quite as stable (reboot every, oh, week or two), but clearly that indicates driver issues, not OS issues. Namely, the NVidia reference drivers are not perfect.
In the same time, I have had one Linux kernel panic (kernel 2.4.2 paniced on shutdown of lpd) and several Linux hard crashes (all driver problems). I have also, in the past, had many more problems with Linux stability. Of course, it was usually the fault of some driver. It also seems that I have to recompile my kernel every other week to fix the latest IDE write corruption bug or some crap like that.
Actually, the computer of mine with the most uptime right now is the Mac running OSX beta: 24 days. And no, the last reboot wasn't due to any sort of crash.
Look, Linux isn't perfect. Neither is Win2k. Depending on how you use them, and on what hardware you use them, you can get all kinds of results for stability. However, at the core, both systems are stable. It's only crappy drivers that take them down.
------
BTW, VMWare fully emulates the instability of the emulated OS, so it won't really help in the way you suggest. Win4Lin -- haven't used it, but I doubt it is more stable than running native. (Especially since running native Win2k is just as stable as running native Linux in my experience.)
------
You're kidding, right? I can't imagine going through a day without the command line in Linux, even if I tried.
You want examples? Well, with most Linux programs, you need to use the command line to build and install them. In some cases (ok, a lot of cases) you might be lucky enough to find an RPM. Well, so what? You install the RPM, and then what? How do you start the program?
This is a problem my cousin was having. He complained that he'd try to install an RPM, and it would claim to have succeeded, but then the program wasn't installed. In fact, the program simply wasn't showing up in his start menu (or whatever you call the GNOME equivalent -- the foot menu if you will). Whe I heard him say this, I was shocked. I said, "You mean you don't know how to use the command line?" I then explained to him that you can do very little without the CLI in Linux, and I taught him how to use it.
Another example -- drivers. How do you install new drivers in Linux? Well, frankly, every freeking driver is different. My sound driver is a kernel module. My video driver is a combo kernel module / X driver. Both of these had to be installed from the command line, and in very different ways. On Windows, OTOH, you have the convenient hardware manager, which is a nice, consistent interface for any kind of driver installations and updates. I don't have to read the readme when I download a Windows driver -- I just go to the hardware manager, click the hardware I want to update, and update the driver.
I have been using Linux for two and a half years, BTW. It has been my primary OS for most of that time. I am running on a custom-compiled 2.4.2 kernel under Debian/unstable right now -- I know how Linux works. But the simple fact is that Linux is not (yet) as easy to use as Windows. I eagerly await the day when it is, but there is just so much work that needs to be done before that happens. I'm sorry, but it's the truth.
------
I think that the RIAA would just assume have Napster completely shut down. Napster is lucky that there is such an easily accessable database of music titles to use as a filter.
OK, assume for a moment here that they have some way to separate RIAA music from independent music. In that case, why does anyone object to this? It will only help them block the illegal stuff. Are you upset that your contributions to the CDDB are helping to prevent you from illegally downloading copyrighted music? If so, are you also upset that the money you pay in taxes helps prevent you from stealing your neighbor's car?
On the other hand, if they don't have any way to separate RIAA music from independents, then this is bad. Some of the musicians with matierial listed on CDDB might want their music to be shared on Napster, in which case it isn't illegal. I would expect that Napster and Gracenote have figured out some way to separate RIAA music from independent music, though. One easy way they could do it is to get a list of artist names from the RIAA and filter the CDDB stuff based on that (would be *much* easier then getting the whole list of songs from the RIAA).
------
Well, OK, that all makes sense. But what about the end user? Is it possible to run a business which writes open source software for end users? How might they make money? Tech support is not an option, since that would encourage the company to make hard-to-use software. Selling copies of the software is not really an option, since competitors can buy one copy and start selling it themselves. What other options exist?
------