Okay, I'm responding to this article a day late, so nobody's ever going to read this, but here goes anyway:
Having worked for the Fujitsu corporation in the past, as a second level support rep, I can honestly say that I don't think they're "jumping on the bandwagon".
I honestly believe that Fujitsu America at least (the division I worked for, laptop division), is dedicated to providing GOOD, quality support for users of their products. They have very strict quality control in their support, and better than average QA on the product itself. Now there's no reason to believe this, except that I no longer work for them, which means I'm not kissing their asses. I only left because I got a better offer, and don't have any resentment towards them whatsoever.
Having worked as a "go-between" for first and second level support, I can honestly say that (at least as of two years ago) they are honestly trying to implement Linux solutions. They couldn't support it at the time, due to too many differing versions of Linux, and lack of support from Fujitsu Limited (or International, can't remember), who makes most of the components for Fujitsu America. (ie: They couldn't get the horizontal and vertical sync rates for their monitors, and therefore couldn't give them out to Linux callers)
Even at a time when Linux support was virtually unheard of in the big-name hardware manufacturer arena, Linux was trying to develop partnerships with companies that could "create 'on-the'fly' video settings", or drivers that could produce the same results, so as not to damage the most expensive part of that laptop, the screen.
Anyway, while I was working there, they WERE trying to implement support for Linux, however nominal it may seem. True, they weren't going to officially support it out of the box, but they were trying to find workarounds for the limitations of this support whenever possible.
The only problem with that, is that software manufacturers will take advantage of the hardware, instead of optimizing, and fixing bugs in-house. Like the post says, "and office will be how big by then"?
That puts the average software program at about 3.2 GB installed, with only minor functionality upgrade.
Until we can get software manufacturers to stop putting out bigger and more bloated materials, then we're going to need bigger and better hardware.
I know it's nice to have the biggest and the fastest, but for a lot of people (myself included), it's not feasible. I buy about 3 - 6 months behind the times, after the prices have fallen. And sure enough, every time I upgrade, there's a wave of new Win-compatible software packages claiming to be better, and improved, while really only offering me just that much more bloat.
Don't have the problem as much on my Linux box, but it does still occur.
Marketing? Okay, so marketing is important, to be sure. But how important? The Amiga, while one would debate wether or not it was 'better' than the competition at hand, certainly was powerful enough. It was a wonder to use, and (although it's more of a collector's item nowadays) I still play with my old one every now and again. It's truly fun. Hard to get over the fact that when I turn it on, 9 seconds later I'm able to work.
Back to marketing... Did Microsoft kill Amiga? I think possibly. At that time in history, not (really) so way back when, the market, above all else, was crying for standardization. I don't think marketing killed Amiga, I think it was that.
Microsoft, hate them as you may, was able to deliver one thing to a lot of people. Compatability. Yes, marketing had a LOT to do with that, but not solely.
There was a clear demand for the ability to be able to share files with others. Sometimes, you wanted to share files with someone who didn't have the same hardware you did.
By making software that filled THAT void, I think Microsoft was able to conquor. The Amiga was a fascinating product, and still is, to a certain extent, but I don't believe that Marketing (at least not solely) was its death...
You sure about that? This is really just to be argumentative, and cause I'm just that bored, but if you scream "M4Y L1NK N4K3D 4N0 P3TR1F13D D00D" are you giving up anonymity? I know that you're making yourself known, but online at least, you can make yourself known and still remain anonymous. I mean, despite how much you yell and rave at a bookstore, nobody's checking your ID right? Nobody knows anything more about you than what they did, except now they know you're a froot loop. Anyway, I dunno if I'm agreeing or arguing, so I'll drop it.
Re:NoProxy.com = Pro-Privacy
on
License to Surf
·
· Score: 1
Isn't that funny... My proxy won't let me get to it... Oh well. Sorry.
Maybe it's not such a bad idea (please, don't flame yet). Wouldn't it be the (relative) end of spam? If you can't send an email without someone knowing EXACTLY who you are, it makes it easier for people to relieve that aggravation. Really, can you go to the library and get all the books you want without them knowing who you are? No...
The difference, is that you can go to a bookstore, purchase the books with cash, and retain (for the most part) anonymity.
The only reason that this notion is being entertained, is because of cracking attempts, and website defacements, in which they can't track down the perpetrators.
