Agreed. The only time I sniped at a Mac user is when said Mac user was pulling his own pud claiming the Mac could do all these wonderful things that a PC couldn't and in 99.9% of the time getting it completely wrong. I think my last round of that was a LTTE of a local computer rag when one of their columnists decided to write "10 things only a Mac can do." My LTTE debunked all 10 in spades.
If Mac users would stop making outragious and patently false claims about their machines godhood PC users wouldn't have to slap them back into place time and time again.
Or to put it in shoter terms for the Sesame Street crowd we have here.
Realism isn't a problem. Why? Becuase in the real world I'm not going to take my '97 Eclipse GSt, mod it heavily, enter it into a class A circuit race and turn 6 laps in a 6 car heat.
I'm not going to take my Lancer Evo VII and go blazing through the wilds of the third world on several rally special stages after another.
I'm not going to arm myself with a Sig Sauer P226, an M-16 and take on a half dozen terrorists at some random airport.
I'm certainly not going to hop into a time machine, sign up for the army and storm Normandy with my M-1 and Colt.
But I sure as hell would like to know what it might be like with something approaching realism otherwise what is the point of playing out those particular scenerios? Why have a rocket launcher in WWII? Why have it so I have trampoline boots so I can hop infinitely to foil the terrorists aims while retaining perfect aim myself? Why have a rally car that drives through mud like it is on tarmac and why have a street car on tarmac act like it is on ice? By ruining the realism in the game you ruin the fantasy the person wants to portray!
Nah, I won't tell you that you're a n00d. I'll tell you that you've got your games backwards. CS was good but take a look at what DoD has to offer. No bunny hopping, no insta-kills from sniper shots zooming in, no run-by accurate shots from hell. The new shot system is awesome, it rewards those who plan and work as a team over those who can twitch. There is a lot of balance in the game as well. Sure an MGer can hold a lot of territory but all it takes is one grenade to ruin his day. Why? Grenade goes off in 3-5 seconds, MGer takes that long to pull up his bipod and stand.
Ohama is not the best map to start off on. If you have a sucky allied team you'll get hosed. A decent team can at least keep the beach clear. Try Caen2 which is the classic map from DoD 1.x redone for 2.x.
Finally let me point out that your description of DoD maps perfectly with my first experience with CS back in the Beta 4 days. Run forward, sniper hits me, plunk, wait for end of turn. Run forward, sniper hits me, plunk. wait for end of turn. Guess what happened? I learned the game, learned the maps and ended up having a blast from B4 all the way up to the 1.x series before decided to go to DoD. If you're getting nailed by something repeatedly check your assuptions and alter them.
I've had 5 ISPs since my very first with Netcom Way-Back-When(tm). The number of software packages I've installed that was sent to me by all those ISPs. None. The question which was asked in my latest round of ISP hunting: "Do you allow services to be run? IE, I run my own mail, my own web server, I ssh into my box. I need those services and do not want anything from you other than a connection." This is a product that all the national ISPs and their ilk miss completely. The pipe, nothing more.
The ISP I'm with now answered the above question in a manner that I find acceptable. "Sure. You can do whatever you want with your connection within limits. You spam, we shut you down. You get infected with viruses that spew back out to the net, we shut you down. You do something illegal, we shut you down. Other than that, we don't care."
Their information packet that arrived two days later was well written. Right at the top was my username, password, IP (static), DNS, other network settings, mail/news server names and a number for help. After all of that was given up front in an easy to grok format they started in with the "If you're using Windows95...." instructions. Oh, and for the record, they outsource their news service to Supernews. No regional ISP should be getting into news these days.
That is how ISPs should be. Offer the bare minimum, the pipe, and add on other things later. Far more cost effective for everyone all around and far easier to maintain.
