Perhaps we should ban unreasonable people who get bent out of shape when the person on the other line says "could you repeat that please - I'm driving and had to focus on a tricky bit for a second".
Alternatively, how about a mute button next to the thumb on the steering wheel that also sends a signal to the other caller that's clearly recognizable as "I'm in traffic - just a second." (for cars with hands-free bluetooth built in, at least). As a bonus, it's a way to defuse a volatile conversation that got out of hand. Think of the relationships that could be saved with this.
Bad idea. The road rage induced assault rate would go up in response to the person at the red light that "just had to finish this text real quick" before driving after the light changed.
Make it legal to pull off on the shoulder anywhere (not just at the rapidly-diminishing-due-to-budget-cuts rest stops) or to briefly park in a no parking zone - that might work. But a red light? Hell no.
I kind of made that statement from the perspective of someone experiencing these characters for the first time through the film. Shepherd Book was in the film so short a time, I couldn't even remember whether he actually had any screen time before the death scene. It happened so early on that anyone not already familiar with him through the series wouldn't even know he was a major character (or even who he is, really). The second death had more impact since it involved a character the view actually had time to get acquainted with. (Also that was a typo - my mind was thinking "one of the major characters" and I was attempting to type "killing off".)
Too bad that the Serenity movie suffered the problem of many post show movies. I thought it was not good. As much as I loved the show but[sic] the movie simply was not the show anymore to me. The actors partially were not into the role anymore it seemed to me, the script did not have the vibe that I liked of the shows anymore, and to the worst, the part of Morena Baccarin (which was my favorite on the show) was cut down to a minimum and she was not able to get into her role anymore it seemed to me. Classical fate of a post show movie. I would have loved to see Firefly live more than one movie, but the movie simply did not cut it to justify another one.
There, (partially) fixed that for you. Be careful when you throw around your personal opinions as if they were absolutes - you're not speaking for everyone.
From what I recall at the time and can gather from recent internet searching and reading, Serenity was in fact considered a decent movie, though perhaps not a great one. It certainly doesn't seem to be "not good" in the sense that it was poorly crafted, ineptly executed, riddled with cliches or weakly plotted in the same way other movies are considered bad (eg. Elektra, Daredevil (theatrical release), Green Lantern, Ghost Rider, Avatar). It's lack of massive success had more to do with the fact that despite a valiant advertising campaign, only those already familiar with it really knew what it was about and thus had a reason to go see it. Also, since it was basically wrapping up loose ends left over after the series was canceled, it felt more like a conclusion than a jumping off point for a new franchise. Nothing says "ending" like killing one a major character. I bet many people got the same sense from it that they would if reading the last book in a series - the sense that they are coming in at the end. That doesn't exactly provide the motivation to run and tell your friends about this great new series they should get invested in. I also think that it catered to specific tastes, and many people were just not into that kind of thing at the time, good film or not.
Hell, I've tested vacuum tubes down at the drug store too. Son, is that you?:-)
Very likely many people of your generation and younger have done the same thing if they own a tube guitar amplifier (or audiophile stereo equipment). After the tube testers disappeared from drugstores, you could still test them at Radio Shack (and buy replacements too). No more - now you just order a replacement set on the internet.
Gentoo sounds much less painful, since it's nicely automated. But probably less fun since you don't generally need to modify sources to get things working the way they need to.
1. Please try again with a coherent critique of Linux security rather than a spittle spraying rant. I might read it and take it seriously. 2. You seem to have an agenda here, and have convinced yourself that it is validated. Good for you (pat on head). 3. Schadenfreude is bad for your health. 4. So... what's your point exactly, and what do you expect people to do exactly if they happen to agree with whatever your point is?
Seconded. The Nook Color is close to perfect if you want to boot your own stuff without compromising the original firmware. I'm not really sure why more tablets/phones/androiddevices don't work this way.
No one claimed water doesn't hydrate, just that bottled water doesn't do anything any other fluid can't....