Does somebody really need to be able to identify me individually, with my certificate, in order for me to view the latest sports scores? Or check and see what's funny on Segfault? I don't think so.
And exactly how is this going to be prevented from being used in some marketing scheme. Surely it has to be, otherwise, what's the point? It can't be that easy.
Regardless of what system they come up with, short of quantum crypto it's going to be forgeable. Just depends on how much time is invested.
Is this a good idea? probably. Is it a bad idea, yes... It's not often I take two sides of an issue, but each side has its merits. Just wish I didn't have to give up my anonymity to receive them.
If it offends you so much, ignore it, or better yet, filter it
Ordinarily I would agree with this. However, even though I may not be of his opinion, I, and surely the people that run this place, would really like to hear it.
By offering commentary, even negative commentary, it adds to the "debatedness" of the site. I get extraordinarily upset when people are bashed for posting views "against the flow". Granted, I am not an advocate of "Y0u 5uck D0oD" posts, but at the same time, the post that started this thread is a valuable one.
While it would be very easy for him to ignore this article, and not make any commentary whatsoever, it is important that people know his opinion. Seriously, what if the majority share his opinion??? Certainly that should be taken into consideration the next time an article of this nature is being taken into consideration.
If there are items I don't feel I need to comment on, I don't, but there are very few circumstances in which I'd rather it weren't available, no matter how "stupid" or "idiotic".
To coin an ooooold phrase, "I may not like what you have to say, but I'd give my life for you to be able to say it." This is true even more in which the creators of the site ACTUALLY participate in its discussion, and its creations. Consider it feedback, consider it rights to one man's opinion, but don't consider it garbage.
Okay, here's the scoop... Babelfish can't do a thing with it, neither can Translator, so either, that's not Spanish, or ummmm... well, I dunno what else. Somebody help?
First and foremost, let me say this... I respect Bruce Perens. I respect everything (almost) that he has done for us, and the community. I respect Bruce Perens...
There, now that that's out of the way... I think, honestly, that if Bruce REALLY wanted what he said to be private, it would have been. If he didn't want people other than those intended to find out, he would have been able to do so.
As mentioned above, no open forum is PRIVATE, and to even think anything of the like is stupid. Granted a lot of our forms of PRIVATE comm aren't as private as we'd like them to be, but they're also not open.
If I wanted my wife to see some naked pictures of myself that I took (NO, that's never happened), I wouldn't put them in an open forum, and invite her there, cause that would be silly. I would send her an email with it attached. Yes, still not secure, but still a lot better.
Secondly, While I do agree with what was said concerning the openness of the forum in which it was posted, I almost feel like some sort of paparazzi agent.
I'm not a fan of National Enquirer, and if I were famous, I'm sure I'd be even less. I don't think that it makes sense to follow someone around until they do something "newsworthy". Seriously, Bruce is "newsworthy" all the time, he doesn't have to make a mistake to be on Slashdot, we all know this.
I understand that he's in the public eye, and that eye is heavily focussed on him, as it should be, but the original comment, at least in my opinion, wasn't newsworthy. It was paparazzi-ish (that a word?) at best. It wasn't dubbed as a press-release, it wasn't a "Statement" in the sense of which I'm thinking.
What happened was, he was a little too free when someone was watching. Plain and simply.
With great power comes great responsibility Bruce, and yes, you'd probably do just a little better to keep that more in the forefront of your mind, but at the same time, I surely do sympathize. I do FAR too many stupid things in public.
There won't be an addendum to the addendum. Somewhere in the article, can't remember where, either at the top or the bottom, it claims that there will be no further addendums to this, unless something of educational relevancy comes up. So, as long as we don't do anything educational (ie: crack site and deface it with the theory of relativity), we ought to be safe... : )
Yeah, I would love to go to my site too. I've posted a mirror to the H4X0R'5 Guide To Slashdot page, but due to structure, can't get all the rest over there. Plus, they require.html files, and all my links are.htm. Anyway, if you still wanna check out the H4X0R'5 Guide To Slashdot, the url is http://geocities.com/issue9mm/index.html. Have fun.
This reply intended solely for the boost of Mr. Carmack's ego.
John, I just wanted to say that I felt honored to be replied to by such an esteemed character. I've been a long time admirer of your work (I know, cheesy ain't it?), and just wanted to let you know that. Again, I am honored.