The story was weaker than the original Blade, the fight scenes were poorly coreographed and shot, the use of CG in the fight scenes was so glaringly obvious that it was jarring and painful to see. I mean, c'mon, we get some decent moves from Snipes and others only to have a CG move thrown in where the character looks too think, moves at 1.5-2x the speed of the rest of the fight and pathetic pathing to boot! Also the fights were shot poorly. I know Snipes practices martial arts. He can hold his own in a coreographed fight. So pull back and let the audience see what is going on instead of having poor in close or back shots. On top of all that can anyone take any fight scene which tries to seriously incorporate moves from the WWF? We get a full suplex from Blade, Nomak doing an elbow drop from the "corner of the ring" and other such cliche'd moves. Don't even get me started on the pathetic attempt on a bait 'n switch on who was the snitch. Came out of the blue, they set up what could be an interesting situation, then close that loop of 2 minutes later! They could have left it out and changed absolutely nothing. Of course it should have been expected when they wiped away the events of the first movie as an inconvenience.
The only good parts of the movie, really, are the interactions between Whistler (Kris Kristoffersen) and Reinhardt (Ron Perlman). In fact I was delighed to see Ron Perlman get a prominant role after he was pidgeon-holed as the Beast.
Is it worth seeing? Only if you're a huge fan of the comic or the first movie. Is it worth seeing again? No. Is it close to the original at all? Not at all. Hopefully the mistakes this movie has will be learned from.
A lot of people have been comparing this to Resident Evil because of the similar target audience and the fact they were released a week apart. I saw Resident Evil two days before seeing Blade II. So here's my pocket review. Resident Evil had a stronger plot, stronger story, stronger direction, was scarier, far more entertaining and the action sequences were well done and well shot. Of the two I'd tell people to see Resident Evil in the theater as they'd miss something not seeing it in a crowd of people.
Someone else stressed it, I'm reinforcing it. Cutesey names are not the way to go. We've got several hundred machines in our DC. I have to work on, maybe, a dozen. All are named after African nations. I have a hard time keeping track of which machine I need to work on for the particular farm I want to access at the moment. Was it Zimbabwe? Nigeria? Sierraleone? Heck if I know. What's worse is when the service is moved so when I finally do remember it I've got to do it all over again.
Give the service name. What the machine does. Don't listen to the peeps saying that it makes it tough to move the machine. That's only a once-in-a-while operation. People or othre machines accessing that information happens all the time. Make the names sensible for the tasks that will cause the most operations. Moving a machine here and there ain't it.
It is proven, where? From my point of view it is proven that Linux offers a far lower maintainence over the long run than Macs ever do. I've worked with both, extensively. Unix(-like) Intel boxes trump Mac boxes every day of the week.
Neither are a lot of other things equal to quake that many businesses (loads in the ISP arena) use off-the-shelf, generic PCs for. There is no reason to go with a company workstation for cluster work. None. You can get as good, if not better, from generics. Furthermore you get a far easier upgrade and repair path.
Furthermore off the shelf machines are not "trashed". They can be cycled into the office as dekstop machines as needed. Face it, anything over 500Mhz and 128Mb of RAM these days is more than enough for office use in spite of what the corp twinks think. You're trying to tell me machines that spec out at level 4 times over that are going to be obsolete for desktop office work in 6 months? There's a word for thet assertation. It combines two words. One is a cow with horns and the other is they byproduct of said animal that can be used for fertilizer.
In some games I agree that camping sucks. In other games I think it is a valid tactic in certain situations. Examples (and I know people will object, screw 'em):
Q3A base, UT base, HL base... IE, Plain ol' Deathmatch - Camping sucks. Plain and simple, it sucks. Point is to get out there and kill. Granted it doesn't mean go running into the middle of a 8-man fustercluck but to sit in one area and not move, forget it.
CtF (TFC & UT variants are the ones I know): Camping = base defense. Plain and simple. You can't get around that some people need to sit in the base at choke points to provide defense. There it is cool. However, the schmuck off in the boondocks doing nothing but pulling his own pud is the very poster child of bad camping.
CS (And any clones that use the mission models thereof): Defending the hostages, fine. Defending the bomb objectives, fine. Defending the bomb once planted, fine. As much as the team that is on the offensive might whine these are all legal because the objective is to DEFEND something. As with CtF above, when you have to defend something that requires camping, period. As long as you're not off in some BFE corner of the map it is perfectly valid and, even as an attacker, I'd hope the defenders do it.
Here's one most Quake to CS players missed around B5, B6 of CS. The CT guarding the bomb when the bomb carrier is killed is not camping in the bad sense of the word! For him to leave the bomb on the ground undefended would be stupid.
