In the workplace, virtualization and increasing computing power will probably lead to thin clients again. Why give everyone a $900 workstation when $250 terminals and a couple heavily virtualized servers are easier to maintain?
It's just like my COBOL teacher in college said!
No, seriously, I'm not being snarky. He really said that about eight years ago. Said he had seen it happen before and that it would happen again.
...I don't know why everyone wonders how a fictional lightsaber could work.
"How does it contain the plasma in a rod? Why doesn't it just go everywhere?"
From what I remember of the movies, I don't remember there being any mention of there not being some kind of mechanical core to a lightsaber -- almost like a control rod that extended at the same time that the rod of light did. You'd never know from watching it.
For all we know, even as works of fiction, they could just be normal swords that glow.
1) The missiles are obviously there (theoretically) to target Russian missiles launched at Europe. Of course, it's all moot -- I really haven't heard anything much in the way of success out of anti-ICBM missile defense systems in a while. That's why the presence of a station like that seems to me to be far less functional, and far more political.
2) I'm not going to speculate on what the Great Powers might do if a certain region is destabilized. I don't really think it'll make war any more likely or less likely -- if the powers that be want war, they'll get it.
3) Just because the Poles are allowing this doesn't mean they're thinking about Iran -- I'm quite sure the Poles are more worried about Russia on a day to day basis. I'm no military expert, but I'm quite sure that the presence of American placements there would help to keep Russia out of their borders, at the very least.
Honestly, do you think the common Pole sits in his house shaking in his boots, worrying about Iran? Or are they looking at what happened to regions like Chechnya and Georgia, and deciding to side with the US while there's still time? You have to admit that their agreement to the missile defense plan came at a rather suspicious time...
Well, I agree that it's not going to be pretty, and the price of oil will rise (which isn't a bad thing, to me).
However, I stand by my statement that Europe has nothing to fear militarily from Iran. No matter what the US says, it's pretty obvious that the missile shield is being put there to piss off Russia (since it's already doing so quite easily).
...just like their options for performing aggressive actions is subsequently limited knowing that any escalation of things to nuke status will lead to their assured destruction.
It all balances out. Hasn't Pakistan had nukes for years? Yet Kashmir looks pretty much like it always has, right?
Iran getting a nuke is NOT going to be the end of the world.
I really don't think Iran is going to risk total annihilation to lob a nuke at Europe.
Israel, maybe, but certainly not with a nuke.
I suspect the leadership in Iran, though certainly cruel, is not crazy enough to risk their nice little isolated theocracy being totally annihilated. If they ever get a nuke, it will sit quietly in a bunker somewhere, to be used as collateral for treaties and negotiations, just like how North Korea is doing with theirs.
No, you're right -- the way the original GoW was described to me (by people who played it), the game was very much trying to cater to the type of crowd that plays something like Madden NFL, in both levels of ridiculous machismo and easy gameplay.
User-created content in a modern video game? What, and let some user rip off some company's IP for use in their content, and thus letting the game designer get potentially sued? (Yes, I know the DMCA protects them, but even a frivolous lawsuit could cost money/image.)
They're having this problem in the new game "LittleBigPlanet" right now, from what I hear.
Wow, Tyco blocks -- that brings back some memories.
I remember during a particularly hard time financially for my parents (hey, it was the Reagan years -- still waiting for that wealth to trickle down), I was given a big set of Tyco blocks instead of Lego bricks for Christmas -- it was this big Tyco "tank" thing.
They were obviously cheap ripoffs of Lego blocks (and poorly made, to boot), however even at the age of eight or nine I somehow knew enough to keep my mouth shut and just say "thank you." (Beats the hell outta me why I didn't just whine and scream like kids that age usually do.)
That being said the damn things wouldn't work with my small already existing collection of Lego's worth a shit.
Well, it's not exactly a monopoly, but they do have a huge majority share -- most stats I see have their share of discrete graphics market somewhere in the 70% range.