Okay, suffice it to say, my brain isn't at all suited for this type of information, so feel more than free to correct all the mistakes I'm about to make.
Also, be patient, I'm still trying to soak up the article...
Okay, wasn't it the Third Law of Thermodynamics that stated that eventually all motion would slow to a stop, and (at least in my interpretation) all systems would eventually just, spin down? Isn't this "cosmological constant" in complete opposition to that theory? It seems to me, and always has seemed to me, that things slow down, each orbiting object crashes into the object it's orbiting, ie: moon crashes into earth, earth crashes into sun, sun crashes into whatever it's orbiting, etc, until everything was back at one point in the universe, until we had another big bang...
Given that (probably fscked up) derivation on a principle, how does this work if we're constantly moving further away from the object we came from? Does this mean that if everything does end back up all in one place that it will be different place? Or that we will not ever be pulled back into one place?
The first I heard of Toy Story 2 was here at the office, maybe 2 weeks ago, when they were offering free passes to a preview showing. Granted, I wasn't looking for it, and I spend so little time with the television on anymore, I may have missed the worlds biggest marketing hype.
However, as quickly as I was there to see it, and impressed as I was, had I heard ANYthing about the movie, I would remember. All I got? Zero, Zip, Zilch, and coming in one hour too late to cash in on the free passes given out here at work... Sad, sad day.
I saw the movie Thanksgiving night, after I got off of work, and, as the general consensus goes, was wowed outta my seat on more than one occasion. Needless to say, I was happy... Happy that Disney could do a decent sequel, Happier that they didn't JUST do a decent sequel, but in my opinion a better movie than the original...
My major disappointment came in that I had to see it in a regular theater, and not in one of the six "digital" theaters that they first debuted in. Now THAT would have made it monumental. Especially with their (from what I hear) extensive use of TI's Digital Projection System...
There's another comment floating around here wanting to know what kind of hardware they're using to achieve all this great stuff, and I'd like to know as well. My guess is that they're probably using a lot of _Renderman_ on the software side (which I could be mistaken about), but am still curious as to their development platform(s), and the hardware that they're using to make all of this magic...
Well, before you start taking anything I say to heart, let me preface with this. I don't know. I personally don't like to run "low-cost" products, for the very reason that, I can wait a little while, stay behind the times about 6 - 9 months or so, and get what I actually want, but a little slower.
For example, right now, I'm running a meager PII 350. Why don't I upgrade? Well, I've considered it, but the 350 I have now is doing everything I need it to, at exactly the speed I need. Yes, I could use faster, but I don't need faster. Everything basically works transparently, without me having to sit and wait too much while things happen. They just happen.
When things stop happening so smoothly, and/or when I start having to wait longer than what I do now, and start considering my hardware as obsolete, I'll upgrade. No, I won't upgrade to a PIII 550, or Athlon 600, but if I were to upgrade now, I'd get a PII450, for about $150.
I think the reason that most people go with these, is because, on a Wintel based machine, applications are so often ported with the "latest hardware" in mind. Software vendors try and make use of the latest and greatest processor and video card, instead of optimizing the code that they have, to make it more widely usable. Once a "user" reaches this point, in which they have to upgrade, they want something new, but don't want to have to pay for it. Also, I think they fall prey to the "megahertz war", in which they see a PII 400 and a Celeron 400, and the price difference, without knowing that a celeron 400 actually runs more like a PII 333 (just an example), and that they could pick up that PII 333 for about the same cost as a budget processor, and not have a budget processor.
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with low-end procs, I like the availability, and there are times when they are feasible for me to implement in my company. I simply prefer something designed with a slightly higher end in mind, and am not all that swayed if it's 6 months behind.
Just to reiterate, I don't know. So none of the information here has any factual basis. Just my take on the matter. If I'm wrong, lemme know.
Timna will combine a Pentium processor core developed specifically for this low-cost market with a graphics engine and memory controller. By combining these three functions into a single chip, Intel says it will lower PC makers' overall component costs and reduce the size of the motherboard needed for Timna-based a system,
Isn't this the path that Cyrix tried to take? Where are they now? Having worked in the past as a hardware tech for a hardware support firm, all the computers that had the Cyrix chips offering this type of integration experienced tons of problems based solely on the chip, its chipset, and its integration.