Review your chemistry. It's the water in those other beverages (or fluids, as you call them) that hydrates, not something else. Ounce for ounce, pure water hydrates more efficiently than water diluted with other stuff.
No more disgusting than gravy/cheese curds or mayonnaise on french fries. People like what they like. I personally put Sriracha sauce (Huy Fong), Chili Garlic Sauce (also Huy Fong), Frank's Red Hot/Tabasco or salsa on just about anything edible, sometimes to make things edible. Not all at once, whichever seems right for the dish in question. Ketchup on pizza could be good with the right toppings. Don't knock it till you try it.
Removing code often involves creating new code. Such as the code which makes it possible for the game to operate without a component it previously made use of.
I wouldn't call that a "replacement algorithm" any more than removing a window and closing the resulting hole in the wall is a "replacement window" even though there is new material (the stuff I used to close the hole in the wall)
That said, OP is reading a lot of detail into that tweet.
Yes, manipulating source code to remove a major chunk of functionality might involve writing a bit of code that wasn't there before, if you want to get really picky (if not outright pedantic) about it.
But nobody says they will write *new code* when they intend to rip out a major piece of functionality and apply some minor refactoring to the codebase. Saying "I'm going to write new code" implies an intent to replace or re-implement, not remove. It is possible JC was just being sloppy with his language, but I don't buy that - it's extremely out of character. He's probably just going to fall back to one of the approaches that worked before this more efficient approach came to him. Coders being who they are, he may want to design yet another way to solve the problem, since that's more fun.
Really? Those are some wild assumptions you are making. It seems to me more like id is acting (rationally) in their own self interest, because releasing patented code could get THEM (id) in trouble. This is clearly a measure meant to eliminate any liability to the company. It's also not at all clear that they are allowed to release the patented code without permission from the patent holder, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
That's why I say just remove it and let the community provide an implementation. Once the code drops, the hastily written code to get around the patent is likely to get rewritten again anyhow. Why waste time on that?
Just remove it. While it was a clever optimization for its time, on current hardware it is unnecessary.
This is what JC's tweet suggests he is doing, not re-writing it.
I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion, since writing new code isn't the same as just removing code.
The tweet in question (emphasis mine): "Lawyers are still skittish about the patent issue around "Carmack's reverse", so I am going to write some new code for the doom3 release."
Remove the infringing code save for function stubs, document the expected behavior (perhaps with some examples of input/return values useable for test-driven design) and let the community rewrite it. id doesn't have to worry about releasing patent-infringing code, and the community gets a chance to come up with a better solution.
Re:The culprit is gonna be associated with Android
on
Siri Protocol Cracked
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure you really understand what source code is. The ICS source release has nothing to do with developers who write apps that use the Siri protocol. Nothing. At. All.
It seems to me that the original poster has already seen the peak of his interest come and go. That's the problem. The challenge is now two-fold: find something that piques his interest, and once piqued, figure out how to sustain it.
And one is no less of a fool for making it as easy as possible to steal by leaving the car unlocked. A car is no less stolen because it was illegal to do so.
Here are a few variants to illustrate the fallacy of your thinking:
"Yes, I know doors to my house can be locked. Yes, I have them locked. But the question is whether we should be forced to lock our doors if we don't want to be stolen from."
Or the ever popular car analogy:
"Yes, I know my car can be locked. Yes, I have my car locked. But the question is whether we should be forced to lock our cars if we don't want them to be stolen."
Simply wanting your personal habits/information or belongings to be secure and thinking that others (with different motivations and self-interests) to honor that is a bit naive. It's your responsibility to protect that which is yours, not those from whom you wish to protect it.
So what? It's an evolutionary dead end, as far as I can tell. I'm not sure that "catch up" has much meaning in a "you're extinct and I'm growing exponentially" context. There is an unofficial port of Android for the N900, though, so you might be able to stave off extinction for a short time.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps we should ban unreasonable people who get bent out of shape when the person on the other line says "could you repeat that please - I'm driving and had to focus on a tricky bit for a second".