Ok, imagine 2 people left in the round, one CT, on T. There are three possible outcomes. CT or T kills the other, they win. T finds bomb, plants, destroys target, T wins. Round times out with T not obtaining the bomb, CT wins. Ok, CT comes across the bomb laying on the ground. If he stays there and defends the bomb he pretty much eliminates one outcome of the above three. In short, the T will have to kill him to get the bomb. Of the remaining two outcomes one is guarenteed if the T doesn't amble along, the other is a test of tactics and skill. Even so in the case of the T finding the bomb the CT has the advantage as the T might be more concerned with getting the bomb than clearing his environment. In short, the CT has a HUGE tactical advantage by being there first.
What happens if he walks away? Well, there is a chance of one killing the other. Granted. There's a chance of the T not finding the bomb and CT winning. But he reintroduces the third condition, T finds bomb, plants bomb, blows target. By walking away he seriously reduces his chances of winning.
Even so every time I camped the bomb and the round timed out there would be 3-5 people bitching at me for doing the right thing because I was a "lame camper" even though to anyone who thinks it through leaving the bomb undefended is the worst possible option to take.
Camping, as with rushes in Real Time Frustration games, as a viable tactic instead of just an annoyance all depends on the situation. Camp properly, camp to defend, camp to win. Don't camp out of fear.
Or how about Charter with whatever they want to charge. Here is the problem with monopolies, esp. those granted by government. I've had a Charter cable connection for over a year now. I've not had a/DAY/ by without some sort of interruptions. The last two months they've had a router that has been puking on itself. I've submitted nearly daily traceroutes and the best they are willing to do is send a tech out to my house to diagnose a problem between two internal routers in their DC.
Two months.
Why can they do this and why do I put up with it?
No other alternative exists. DSL is too limited and cable companies are generally granted monopolies by local government.
$$ spent on Debian from first install to the last apt-get upgrade: $0
# of systems it is run on that I control: 2. Homebuilt PC that acts as a server for my home LAN. Work Dell PC.
# of versions of Windows bought over the same timeframe: 4. Windows 95, Windows 98SE, Windows NT, Windows 2000.
Heck if I know how much the cost was on those but clearly it is going to be far more than the $0 I've spent on Debian thus far.
As for maintenance let me just relate this fact from where I work. Recently we had a little friction between SA and some programmers over the Java implementation that was to be used. One was free, one was not. SAs were worried about vendor support and who they could contact when things went bad. Myself and several other programmers were just floored by this reasoning. Simple reason, every piece of software that we have problems with and are constantly fighting to keep working are vendor backed. EVERY PIECE. No lie. Every piece of software that works and we rarely have to worry about having problems with is open source.
We use a closed-source web report generator. It hasn't been able to handle our log volume since day one in spite of reassurances from the vendor to get right on it. I dropped off the project 10 MONTHS ago and we still have problems near the end of the month where the processor cannot do its work in under a day.
We have a closed-source web based web-page building application. The vendor support on it is abysmal. We have to fight tooth and nail to get any updates out of them.
We use closed-source software for our ecommerce solution. Tooth and nail, endless calls and bickering and delays.
Our time to get things fixed in our open source solutions are far shorted because we can do it ourselves. Of course the chances of that happening are far lower because generally the open source stuff already does what we need and does it quite well.
Even with that track record of vendor "support" SA wanted to go with the closed version. Incredible!
Sorry, the main reason that I never got into the whole console craze is because of mutliplayer. Let's compare. A console in my living room with noone loval to play a majority of the time versus the PC in its room with millions of willing players just one ethernet connection away. Multiplayer is online, not in the segmented couches across the nation.
I'd heard about the report before Katz got to it and when I read his headline I flashed to a different theme.
You equate jock with the meathead who enjoys sports and beats up geeks in high school. OK, let's go with that definition of jock.
Pick pretty much/any/ online multplayer action/role playing game and log in. Ya there? Good. Now see how long it takes until someone boasts about owning you. How long it takes to find someone who is TKing for the hell of it. How long it takes to find dozens upon dozens of outright pricks and assholes who are there for the shere pleasure of causing other players grief.
Grief. Just like the meathead who is good at sports and beats other kids up. These players are good at their game and while they aren't phsyically beating others up, the same trend for abuse is clearly present.
