Pascal. It was a wonderful language. It worked well. It was easy to use also with low level stuff. Wirth developed Modula, then Oberon. These were so radical changes that Pascal was killed.
Is this opinion or somehow provable fact? I'm just curious because
a) Pascal isn't dead. Delphi uses Object Pascal and it has a large developer base. I would hazard to guess a larger user base than Ruby or Eiffel or the like, and I wouldn't call them dead.
b) How many freaking variants of c/c++ do we have? ObjectiveC, C#, C with Classes, C++, so on and so forth. Just go to http://www.levenez.com/lang/history.html and you'll see. I think the better argument for Pascal not being the big cheese (like C/C++) is that there had to be a winner and a loser. Call it the Anthropic C principle if you like;)
Actually, I think I've heard them mention that they DO maintain a different set of armor for each combination of race/gender. Don't have a source for that, unfortunately.
I don't think you understand what this word "wish" means. I wish I had a million dollars. I don't. Yes, I am happy with the amount of money I have. I wish I had a nice fancy car. I don't. But I don't get bent out of shape about that, either. There are costs associated with actually getting these things. For example, I wish I was buff, but am not willing to spend a significant portion of my life to achieve and maintain said buffness when that time could be spent on other activities that will provide me with more overall satisfaction. Second example, I wish I had a million dollars, but I'm not willing to spend a significant portion of my life to get this money (legall or illegally).
Much like I wish I had a machine with several gigs of RAM and some badass processors, as it would help me with a problem I am working on. However, it's just not worth it overall.
If I can't wish for these things, what's the point of having a word like "wish" in the first place? I could possibly understand your response if I had said "want". While they have very similar meanings, "want" usually implies a stronger need and an inclination to pursue this need. Like the phrase "how much do you want it?".
It's an okay explanation, but very shortsighted. The first one says "we are concentrating on features that players will notice right away". Except since there are such a limited combination of features, there are already scads of each combination running around, so you don't notice any of them. The second one seems to be a bit of a copout. With the millions they rake in from this game, couldn't they develop a modelling system that would let the animations work on customized models? Again, they say these animations are geared towards "distinct and special." But since everyone of that type does the same animation, they are exactly NOT distinct and special.
Even when I worked out regularly, I never had a physique like that. Nor do most people who don't make their #1 priority their muscles. Which was my entire point. Now crawl back under your bridge.
Yeah, I agree, it blows. Just wanted to say that while ClearType was developed for LCDs, it actually makes text look a bit better on my media pc outputting 800x7600 to a 32 inch tube.
It just goes to show how superheroically drawn the characters are drawn when the "femme" version is more muscular than most men in the real world. I know I wish I had pecs and biceps like that... Couple more before/after pics here.
I REALLY wish wow had better options for customizing the build/appearance of the players. I get so tired of seeing the same old faces and same old bodies. But I guess there's just no money in it.
Well, we're all right and we're all wrong. ClearYype is a system-wide setting, IE7 just chose to "innovate" it into an application level setting that ignored the system-wide setting. And as I said in my original post, if you turn on the system-wide ClearType, FF will get the benefit.
Likewise, real zoom is a boon for lower res displays. I have a media PC hooked up to a TV and webpages are often unusable under FF/IE6. I had never used Opera before but knew it had this feature. Worked like a charm. I agree the FF (actually, ALL browsers) should have this feature, but I imagine it's a bit of a bear to implement.
For the ACs saying it's ClearType, I don't think that's it. The poster was saying to open an IE tab in FF (it's an extension). If he's seeing the difference between IE and FF on the same system, it's not ClearType. ClearType is a global setting in the Display control panel and FF is affected by it.
I think the key to the successes you mentioned is that they seem to be treated as entirely new games. In other words, they don't just assume because it's a sequel it will be successful and skimp on the resources.
Which just increases the fees, because they have to make a lot of money on that initial connection because that's the last they'll see of you. Which makes me wonder - did these sites always have exorbitant fees? Or did they just trend that way as they started losing customers?
Actually, I don't think you should blame the editors. The PSAs probably say "don't steal music". Your beef is with the BSA and why they use the word steal.
I was actually thinking along the same lines. Unfortunately, it appears they send a hash value of the URL along with a non-hashed domain name. I think I would feel a bit more comfortable if the domain name was hashed, too. It's not foolproof, as if you were fishing around and wanting to know which users visisted "www.eff.org", you just have to generate the hash and look for it in the database. But it makes it a little harder to pull all the logs, filter for an IP and just snoop around in the listings of domain names.
Slashdot Mirror
I voted for the NAMBLA candidate. NAMBLA is all for strict limitations on government.