Aye -- that's why NoScript (on Firefox) has the best solution, that I've seen. Simply block all other domains from serving ads or running JavaScript, except for the one you currently navigated to. Exceptions (CDN's used by developers, authentication servers) are rare and handled on a case-by-case basis.
Aye, your first answer was what I was looking for -- thanks!
However, I still think it doesn't work if the domains are from within another site (like Slashdot). I'm sure someone's created a userjs file somewhere for this (kinda like the one you have).
Seriously? Look, I understand the love for Opera (great browser), but it was seriously easier for you to bring out the wallet then it was to search for a few free extensions?:\
Aye, pretty cool -- but not half as cool as Firefox, one of my favorite Clint Eastwood movies as a kid. Concidentally, for some reason now, when I say the name of this movie out loud, it always comes out as "Foxfire."
Is there an easy to use interface for managing what domains I have JavaScript blocked from? Or do you have to go to each site every time to manage?
And say I somehow go to doubleclick.net and disable JavaScript for that domain, does it only work when I actually navigate to that site, or does it work as well on sites like Slashdot when it has scripts brought in _from_ doubleclick.net?
Do you turn off JavaScript for all of Slashdot, or just for the adserver domain? You see, that's my problem -- I'd like JavaScript to work for the top domain that I'm visiting (i.e., Slashdot), but not for scripts loaded from the adservers that are included in the HTML (Doubleclick, Tacoda.net, etc.). I like NoScript especially because it does this automatically, without the need for a huge whitelist/blacklist.
Seriously, if Opera builds-in something like this, I'm sold, since it's really the only plug-in I use in Firefox (besides Firebug, but that's for development and not for browsing:P).
Slashdot Mirror
In the workplace, virtualization and increasing computing power will probably lead to thin clients again. Why give everyone a $900 workstation when $250 terminals and a couple heavily virtualized servers are easier to maintain?
It's just like my COBOL teacher in college said!
No, seriously, I'm not being snarky. He really said that about eight years ago. Said he had seen it happen before and that it would happen again.
"I'm doing a school project, daddy. It's about what makes America great. What does?"
"Why, that's simple -- it's our endless system of appeals."
[paraphrased, of course]
Sigh -- doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
Women already have it hard enough trying to "keep up with the boys." Jeebus. The 20 or so comments already on here are more than enough.
...I don't know why everyone wonders how a fictional lightsaber could work.
"How does it contain the plasma in a rod? Why doesn't it just go everywhere?"
From what I remember of the movies, I don't remember there being any mention of there not being some kind of mechanical core to a lightsaber -- almost like a control rod that extended at the same time that the rod of light did. You'd never know from watching it.
For all we know, even as works of fiction, they could just be normal swords that glow.
1) The missiles are obviously there (theoretically) to target Russian missiles launched at Europe. Of course, it's all moot -- I really haven't heard anything much in the way of success out of anti-ICBM missile defense systems in a while. That's why the presence of a station like that seems to me to be far less functional, and far more political.
2) I'm not going to speculate on what the Great Powers might do if a certain region is destabilized. I don't really think it'll make war any more likely or less likely -- if the powers that be want war, they'll get it.
3) Just because the Poles are allowing this doesn't mean they're thinking about Iran -- I'm quite sure the Poles are more worried about Russia on a day to day basis. I'm no military expert, but I'm quite sure that the presence of American placements there would help to keep Russia out of their borders, at the very least.
Honestly, do you think the common Pole sits in his house shaking in his boots, worrying about Iran? Or are they looking at what happened to regions like Chechnya and Georgia, and deciding to side with the US while there's still time? You have to admit that their agreement to the missile defense plan came at a rather suspicious time...
Well, I agree that it's not going to be pretty, and the price of oil will rise (which isn't a bad thing, to me).
However, I stand by my statement that Europe has nothing to fear militarily from Iran. No matter what the US says, it's pretty obvious that the missile shield is being put there to piss off Russia (since it's already doing so quite easily).
...just like their options for performing aggressive actions is subsequently limited knowing that any escalation of things to nuke status will lead to their assured destruction.
It all balances out. Hasn't Pakistan had nukes for years? Yet Kashmir looks pretty much like it always has, right?