It is for this reason and no other that I never, EVER got into Quake online. I can only tolorate Unreal Tournament in small doses. It is why I dropped completely out of CS after my clan tore itself apart. I'd like to get serious about DoD but I know the grief players are there as well. 9-10 months of AC and you know how much role play I saw compared to the amount of grief I saw before I quit because it was clear that Turbine/MS would do nothing against the grief players? I'd say the ratio is on the order of 1:100 if not a magnatide higher. Now I am playing AO. Need I even mention that the trend continues unabated?
I'm sorry, but the title was accurate even though the content doesn't match it. Given their own place to excel geeks... gamers... are turning into the meathead, abusive jocks they hate.
OTOH for those people who could plan ahead it was a nice convenience to have the groceries delivered. Even better was the ability to shift one's diet rather simply. I am saddened that they are gone and hope someone springs up to replace them with a viable model.
No, it isn't the selling of an adaptation of a public domain story. It is the business of hardly ever telling any original stories, lifting almost everything from the public domain while at the same time lobbying hard to get copyright protections extended to keep the few original works out of the public domain.
To add on to this little subthread another fine thing that makes learning with Python nice is the interactive interpretor. Don't know how something will work, exactly? Fire up Python and just play with it until you understand it and then plop it into your script.
I'm telling you, all these pictures and they haven't found the outline of the buried Shadow craft that we all know is there! C'MON NASA, STOP HIDING THE TRUTH!!!!
From: is clearly defined as the author of the message. In face here is the exact wording, "In all cases, the "From:" field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that does not belong to the author(s) of the message." Since the mailing list generally doesn't belong to the author as a mailbox, From cannot be used.
Sender could be used but then what header would be used for the "owner" address? This has typically been what Sender was used for so error messages would return to the Sender. In doing so the error messages went to an address that might actually be able to do something about it or, at the very least, didn't spam the list. If sender becomes the list then the list propigates errors.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. The only time I sniped at a Mac user is when said Mac user was pulling his own pud claiming the Mac could do all these wonderful things that a PC couldn't and in 99.9% of the time getting it completely wrong. I think my last round of that was a LTTE of a local computer rag when one of their columnists decided to write "10 things only a Mac can do." My LTTE debunked all 10 in spades.
If Mac users would stop making outragious and patently false claims about their machines godhood PC users wouldn't have to slap them back into place time and time again.
Or to put it in shoter terms for the Sesame Street crowd we have here.
Realism isn't a problem. Why? Becuase in the real world I'm not going to take my '97 Eclipse GSt, mod it heavily, enter it into a class A circuit race and turn 6 laps in a 6 car heat.
I'm not going to take my Lancer Evo VII and go blazing through the wilds of the third world on several rally special stages after another.
I'm not going to arm myself with a Sig Sauer P226, an M-16 and take on a half dozen terrorists at some random airport.
I'm certainly not going to hop into a time machine, sign up for the army and storm Normandy with my M-1 and Colt.
But I sure as hell would like to know what it might be like with something approaching realism otherwise what is the point of playing out those particular scenerios? Why have a rocket launcher in WWII? Why have it so I have trampoline boots so I can hop infinitely to foil the terrorists aims while retaining perfect aim myself? Why have a rally car that drives through mud like it is on tarmac and why have a street car on tarmac act like it is on ice? By ruining the realism in the game you ruin the fantasy the person wants to portray!
Nah, I won't tell you that you're a n00d. I'll tell you that you've got your games backwards. CS was good but take a look at what DoD has to offer. No bunny hopping, no insta-kills from sniper shots zooming in, no run-by accurate shots from hell. The new shot system is awesome, it rewards those who plan and work as a team over those who can twitch. There is a lot of balance in the game as well. Sure an MGer can hold a lot of territory but all it takes is one grenade to ruin his day. Why? Grenade goes off in 3-5 seconds, MGer takes that long to pull up his bipod and stand.
Ohama is not the best map to start off on. If you have a sucky allied team you'll get hosed. A decent team can at least keep the beach clear. Try Caen2 which is the classic map from DoD 1.x redone for 2.x.