You would think that we would have learned a little bit from others that have tried it.
Also, since it's going to be so integrated, does that also mean integrated to the board? We all know what that's going to do for upgradeability, but your average Joe Blow on the street isn't. How many people are they going to have to tell, "We're sorry, but you just can't upgrade that computer... " In a market that has positioned itself MORE towards upgradeability, and more away from proprietary components, can this be a good move?
I understand that sacrifices must be made for PCs that cheap, but upgradeability should be the last, opting to lose performance over upgradeability... BR But that's just me.
Of all the things to be worried about on Y2K, the power isn't one of them. I've watched the Trigger Effect, and I know how things CAN go. What worries me the most, is not the lack of power, heat, air, or anything else. It's the fear of Y2K that movies like this are propagating.
Every natural disaster, there's a select few who plan to take advantage of it. Rodney King verdict, looters/riots, every earthquake/evacuation leaves some whacko behind with the intention to take all of his neighbors' belongings and make them his.
To sum up, what I fear about Y2k are the idiots that are PLANNING on it. Maybe some things will go down, maybe not. But the people who've been planning to riot root and rob for the past six months, well, who's to say that the power staying on is gonna stop them?
Maybe there ought to have been more forethought in the making of this movie. I don't condone censorship, but its creators maybe ought to have thought better than to overdramatize a moment that's already going to have at least a few people in a far overdramatic state as it is.
Furthermore, why do they feel the need to make a movie/show on something that MIGHT happen? It's only speculation. Yes, I know that's what most movies are made of, but I can't see this having a good effect on the generally uneducated populace.
Disclaimer: I apologize beforehand for the cynicism you are about to read. My opinions are based on and exceeded solely by my ignorance of the situation.
Okay, maybe it's just me, but how is it news if it's decades behind? I don't see it.
the spacecraft appeared to resemble the Apollo series of capsules launched by NASA in the US in the late 1960s.
Gee, wonder why. Can anyone say, "technology exchange"? I mean really, doesn't it seem just a tad fishy to anyone other than myself that 10 years after we send up Apollo, after having advanced beyond that, that the Chinese re-invent the damn thing just after our texchange?
How is this news?
*sarcasm on* In recent news today, the Chinese have a new TV show, called Sassame Street, featuring characters "slightly resembling" those of our own Sesame Street. The Chinese on the other hand dispute those claims, stating that "Bag Bird + Cookie Demon" were "designed and manufactured by Chinese scientists". *end sarcasm* *end comment*
Aaron said it was unlikely that proposal would be approved at the upcoming ministerial meeting, but he was optimistic an agreement could be reached before the next WTO ministerial meeting in three years.
Is it just me, or should maybe the World Trade Organization hold ministerial meetings just a tad more often than every three years? Don't get me wrong, I support their 'wait-and-see' approach, as it is almost a first in good government strategy. Almost always this approach is used exactly when it doesn't need to be by governments. But it's rather obvious they've taken to sticking their nose into internet trade, and if for no other reason than that, they should meet more often.
Who can keep up with something as fast-paced as the internet, and yet choose to meet that seldom?
I guess I may have phrased my question wrong. Let me try again.(ahem)
"Does convincing a bunch of stockholders and investors that RedHat is going to turn a profit, mean that RedHat is going to turn a profit?" Actually, even my rephrasing of the question is bad. My thinking is, that investors are just jumping on the band-wagon, and I don't mind that, I really don't. But from 8 bucks to 100+, seems rather overwhelming.
Are they jumping on the bandwagon, and possibly (at least in my estimation) being "not-so-technically-sound", are they reacting to hype? Yes the support for Intel 64-bit procs is good, yes a journalling file system is good, but still, this isn't exactly a revolutionary thing, at least not to me. But is it to them??? I dunno...
In summation, I've done a terrible job of asking my question, but not knowing anything of investing, or big business money, I'm doing my very best.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is a link to the Lego Penguin images.
I've just grabbed the images, and not any of the text or anything, but have at it.
Just wanted to say thank you to whatever moderator realized that this post was NOT meant as troll, and moderated it back up.
Maybe it's my dim-witted brain, but I freaked out hardcore to find that a tongue in cheek jest had been moderated down to troll.