Alternatively, how about a mute button next to the thumb on the steering wheel that also sends a signal to the other caller that's clearly recognizable as "I'm in traffic - just a second." (for cars with hands-free bluetooth built in, at least). As a bonus, it's a way to defuse a volatile conversation that got out of hand. Think of the relationships that could be saved with this.
Bad idea. The road rage induced assault rate would go up in response to the person at the red light that "just had to finish this text real quick" before driving after the light changed.
Make it legal to pull off on the shoulder anywhere (not just at the rapidly-diminishing-due-to-budget-cuts rest stops) or to briefly park in a no parking zone - that might work. But a red light? Hell no.
I kind of made that statement from the perspective of someone experiencing these characters for the first time through the film. Shepherd Book was in the film so short a time, I couldn't even remember whether he actually had any screen time before the death scene. It happened so early on that anyone not already familiar with him through the series wouldn't even know he was a major character (or even who he is, really). The second death had more impact since it involved a character the view actually had time to get acquainted with. (Also that was a typo - my mind was thinking "one of the major characters" and I was attempting to type "killing off".)
Too bad that the Serenity movie suffered the problem of many post show movies. I thought it was not good. As much as I loved the show but[sic] the movie simply was not the show anymore to me. The actors partially were not into the role anymore it seemed to me, the script did not have the vibe that I liked of the shows anymore, and to the worst, the part of Morena Baccarin (which was my favorite on the show) was cut down to a minimum and she was not able to get into her role anymore it seemed to me.
Classical fate of a post show movie.
I would have loved to see Firefly live more than one movie, but the movie simply did not cut it to justify another one.
There, (partially) fixed that for you. Be careful when you throw around your personal opinions as if they were absolutes - you're not speaking for everyone.
From what I recall at the time and can gather from recent internet searching and reading, Serenity was in fact considered a decent movie, though perhaps not a great one. It certainly doesn't seem to be "not good" in the sense that it was poorly crafted, ineptly executed, riddled with cliches or weakly plotted in the same way other movies are considered bad (eg. Elektra, Daredevil (theatrical release), Green Lantern, Ghost Rider, Avatar). It's lack of massive success had more to do with the fact that despite a valiant advertising campaign, only those already familiar with it really knew what it was about and thus had a reason to go see it. Also, since it was basically wrapping up loose ends left over after the series was canceled, it felt more like a conclusion than a jumping off point for a new franchise. Nothing says "ending" like killing one a major character. I bet many people got the same sense from it that they would if reading the last book in a series - the sense that they are coming in at the end. That doesn't exactly provide the motivation to run and tell your friends about this great new series they should get invested in. I also think that it catered to specific tastes, and many people were just not into that kind of thing at the time, good film or not.
Hell, I've tested vacuum tubes down at the drug store too. Son, is that you? :-)
Very likely many people of your generation and younger have done the same thing if they own a tube guitar amplifier (or audiophile stereo equipment). After the tube testers disappeared from drugstores, you could still test them at Radio Shack (and buy replacements too). No more - now you just order a replacement set on the internet.
Gentoo sounds much less painful, since it's nicely automated. But probably less fun since you don't generally need to modify sources to get things working the way they need to.
1. Please try again with a coherent critique of Linux security rather than a spittle spraying rant. I might read it and take it seriously. ... what's your point exactly, and what do you expect people to do exactly if they happen to agree with whatever your point is?
2. You seem to have an agenda here, and have convinced yourself that it is validated. Good for you (pat on head).
3. Schadenfreude is bad for your health.
4. So
Yeah, I think that's what Nefarious Wheel was alluding to.
Or a realist. What vested interest of yours is threatened by failing to implement this new bill?
Seconded. The Nook Color is close to perfect if you want to boot your own stuff without compromising the original firmware. I'm not really sure why more tablets/phones/androiddevices don't work this way.
No one claimed water doesn't hydrate, just that bottled water doesn't do anything any other fluid can't....
Review your chemistry. It's the water in those other beverages (or fluids, as you call them) that hydrates, not something else. Ounce for ounce, pure water hydrates more efficiently than water diluted with other stuff.