Finally let me point out that your description of DoD maps perfectly with my first experience with CS back in the Beta 4 days. Run forward, sniper hits me, plunk, wait for end of turn. Run forward, sniper hits me, plunk. wait for end of turn. Guess what happened? I learned the game, learned the maps and ended up having a blast from B4 all the way up to the 1.x series before decided to go to DoD. If you're getting nailed by something repeatedly check your assuptions and alter them.
I've had 5 ISPs since my very first with Netcom Way-Back-When(tm). The number of software packages I've installed that was sent to me by all those ISPs. None. The question which was asked in my latest round of ISP hunting: "Do you allow services to be run? IE, I run my own mail, my own web server, I ssh into my box. I need those services and do not want anything from you other than a connection." This is a product that all the national ISPs and their ilk miss completely. The pipe, nothing more.
The ISP I'm with now answered the above question in a manner that I find acceptable. "Sure. You can do whatever you want with your connection within limits. You spam, we shut you down. You get infected with viruses that spew back out to the net, we shut you down. You do something illegal, we shut you down. Other than that, we don't care."
Their information packet that arrived two days later was well written. Right at the top was my username, password, IP (static), DNS, other network settings, mail/news server names and a number for help. After all of that was given up front in an easy to grok format they started in with the "If you're using Windows95...." instructions. Oh, and for the record, they outsource their news service to Supernews. No regional ISP should be getting into news these days.
That is how ISPs should be. Offer the bare minimum, the pipe, and add on other things later. Far more cost effective for everyone all around and far easier to maintain.
The story was weaker than the original Blade, the fight scenes were poorly coreographed and shot, the use of CG in the fight scenes was so glaringly obvious that it was jarring and painful to see. I mean, c'mon, we get some decent moves from Snipes and others only to have a CG move thrown in where the character looks too think, moves at 1.5-2x the speed of the rest of the fight and pathetic pathing to boot! Also the fights were shot poorly. I know Snipes practices martial arts. He can hold his own in a coreographed fight. So pull back and let the audience see what is going on instead of having poor in close or back shots. On top of all that can anyone take any fight scene which tries to seriously incorporate moves from the WWF? We get a full suplex from Blade, Nomak doing an elbow drop from the "corner of the ring" and other such cliche'd moves. Don't even get me started on the pathetic attempt on a bait 'n switch on who was the snitch. Came out of the blue, they set up what could be an interesting situation, then close that loop of 2 minutes later! They could have left it out and changed absolutely nothing. Of course it should have been expected when they wiped away the events of the first movie as an inconvenience.
The only good parts of the movie, really, are the interactions between Whistler (Kris Kristoffersen) and Reinhardt (Ron Perlman). In fact I was delighed to see Ron Perlman get a prominant role after he was pidgeon-holed as the Beast.
Is it worth seeing? Only if you're a huge fan of the comic or the first movie. Is it worth seeing again? No. Is it close to the original at all? Not at all. Hopefully the mistakes this movie has will be learned from.
A lot of people have been comparing this to Resident Evil because of the similar target audience and the fact they were released a week apart. I saw Resident Evil two days before seeing Blade II. So here's my pocket review. Resident Evil had a stronger plot, stronger story, stronger direction, was scarier, far more entertaining and the action sequences were well done and well shot. Of the two I'd tell people to see Resident Evil in the theater as they'd miss something not seeing it in a crowd of people.
Someone else stressed it, I'm reinforcing it. Cutesey names are not the way to go. We've got several hundred machines in our DC. I have to work on, maybe, a dozen. All are named after African nations. I have a hard time keeping track of which machine I need to work on for the particular farm I want to access at the moment. Was it Zimbabwe? Nigeria? Sierraleone? Heck if I know. What's worse is when the service is moved so when I finally do remember it I've got to do it all over again.
Give the service name. What the machine does. Don't listen to the peeps saying that it makes it tough to move the machine. That's only a once-in-a-while operation. People or othre machines accessing that information happens all the time. Make the names sensible for the tasks that will cause the most operations. Moving a machine here and there ain't it.
It is proven, where? From my point of view it is proven that Linux offers a far lower maintainence over the long run than Macs ever do. I've worked with both, extensively. Unix(-like) Intel boxes trump Mac boxes every day of the week.
Want proof? Remind me again what OSX really is?
Hint (SD-Bay, hich-way, s-iay nix-uay ike-lay.)