Okay, I'm responding to this article a day late, so nobody's ever going to read this, but here goes anyway:
Having worked for the Fujitsu corporation in the past, as a second level support rep, I can honestly say that I don't think they're "jumping on the bandwagon".
I honestly believe that Fujitsu America at least (the division I worked for, laptop division), is dedicated to providing GOOD, quality support for users of their products. They have very strict quality control in their support, and better than average QA on the product itself. Now there's no reason to believe this, except that I no longer work for them, which means I'm not kissing their asses. I only left because I got a better offer, and don't have any resentment towards them whatsoever.
Having worked as a "go-between" for first and second level support, I can honestly say that (at least as of two years ago) they are honestly trying to implement Linux solutions. They couldn't support it at the time, due to too many differing versions of Linux, and lack of support from Fujitsu Limited (or International, can't remember), who makes most of the components for Fujitsu America. (ie: They couldn't get the horizontal and vertical sync rates for their monitors, and therefore couldn't give them out to Linux callers)
Even at a time when Linux support was virtually unheard of in the big-name hardware manufacturer arena, Linux was trying to develop partnerships with companies that could "create 'on-the'fly' video settings", or drivers that could produce the same results, so as not to damage the most expensive part of that laptop, the screen.
Anyway, while I was working there, they WERE trying to implement support for Linux, however nominal it may seem. True, they weren't going to officially support it out of the box, but they were trying to find workarounds for the limitations of this support whenever possible.
Actually, the T-Shirts are pretty nice. I was going to pick up one of the fleeces, but according to ThinkGeek, there is No back on this one".
Now, maybe it's just me, but if it doesn't COME with a back, then I'd like the option to be able to purchase one seperately, or at least bundled.
Sheesh, as bad as I felt when I bought my HP DeskJet and it didn't come with a printer cable, I'm glad I saw this one early. Or I'd be REALLY pissed.
The only problem with that, is that software manufacturers will take advantage of the hardware, instead of optimizing, and fixing bugs in-house. Like the post says, "and office will be how big by then"?
That puts the average software program at about 3.2 GB installed, with only minor functionality upgrade.
Until we can get software manufacturers to stop putting out bigger and more bloated materials, then we're going to need bigger and better hardware.
I know it's nice to have the biggest and the fastest, but for a lot of people (myself included), it's not feasible. I buy about 3 - 6 months behind the times, after the prices have fallen. And sure enough, every time I upgrade, there's a wave of new Win-compatible software packages claiming to be better, and improved, while really only offering me just that much more bloat.
Don't have the problem as much on my Linux box, but it does still occur.
Marketing? Okay, so marketing is important, to be sure. But how important? The Amiga, while one would debate wether or not it was 'better' than the competition at hand, certainly was powerful enough. It was a wonder to use, and (although it's more of a collector's item nowadays) I still play with my old one every now and again. It's truly fun. Hard to get over the fact that when I turn it on, 9 seconds later I'm able to work.
Back to marketing... Did Microsoft kill Amiga? I think possibly. At that time in history, not (really) so way back when, the market, above all else, was crying for standardization. I don't think marketing killed Amiga, I think it was that.
Microsoft, hate them as you may, was able to deliver one thing to a lot of people. Compatability. Yes, marketing had a LOT to do with that, but not solely.
There was a clear demand for the ability to be able to share files with others. Sometimes, you wanted to share files with someone who didn't have the same hardware you did.
By making software that filled THAT void, I think Microsoft was able to conquor. The Amiga was a fascinating product, and still is, to a certain extent, but I don't believe that Marketing (at least not solely) was its death...
You sure about that? This is really just to be argumentative, and cause I'm just that bored, but if you scream "M4Y L1NK N4K3D 4N0 P3TR1F13D D00D" are you giving up anonymity? I know that you're making yourself known, but online at least, you can make yourself known and still remain anonymous. I mean, despite how much you yell and rave at a bookstore, nobody's checking your ID right? Nobody knows anything more about you than what they did, except now they know you're a froot loop. Anyway, I dunno if I'm agreeing or arguing, so I'll drop it.
Isn't that funny... My proxy won't let me get to it... Oh well. Sorry.
Maybe it's not such a bad idea (please, don't flame yet). Wouldn't it be the (relative) end of spam? If you can't send an email without someone knowing EXACTLY who you are, it makes it easier for people to relieve that aggravation. Really, can you go to the library and get all the books you want without them knowing who you are? No...
