Probably highest on my wishlist for more realism in FPS games is pretty simple: add wind. While I do delight in sniping the heck out of an opposing team, the thing that gets me is that sniping is so trivially easy in these games due to the fact that no external factors really exist. If you're strafing with machine guns, you obviously lose precision, but in most of these games you just crouch or get prone and have 100% accuracy. If you add wind, I really feel like that might be enough to turn it into a more skilled game, since you COULD die instantly from anywhere, but a sniper can also give away his position without killing you.
Or how about a GPS system mounted in the back, where you could input the address you wanted to go to?
It would have the added benefit of showing you the trip you were taking and your expected arrival time; it'd also give visitors a way to make sure that the cab driver isn't taking a longer way for a higher fare.
Perhaps that's part of the compatibility... it now accurately ignores everything in tags, even if it's a legacy conditional comment.
Sure, they may have been a great tool to make cross-browser compatibility a little easier, but if makes IE8 deviate from the spec, then maybe it isn't that important to the IE8 team.
Well I guess a massive penis could be rather threatening, but how would the terrorists make use of my terrifyingly huge penis? Write a message on it? Or maybe they're just trying to get the point across that they have to ability to produce Wangs of Mass Destruction?
Where are our lawyers, on the whole*, when our own country's government violates sacred human rights?
Which "sacred human rights" you're talking about that the government is violating (which I presume to mean "is violating unconstitutionally")?
Executive suspension of habeaus corpus has been constitutional since at least as long as the Civil War and Ex parte Milligan.
Performing search without probable cause but with reasonable suspicion (as in, reasonable suspicion that you have already, or are about to, commit a crime) has been constitutional since at least as long as 1968 and Terry v. Ohio.
The point is that there is a long and storied history in the U.S. legal system of support within the legal community for the authority of the Supreme Court. And although many do not agree with their rulings, and wish the outcome was different, there is respect for the rulings that they give because they have good rationale for their verdicts, even if it's just decided on the basis of stare decisis.
In fact, the "big" time I can think of the executive violating judicial independence (FDR's court packing plan), there was such negative attention directed at the executive even though they supported the intention! That's the sort of thing that makes lawyers lash out, not recent applications of 40-140 year old Supreme Court decisions. They aren't about to get up in arms over people whose own interpretation of the Constitution does not match the history of decisions in the Supreme Court and presume that their interpretation is the one that is legally binding.
In short, cut the lawyers a break, and start the revolution your own damn self if you think the Supreme Court's wrong (or get elected President).
IANALBIATACLC (I am not a lawyer, but I am taking a Constitutional law class.)
Where does your definition of "algorithm" end, though? Patents were, AFAIK, designed exactly to allow one to receive a monopoly on the algorithm they have developed. In fact...
101. Inventions patentable
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title [35 USC 101].
Slashdot Mirror
Probably highest on my wishlist for more realism in FPS games is pretty simple: add wind. While I do delight in sniping the heck out of an opposing team, the thing that gets me is that sniping is so trivially easy in these games due to the fact that no external factors really exist. If you're strafing with machine guns, you obviously lose precision, but in most of these games you just crouch or get prone and have 100% accuracy. If you add wind, I really feel like that might be enough to turn it into a more skilled game, since you COULD die instantly from anywhere, but a sniper can also give away his position without killing you.
Who uses furlongs? It's 313,280 cubits.
Dozens of Wisconsin criminals have been seen driving in the general direction of New York.
We know.
-- The Wisconsin police
Or how about a GPS system mounted in the back, where you could input the address you wanted to go to?
It would have the added benefit of showing you the trip you were taking and your expected arrival time; it'd also give visitors a way to make sure that the cab driver isn't taking a longer way for a higher fare.
A price tag.
Perhaps that's part of the compatibility... it now accurately ignores everything in tags, even if it's a legacy conditional comment. Sure, they may have been a great tool to make cross-browser compatibility a little easier, but if makes IE8 deviate from the spec, then maybe it isn't that important to the IE8 team.
I believe you meant, Weapons of Ass Destruction.
To borrow a line from Dimitri Martin, why is it okay to say "I love kids" but not "I love 12-year-olds"?
If you think Bill Gates is the "chair"man, you must be new here...
I think you meant a brown hole...
Which "sacred human rights" you're talking about that the government is violating (which I presume to mean "is violating unconstitutionally")?
Executive suspension of habeaus corpus has been constitutional since at least as long as the Civil War and Ex parte Milligan.
Performing search without probable cause but with reasonable suspicion (as in, reasonable suspicion that you have already, or are about to, commit a crime) has been constitutional since at least as long as 1968 and Terry v. Ohio.
The point is that there is a long and storied history in the U.S. legal system of support within the legal community for the authority of the Supreme Court. And although many do not agree with their rulings, and wish the outcome was different, there is respect for the rulings that they give because they have good rationale for their verdicts, even if it's just decided on the basis of stare decisis.
In fact, the "big" time I can think of the executive violating judicial independence (FDR's court packing plan), there was such negative attention directed at the executive even though they supported the intention! That's the sort of thing that makes lawyers lash out, not recent applications of 40-140 year old Supreme Court decisions. They aren't about to get up in arms over people whose own interpretation of the Constitution does not match the history of decisions in the Supreme Court and presume that their interpretation is the one that is legally binding.
In short, cut the lawyers a break, and start the revolution your own damn self if you think the Supreme Court's wrong (or get elected President).
IANALBIATACLC (I am not a lawyer, but I am taking a Constitutional law class.)
Where does your definition of "algorithm" end, though? Patents were, AFAIK, designed exactly to allow one to receive a monopoly on the algorithm they have developed. In fact... 101. Inventions patentable Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title [35 USC 101].
It's called greedy reductionism, or "nothing buttery". It's the first line of defense for reactionary or fanatical Slashdot trolls.