Comment Re:Here's an idea! (Score 1) 203
Retailers today are not any smarter than they were then.
Smarter or not, they won't fall for the same scam again.
Retailers today are not any smarter than they were then.
Smarter or not, they won't fall for the same scam again.
it isn't a cite at all, and you're defending that it is a cite
It isn't properly cited/tagged, but otherwise it is cited.
The list of wikipedia pages that supposedly cite ACM articles is a clear lie
The page makes no such claims, and *I* certainly never referred to it as conclusive document listing cites of ACM publications. You're arguing against something you imagined, and furthermore, something that is completely and totally besides the point of this discussion.
you accuse "bias and/or unwillingness to read TFA," you mean the paywalled article, right?
No, just the WP article. You clearly just found the first external link, and failed to see the part where it is cited.
I checked ONE and it was a lie.
No, it wasn't. It might not have been what you wanted/expected to find, but you're still completely wrong in your claim.
Check first and make sure I accidentally clicked the only lie, before you defend the list on that basis
Completely straw man. Changing the discussion to some perceived flaw in one source of info to distract from the topic. I have not, and never will "defend the list". It is insignificant. You're the one spouting a lot of nonsense.
I suspect, based on other comments here, that this is a typical sort of exchange a person should be prepared to be subjected to whenever discussing the ACM with its few fans.
I have never had any connection to the ACM. I just figured I could very quickly find a bit of objective info to give the discussion some context. You've generously turned it into a lot of pointless distraction and insane rants.
As a researcher in brain computer interfaces (BCI), I have to disagree with the more literal interpretation of your statement that the best games link your brain with pure cerebral responses to gameplay.
Slashdot... it's a lot like Central Park... except PhDs may stop by at any time to painstakingly pick-apart the logical and factual errors in the rant of the crazy homeless guy that's yelling at the pigeons.
Games are not selling because they were overall fucking terrible. Stores lose a ton of money on having merchandise they couldn't sell.
No, stores bought a bunch of fucking terrible games that wouldn't sell, because it was common practice that unsold units could be returned to the manufacturer for refund, so they didn't expect any downside. A ton of sham game companies sprung up over-night, unloaded a ton of merchandise on toy stores, cashed the check, and then closed-up shop before anybody asked about returns.
The stores set themselves up for a failure, and the video game industry was only involved because it was the hot market at the time... kinda like smartphones today.
The last time sharing was the norm, it caused the entire industry to collapse.
It was retailers falling for the stupid scams, that caused the collapse.
Nintendo, as it turns out, were the ones who led the industry's recovery, largely by instituting strict third party licensing. Sid Meier considers the Nintendo "Seal of Quality" one of the three most important innovations in gaming history because of the impact that it had.
Yes, and it was important at the time, when people had very little confidence in the quality of games, games were expensive, and there were no magazines doing reviews, services that allowed gamer rentals, etc., etc.
IMHO, whatever high standards Nintendo may have set in the 80s, were gone in one fell swoop, with the flood of crap games on the PSX.
And PC games never had a central authority, yet they did just fine.
With the Wii they realized they couldn't keep up with the PS and Xbox.
They don't try (at all) to keep up on raw benchmark-type specs. That helps them sell their consoles at a profit instead of a loss. And yet the Wii really caught on, and looked like it was going to take over the world. The pundits were talking non-stop about how genius Nintendo was... until the Kinect and Move were rushed to market in response, and took the wind out of Nintendo's sales.
Instead of trying to get people to buy their consoles for their games they should switch to just making games.
Because that has worked out so incredibly well for Sega over the past decade???
You might as well say that all 3 should pack it in, and just make games for PCs and smartphones/tablets.
Why stick with VMS when you can get the same Dave Cutler design by rotating everything one letter forward, forming the WNT at the core of Windows Server?
And when you want a SpaceX rocket, why not go buy a Tesla car instead?
I am surprised that people still want to use OpenVMS.
OpenVMS is the most mature microkernel OS out there. You can have flaky hardware, flaky drivers, flaky software, and it'll just keep running perfectly, restarting whatever services as need, as often as needed. You can't make it panic.
It also has more advanced clustering than most people believe exists... A server's full state is replicated in real-time, so a hardware failure doesn't even need to be handled by applications, they just think everything has been running for the past decade...
OpenVMS has ridiculous uptimes, over a decade, even on heavily utilized systems. Far longer than anything else out there.
cron. And it turns out, it has an ACM link in the external links, but it does NOT cite an ACM article, properly or otherwise
Yes, it does cite an ACM article from the late 70s, as the inspiration for improved versions of crond, which performed better, and were extended to all system users, not just root as early crond did.
And is the link related to cron? I'm going with no, because it doesn't sound related
That's just your own bias and/or unwillingness to read TFA.
"Robert Brown, reviewing this [ACM] article, [...] created an implementation [...] and this multi-user cron went into use at Purdue in late 1979."
It seems that rather than all those wiki pages citing ACM publications, somebody from ACM has spammed all those articles with unrelated links.
You checked on ONE out of hundreds, completely misunderstood everything about it, and are jumping to a conclusion that requires paranoid conspiracy fantasies.
How many Slashdot stories are untrue? Does anyone have any idea?
Here's a quick list of Wikipedia articles which probably cite ACM publications:
It depends on what you mean by work station usage and what is important to you.
I now always build my machines to be as silent as possible, even if it means a significant sacrifice to horsepower as I have a machine filled with fans for heavy lifting in my garage.
I also need limited storage in my workstation so it always gets an SSD. At the moment I am using the amd FM2 integrated GPU systems for my work stations. Never going to set the gaming world on fire and will lose in performance to an Intel I7. But you can build a ready to go machine for peanuts.
They have been the same physical layout but their aerodynamic profile isn't what this competition is designed to challenge. What they want to challenge is the electrical system. How much power can your cells generate, how efficiently can you transfer that power to your motor, how versatile is the motor and how well can you store that power for when the sun isn't as bright.
These aspects have continued to develop every year.
MotoGP and World SuperBike. The rules aren't really designed to slow the bikes down. It was supposedly to keep the costs down but that hasn't happened. It has had the effect of pushing a lot of the development into materials.
Recent motogp changes that I don't like include:
Control tyres - you used to have michelin, dunlop and bridgestone developing tyres to suit the characterestics of a particular bike. Because the tyres had different wear characteristics you saw different tyres perform better on different tracks. They went all Bridgestone first and are going all Michelin in 2016.
Engine design - the requirement that the engines not be over square (ie the cylinder bore must not exceed the piston stroke). This basically acts as a rev limiter without going to crazy expensive materials. It also means that in some aspects the engines are behind modern road bikes as several road bikes have over square engines as they produce higher top power
Fuel limits - the fuel limits have been going down over time. This has the effect of capping power output across a race. It means you have to design a bike to carry more speed all the time. It actually makes the motogp act more like the smaller classes where corner speed is king. Go back to the 500cc 2 stroke era and you had bikes that sacrificed handling for crazy power. What they lost in the corners they made up in the straights (see screamer vs big bang engine design in the Honda NSR 500 for an example internal to one manufacturer)
To be fair though there have been some huge jumps in electronics. Things like the way the Honda cuts the ignition on upshifts so that the power of the engine doesn't cause micro spins of the back wheel giving them a couple of 10ths a lap was very cool. The launch control technology is also amazing (if you want to see what happens when you think your traction control is on when it is not search for Lorenzo practice highside)
The big problem going forward is that the owners of MotoGP have managed to acquire the rights to WSBK and the first thing they have done is dumb down the bikes so there is a bigger gap between the motogp and the WSBK.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