The difference, is that you can go to a bookstore, purchase the books with cash, and retain (for the most part) anonymity.
The only reason that this notion is being entertained, is because of cracking attempts, and website defacements, in which they can't track down the perpetrators.
Does somebody really need to be able to identify me individually, with my certificate, in order for me to view the latest sports scores? Or check and see what's funny on Segfault? I don't think so.
And exactly how is this going to be prevented from being used in some marketing scheme. Surely it has to be, otherwise, what's the point? It can't be that easy.
Regardless of what system they come up with, short of quantum crypto it's going to be forgeable. Just depends on how much time is invested.
Is this a good idea? probably. Is it a bad idea, yes... It's not often I take two sides of an issue, but each side has its merits. Just wish I didn't have to give up my anonymity to receive them.
If it offends you so much, ignore it, or better yet, filter it
Ordinarily I would agree with this. However, even though I may not be of his opinion, I, and surely the people that run this place, would really like to hear it.
By offering commentary, even negative commentary, it adds to the "debatedness" of the site. I get extraordinarily upset when people are bashed for posting views "against the flow". Granted, I am not an advocate of "Y0u 5uck D0oD" posts, but at the same time, the post that started this thread is a valuable one.
While it would be very easy for him to ignore this article, and not make any commentary whatsoever, it is important that people know his opinion. Seriously, what if the majority share his opinion??? Certainly that should be taken into consideration the next time an article of this nature is being taken into consideration.
If there are items I don't feel I need to comment on, I don't, but there are very few circumstances in which I'd rather it weren't available, no matter how "stupid" or "idiotic".
To coin an ooooold phrase, "I may not like what you have to say, but I'd give my life for you to be able to say it." This is true even more in which the creators of the site ACTUALLY participate in its discussion, and its creations. Consider it feedback, consider it rights to one man's opinion, but don't consider it garbage.
Okay, here's the scoop... Babelfish can't do a thing with it, neither can Translator, so either, that's not Spanish, or ummmm... well, I dunno what else. Somebody help?
First and foremost, let me say this... I respect Bruce Perens. I respect everything (almost) that he has done for us, and the community. I respect Bruce Perens...
There, now that that's out of the way... I think, honestly, that if Bruce REALLY wanted what he said to be private, it would have been. If he didn't want people other than those intended to find out, he would have been able to do so.
As mentioned above, no open forum is PRIVATE, and to even think anything of the like is stupid. Granted a lot of our forms of PRIVATE comm aren't as private as we'd like them to be, but they're also not open.
If I wanted my wife to see some naked pictures of myself that I took (NO, that's never happened), I wouldn't put them in an open forum, and invite her there, cause that would be silly. I would send her an email with it attached. Yes, still not secure, but still a lot better.
Secondly, While I do agree with what was said concerning the openness of the forum in which it was posted, I almost feel like some sort of paparazzi agent.
I'm not a fan of National Enquirer, and if I were famous, I'm sure I'd be even less. I don't think that it makes sense to follow someone around until they do something "newsworthy". Seriously, Bruce is "newsworthy" all the time, he doesn't have to make a mistake to be on Slashdot, we all know this.
I understand that he's in the public eye, and that eye is heavily focussed on him, as it should be, but the original comment, at least in my opinion, wasn't newsworthy. It was paparazzi-ish (that a word?) at best. It wasn't dubbed as a press-release, it wasn't a "Statement" in the sense of which I'm thinking.
What happened was, he was a little too free when someone was watching. Plain and simply.
With great power comes great responsibility Bruce, and yes, you'd probably do just a little better to keep that more in the forefront of your mind, but at the same time, I surely do sympathize. I do FAR too many stupid things in public.
There won't be an addendum to the addendum. Somewhere in the article, can't remember where, either at the top or the bottom, it claims that there will be no further addendums to this, unless something of educational relevancy comes up. So, as long as we don't do anything educational (ie: crack site and deface it with the theory of relativity), we ought to be safe... : )
Yeah, I would love to go to my site too. I've posted a mirror to the H4X0R'5 Guide To Slashdot page, but due to structure, can't get all the rest over there. Plus, they require .html files, and all my links are .htm. Anyway, if you still wanna check out the H4X0R'5 Guide To Slashdot, the url is http://geocities.com/issue9mm/index.html. Have fun.