No more disgusting than gravy/cheese curds or mayonnaise on french fries. People like what they like. I personally put Sriracha sauce (Huy Fong), Chili Garlic Sauce (also Huy Fong), Frank's Red Hot/Tabasco or salsa on just about anything edible, sometimes to make things edible. Not all at once, whichever seems right for the dish in question. Ketchup on pizza could be good with the right toppings. Don't knock it till you try it.
Because the beeping sound is *really* annoying.
Rimshot
Removing code often involves creating new code. Such as the code which makes it possible for the game to operate without a component it previously made use of.
I wouldn't call that a "replacement algorithm" any more than removing a window and closing the resulting hole in the wall is a "replacement window" even though there is new material (the stuff I used to close the hole in the wall)
That said, OP is reading a lot of detail into that tweet.
Yes, manipulating source code to remove a major chunk of functionality might involve writing a bit of code that wasn't there before, if you want to get really picky (if not outright pedantic) about it.
But nobody says they will write *new code* when they intend to rip out a major piece of functionality and apply some minor refactoring to the codebase. Saying "I'm going to write new code" implies an intent to replace or re-implement, not remove. It is possible JC was just being sloppy with his language, but I don't buy that - it's extremely out of character. He's probably just going to fall back to one of the approaches that worked before this more efficient approach came to him. Coders being who they are, he may want to design yet another way to solve the problem, since that's more fun.
Really? Those are some wild assumptions you are making. It seems to me more like id is acting (rationally) in their own self interest, because releasing patented code could get THEM (id) in trouble. This is clearly a measure meant to eliminate any liability to the company. It's also not at all clear that they are allowed to release the patented code without permission from the patent holder, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
That's why I say just remove it and let the community provide an implementation. Once the code drops, the hastily written code to get around the patent is likely to get rewritten again anyhow. Why waste time on that?
Just remove it. While it was a clever optimization for its time, on current hardware it is unnecessary.
This is what JC's tweet suggests he is doing, not re-writing it.
I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion, since writing new code isn't the same as just removing code.
The tweet in question (emphasis mine): "Lawyers are still skittish about the patent issue around "Carmack's reverse", so I am going to write some new code for the doom3 release."
Remove the infringing code save for function stubs, document the expected behavior (perhaps with some examples of input/return values useable for test-driven design) and let the community rewrite it. id doesn't have to worry about releasing patent-infringing code, and the community gets a chance to come up with a better solution.
I'm not sure you really understand what source code is. The ICS source release has nothing to do with developers who write apps that use the Siri protocol. Nothing. At. All.
but find one that peaks your interest
It seems to me that the original poster has already seen the peak of his interest come and go. That's the problem. The challenge is now two-fold: find something that piques his interest, and once piqued, figure out how to sustain it.
The End Of The World As We Know It!
And I Feel Fine.
And one is no less of a fool for making it as easy as possible to steal by leaving the car unlocked. A car is no less stolen because it was illegal to do so.
Here are a few variants to illustrate the fallacy of your thinking:
"Yes, I know doors to my house can be locked. Yes, I have them locked. But the question is whether we should be forced to lock our doors if we don't want to be stolen from."
Or the ever popular car analogy:
"Yes, I know my car can be locked. Yes, I have my car locked. But the question is whether we should be forced to lock our cars if we don't want them to be stolen."
Simply wanting your personal habits/information or belongings to be secure and thinking that others (with different motivations and self-interests) to honor that is a bit naive. It's your responsibility to protect that which is yours, not those from whom you wish to protect it.
Is that you, Steve Martin*?
* Thought nobody would remember, eh Tsingi?
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/stevemarti163457.html
So what? It's an evolutionary dead end, as far as I can tell. I'm not sure that "catch up" has much meaning in a "you're extinct and I'm growing exponentially" context. There is an unofficial port of Android for the N900, though, so you might be able to stave off extinction for a short time.
Have you? Thought not.