Is this opinion or somehow provable fact? I'm just curious because
a) Pascal isn't dead. Delphi uses Object Pascal and it has a large developer base. I would hazard to guess a larger user base than Ruby or Eiffel or the like, and I wouldn't call them dead.
b) How many freaking variants of c/c++ do we have? ObjectiveC, C#, C with Classes, C++, so on and so forth. Just go to http://www.levenez.com/lang/history.html and you'll see. I think the better argument for Pascal not being the big cheese (like C/C++) is that there had to be a winner and a loser. Call it the Anthropic C principle if you like
Hell is other domains.
I think this one's better :D
Spishak!
Interesting in that it points out a class of morons. But does anyone really think this will happen, given the consequences?
Actually, I think I've heard them mention that they DO maintain a different set of armor for each combination of race/gender. Don't have a source for that, unfortunately.
I don't think you understand what this word "wish" means. I wish I had a million dollars. I don't. Yes, I am happy with the amount of money I have. I wish I had a nice fancy car. I don't. But I don't get bent out of shape about that, either. There are costs associated with actually getting these things. For example, I wish I was buff, but am not willing to spend a significant portion of my life to achieve and maintain said buffness when that time could be spent on other activities that will provide me with more overall satisfaction. Second example, I wish I had a million dollars, but I'm not willing to spend a significant portion of my life to get this money (legall or illegally).
Much like I wish I had a machine with several gigs of RAM and some badass processors, as it would help me with a problem I am working on. However, it's just not worth it overall.
If I can't wish for these things, what's the point of having a word like "wish" in the first place? I could possibly understand your response if I had said "want". While they have very similar meanings, "want" usually implies a stronger need and an inclination to pursue this need. Like the phrase "how much do you want it?".
It's an okay explanation, but very shortsighted. The first one says "we are concentrating on features that players will notice right away". Except since there are such a limited combination of features, there are already scads of each combination running around, so you don't notice any of them. The second one seems to be a bit of a copout. With the millions they rake in from this game, couldn't they develop a modelling system that would let the animations work on customized models? Again, they say these animations are geared towards "distinct and special." But since everyone of that type does the same animation, they are exactly NOT distinct and special.
The poster could have been referring to the population distribution on the beta servers.
Even when I worked out regularly, I never had a physique like that. Nor do most people who don't make their #1 priority their muscles. Which was my entire point. Now crawl back under your bridge.
Actually, I read that comment as mocking the obliviousness of the original post. But to each his own.
One of the best MST3K lines (and one of the most useful in real life) ever!
Yeah, I agree, it blows. Just wanted to say that while ClearType was developed for LCDs, it actually makes text look a bit better on my media pc outputting 800x7600 to a 32 inch tube.
It just goes to show how superheroically drawn the characters are drawn when the "femme" version is more muscular than most men in the real world. I know I wish I had pecs and biceps like that... Couple more before/after pics here.
I REALLY wish wow had better options for customizing the build/appearance of the players. I get so tired of seeing the same old faces and same old bodies. But I guess there's just no money in it.
Well, we're all right and we're all wrong. ClearYype is a system-wide setting, IE7 just chose to "innovate" it into an application level setting that ignored the system-wide setting. And as I said in my original post, if you turn on the system-wide ClearType, FF will get the benefit.
Likewise, real zoom is a boon for lower res displays. I have a media PC hooked up to a TV and webpages are often unusable under FF/IE6. I had never used Opera before but knew it had this feature. Worked like a charm. I agree the FF (actually, ALL browsers) should have this feature, but I imagine it's a bit of a bear to implement.
For the ACs saying it's ClearType, I don't think that's it. The poster was saying to open an IE tab in FF (it's an extension). If he's seeing the difference between IE and FF on the same system, it's not ClearType. ClearType is a global setting in the Display control panel and FF is affected by it.
I think the key to the successes you mentioned is that they seem to be treated as entirely new games. In other words, they don't just assume because it's a sequel it will be successful and skimp on the resources.
Which just increases the fees, because they have to make a lot of money on that initial connection because that's the last they'll see of you. Which makes me wonder - did these sites always have exorbitant fees? Or did they just trend that way as they started losing customers?
Well, I already knew it wasn't kamen who submitted the story. Your summary was far too readable to be him/her.
*drool*
*pant*pant*pant*
*gasp*
*faint*
I think it was something about combustible mammaries...
Actually, I don't think you should blame the editors. The PSAs probably say "don't steal music". Your beef is with the BSA and why they use the word steal.
I got that one. The only hard part was getting the bloodstains out.
I was actually thinking along the same lines. Unfortunately, it appears they send a hash value of the URL along with a non-hashed domain name. I think I would feel a bit more comfortable if the domain name was hashed, too. It's not foolproof, as if you were fishing around and wanting to know which users visisted "www.eff.org", you just have to generate the hash and look for it in the database. But it makes it a little harder to pull all the logs, filter for an IP and just snoop around in the listings of domain names.