This reply intended solely for the boost of Mr. Carmack's ego.
John, I just wanted to say that I felt honored to be replied to by such an esteemed character. I've been a long time admirer of your work (I know, cheesy ain't it?), and just wanted to let you know that. Again, I am honored.
Thanks...
Okay, suffice it to say, my brain isn't at all suited for this type of information, so feel more than free to correct all the mistakes I'm about to make.
Also, be patient, I'm still trying to soak up the article...
Okay, wasn't it the Third Law of Thermodynamics that stated that eventually all motion would slow to a stop, and (at least in my interpretation) all systems would eventually just, spin down? Isn't this "cosmological constant" in complete opposition to that theory? It seems to me, and always has seemed to me, that things slow down, each orbiting object crashes into the object it's orbiting, ie: moon crashes into earth, earth crashes into sun, sun crashes into whatever it's orbiting, etc, until everything was back at one point in the universe, until we had another big bang...
Given that (probably fscked up) derivation on a principle, how does this work if we're constantly moving further away from the object we came from? Does this mean that if everything does end back up all in one place that it will be different place? Or that we will not ever be pulled back into one place?
Help?
The first I heard of Toy Story 2 was here at the office, maybe 2 weeks ago, when they were offering free passes to a preview showing. Granted, I wasn't looking for it, and I spend so little time with the television on anymore, I may have missed the worlds biggest marketing hype.
However, as quickly as I was there to see it, and impressed as I was, had I heard ANYthing about the movie, I would remember. All I got? Zero, Zip, Zilch, and coming in one hour too late to cash in on the free passes given out here at work... Sad, sad day.
I saw the movie Thanksgiving night, after I got off of work, and, as the general consensus goes, was wowed outta my seat on more than one occasion. Needless to say, I was happy... Happy that Disney could do a decent sequel, Happier that they didn't JUST do a decent sequel, but in my opinion a better movie than the original...
My major disappointment came in that I had to see it in a regular theater, and not in one of the six "digital" theaters that they first debuted in. Now THAT would have made it monumental. Especially with their (from what I hear) extensive use of TI's Digital Projection System...
There's another comment floating around here wanting to know what kind of hardware they're using to achieve all this great stuff, and I'd like to know as well. My guess is that they're probably using a lot of _Renderman_ on the software side (which I could be mistaken about), but am still curious as to their development platform(s), and the hardware that they're using to make all of this magic...
He obviously didn't read the H4X0R'5 Guide To Slashdot, as instructed to do in my .sig... Oh well.
Well, before you start taking anything I say to heart, let me preface with this. I don't know. I personally don't like to run "low-cost" products, for the very reason that, I can wait a little while, stay behind the times about 6 - 9 months or so, and get what I actually want, but a little slower.
For example, right now, I'm running a meager PII 350. Why don't I upgrade? Well, I've considered it, but the 350 I have now is doing everything I need it to, at exactly the speed I need. Yes, I could use faster, but I don't need faster. Everything basically works transparently, without me having to sit and wait too much while things happen. They just happen.
When things stop happening so smoothly, and/or when I start having to wait longer than what I do now, and start considering my hardware as obsolete, I'll upgrade. No, I won't upgrade to a PIII 550, or Athlon 600, but if I were to upgrade now, I'd get a PII450, for about $150.
I think the reason that most people go with these, is because, on a Wintel based machine, applications are so often ported with the "latest hardware" in mind. Software vendors try and make use of the latest and greatest processor and video card, instead of optimizing the code that they have, to make it more widely usable. Once a "user" reaches this point, in which they have to upgrade, they want something new, but don't want to have to pay for it. Also, I think they fall prey to the "megahertz war", in which they see a PII 400 and a Celeron 400, and the price difference, without knowing that a celeron 400 actually runs more like a PII 333 (just an example), and that they could pick up that PII 333 for about the same cost as a budget processor, and not have a budget processor.
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with low-end procs, I like the availability, and there are times when they are feasible for me to implement in my company. I simply prefer something designed with a slightly higher end in mind, and am not all that swayed if it's 6 months behind.
Just to reiterate, I don't know. So none of the information here has any factual basis. Just my take on the matter. If I'm wrong, lemme know.