Iran getting a nuke is NOT going to be the end of the world.
I really don't think Iran is going to risk total annihilation to lob a nuke at Europe.
Israel, maybe, but certainly not with a nuke.
I suspect the leadership in Iran, though certainly cruel, is not crazy enough to risk their nice little isolated theocracy being totally annihilated. If they ever get a nuke, it will sit quietly in a bunker somewhere, to be used as collateral for treaties and negotiations, just like how North Korea is doing with theirs.
Free Market Economy!
No, you're right -- the way the original GoW was described to me (by people who played it), the game was very much trying to cater to the type of crowd that plays something like Madden NFL, in both levels of ridiculous machismo and easy gameplay.
User-created content in a modern video game? What, and let some user rip off some company's IP for use in their content, and thus letting the game designer get potentially sued? (Yes, I know the DMCA protects them, but even a frivolous lawsuit could cost money/image.)
They're having this problem in the new game "LittleBigPlanet" right now, from what I hear.
Anatomically correct and fully functional?
As a statue.
So it functions well if it stands.
Wow, Tyco blocks -- that brings back some memories.
I remember during a particularly hard time financially for my parents (hey, it was the Reagan years -- still waiting for that wealth to trickle down), I was given a big set of Tyco blocks instead of Lego bricks for Christmas -- it was this big Tyco "tank" thing.
They were obviously cheap ripoffs of Lego blocks (and poorly made, to boot), however even at the age of eight or nine I somehow knew enough to keep my mouth shut and just say "thank you." (Beats the hell outta me why I didn't just whine and scream like kids that age usually do.)
That being said the damn things wouldn't work with my small already existing collection of Lego's worth a shit.
Oh, I'm not -- that's why I said "discrete." ;)
Well, it's not exactly a monopoly, but they do have a huge majority share -- most stats I see have their share of discrete graphics market somewhere in the 70% range.
...that maybe there were more favorable articles about him because he's actually a better person...?
Naw... can't be that. Must be media bias.
I love this line: "The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager."
Maybe because we're finally getting away from considering a person's past drug use as a delimiter of what kind of person they are?
The past two presidents before Obama have been admitted drug users, and they still got voted in.
Aye -- that's why NoScript (on Firefox) has the best solution, that I've seen. Simply block all other domains from serving ads or running JavaScript, except for the one you currently navigated to. Exceptions (CDN's used by developers, authentication servers) are rare and handled on a case-by-case basis.
Aye, your first answer was what I was looking for -- thanks!
However, I still think it doesn't work if the domains are from within another site (like Slashdot). I'm sure someone's created a userjs file somewhere for this (kinda like the one you have).
Seriously? Look, I understand the love for Opera (great browser), but it was seriously easier for you to bring out the wallet then it was to search for a few free extensions? :\
What if the movie is about bioluminescence, starring Clint Eastwood? Ha!
...give Linus more ammo to complain about desktop Linux. :p
Aye, pretty cool -- but not half as cool as Firefox, one of my favorite Clint Eastwood movies as a kid. Concidentally, for some reason now, when I say the name of this movie out loud, it always comes out as "Foxfire."
It is a strange and funny world we live in.
Is there an easy to use interface for managing what domains I have JavaScript blocked from? Or do you have to go to each site every time to manage?
And say I somehow go to doubleclick.net and disable JavaScript for that domain, does it only work when I actually navigate to that site, or does it work as well on sites like Slashdot when it has scripts brought in _from_ doubleclick.net?
Do you turn off JavaScript for all of Slashdot, or just for the adserver domain? You see, that's my problem -- I'd like JavaScript to work for the top domain that I'm visiting (i.e., Slashdot), but not for scripts loaded from the adservers that are included in the HTML (Doubleclick, Tacoda.net, etc.). I like NoScript especially because it does this automatically, without the need for a huge whitelist/blacklist.
Seriously, if Opera builds-in something like this, I'm sold, since it's really the only plug-in I use in Firefox (besides Firebug, but that's for development and not for browsing :P).