Timna will combine a Pentium processor core developed specifically for this low-cost market with a graphics engine and memory controller. By combining these three functions into a single chip, Intel says it will lower PC makers' overall component costs and reduce the size of the motherboard needed for Timna-based a system,
Isn't this the path that Cyrix tried to take? Where are they now? Having worked in the past as a hardware tech for a hardware support firm, all the computers that had the Cyrix chips offering this type of integration experienced tons of problems based solely on the chip, its chipset, and its integration.
You would think that we would have learned a little bit from others that have tried it.
Also, since it's going to be so integrated, does that also mean integrated to the board? We all know what that's going to do for upgradeability, but your average Joe Blow on the street isn't. How many people are they going to have to tell, "We're sorry, but you just can't upgrade that computer... " In a market that has positioned itself MORE towards upgradeability, and more away from proprietary components, can this be a good move?
I understand that sacrifices must be made for PCs that cheap, but upgradeability should be the last, opting to lose performance over upgradeability...
BR But that's just me.
Of all the things to be worried about on Y2K, the power isn't one of them. I've watched the Trigger Effect, and I know how things CAN go. What worries me the most, is not the lack of power, heat, air, or anything else. It's the fear of Y2K that movies like this are propagating.
Every natural disaster, there's a select few who plan to take advantage of it. Rodney King verdict, looters/riots, every earthquake/evacuation leaves some whacko behind with the intention to take all of his neighbors' belongings and make them his.
To sum up, what I fear about Y2k are the idiots that are PLANNING on it. Maybe some things will go down, maybe not. But the people who've been planning to riot root and rob for the past six months, well, who's to say that the power staying on is gonna stop them?
Maybe there ought to have been more forethought in the making of this movie. I don't condone censorship, but its creators maybe ought to have thought better than to overdramatize a moment that's already going to have at least a few people in a far overdramatic state as it is.
Furthermore, why do they feel the need to make a movie/show on something that MIGHT happen? It's only speculation. Yes, I know that's what most movies are made of, but I can't see this having a good effect on the generally uneducated populace.
I'm done.
Disclaimer: I apologize beforehand for the cynicism you are about to read. My opinions are based on and exceeded solely by my ignorance of the situation.
Okay, maybe it's just me, but how is it news if it's decades behind? I don't see it.
the spacecraft appeared to resemble the Apollo series of capsules launched by NASA in the US in the late 1960s.
Gee, wonder why. Can anyone say, "technology exchange"? I mean really, doesn't it seem just a tad fishy to anyone other than myself that 10 years after we send up Apollo, after having advanced beyond that, that the Chinese re-invent the damn thing just after our texchange?
How is this news?
*sarcasm on*
In recent news today, the Chinese have a new TV show, called Sassame Street, featuring characters "slightly resembling" those of our own Sesame Street. The Chinese on the other hand dispute those claims, stating that "Bag Bird + Cookie Demon" were "designed and manufactured by Chinese scientists".
*end sarcasm*
*end comment*
Aaron said it was unlikely that proposal would be approved at the upcoming ministerial meeting, but he was optimistic an agreement could be reached before the next WTO ministerial meeting in three years.
Is it just me, or should maybe the World Trade Organization hold ministerial meetings just a tad more often than every three years? Don't get me wrong, I support their 'wait-and-see' approach, as it is almost a first in good government strategy. Almost always this approach is used exactly when it doesn't need to be by governments. But it's rather obvious they've taken to sticking their nose into internet trade, and if for no other reason than that, they should meet more often.
Who can keep up with something as fast-paced as the internet, and yet choose to meet that seldom?
I guess I may have phrased my question wrong. Let me try again.(ahem)
"Does convincing a bunch of stockholders and investors that RedHat is going to turn a profit, mean that RedHat is going to turn a profit?" Actually, even my rephrasing of the question is bad. My thinking is, that investors are just jumping on the band-wagon, and I don't mind that, I really don't. But from 8 bucks to 100+, seems rather overwhelming.
Are they jumping on the bandwagon, and possibly (at least in my estimation) being "not-so-technically-sound", are they reacting to hype? Yes the support for Intel 64-bit procs is good, yes a journalling file system is good, but still, this isn't exactly a revolutionary thing, at least not to me. But is it to them??? I dunno...
In summation, I've done a terrible job of asking my question, but not knowing anything of investing, or big business money, I'm doing my very best.
Thanks...