Neither are a lot of other things equal to quake that many businesses (loads in the ISP arena) use off-the-shelf, generic PCs for. There is no reason to go with a company workstation for cluster work. None. You can get as good, if not better, from generics. Furthermore you get a far easier upgrade and repair path.
Furthermore off the shelf machines are not "trashed". They can be cycled into the office as dekstop machines as needed. Face it, anything over 500Mhz and 128Mb of RAM these days is more than enough for office use in spite of what the corp twinks think. You're trying to tell me machines that spec out at level 4 times over that are going to be obsolete for desktop office work in 6 months? There's a word for thet assertation. It combines two words. One is a cow with horns and the other is they byproduct of said animal that can be used for fertilizer.
I learned about it from the LP story here:e w& record=213
http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=vi
Which references this report:
http://www.aaafts.org/pdf/distraction.pdf
Stats are on page 4.
Nah. Teach a man to use Opera and he'll be happy for the rest of his life. 6.0tp1 also has pop-up refusal.
In some games I agree that camping sucks. In other games I think it is a valid tactic in certain situations. Examples (and I know people will object, screw 'em):
Q3A base, UT base, HL base... IE, Plain ol' Deathmatch - Camping sucks. Plain and simple, it sucks. Point is to get out there and kill. Granted it doesn't mean go running into the middle of a 8-man fustercluck but to sit in one area and not move, forget it.
CtF (TFC & UT variants are the ones I know): Camping = base defense. Plain and simple. You can't get around that some people need to sit in the base at choke points to provide defense. There it is cool. However, the schmuck off in the boondocks doing nothing but pulling his own pud is the very poster child of bad camping.
CS (And any clones that use the mission models thereof): Defending the hostages, fine. Defending the bomb objectives, fine. Defending the bomb once planted, fine. As much as the team that is on the offensive might whine these are all legal because the objective is to DEFEND something. As with CtF above, when you have to defend something that requires camping, period. As long as you're not off in some BFE corner of the map it is perfectly valid and, even as an attacker, I'd hope the defenders do it.
Here's one most Quake to CS players missed around B5, B6 of CS. The CT guarding the bomb when the bomb carrier is killed is not camping in the bad sense of the word! For him to leave the bomb on the ground undefended would be stupid.
Ok, imagine 2 people left in the round, one CT, on T. There are three possible outcomes. CT or T kills the other, they win. T finds bomb, plants, destroys target, T wins. Round times out with T not obtaining the bomb, CT wins. Ok, CT comes across the bomb laying on the ground. If he stays there and defends the bomb he pretty much eliminates one outcome of the above three. In short, the T will have to kill him to get the bomb. Of the remaining two outcomes one is guarenteed if the T doesn't amble along, the other is a test of tactics and skill. Even so in the case of the T finding the bomb the CT has the advantage as the T might be more concerned with getting the bomb than clearing his environment. In short, the CT has a HUGE tactical advantage by being there first.
What happens if he walks away? Well, there is a chance of one killing the other. Granted. There's a chance of the T not finding the bomb and CT winning. But he reintroduces the third condition, T finds bomb, plants bomb, blows target. By walking away he seriously reduces his chances of winning.
Even so every time I camped the bomb and the round timed out there would be 3-5 people bitching at me for doing the right thing because I was a "lame camper" even though to anyone who thinks it through leaving the bomb undefended is the worst possible option to take.
Camping, as with rushes in Real Time Frustration games, as a viable tactic instead of just an annoyance all depends on the situation. Camp properly, camp to defend, camp to win. Don't camp out of fear.
Reminds me of the scenes surrounding the kidnapping call.
"Tracebuster, Tracebuster-buster, Tracebuster-buster-buster!"
Or how about Charter with whatever they want to charge. Here is the problem with monopolies, esp. those granted by government. I've had a Charter cable connection for over a year now. I've not had a /DAY/ by without some sort of interruptions. The last two months they've had a router that has been puking on itself. I've submitted nearly daily traceroutes and the best they are willing to do is send a tech out to my house to diagnose a problem between two internal routers in their DC.
Two months.
Why can they do this and why do I put up with it?
No other alternative exists. DSL is too limited and cable companies are generally granted monopolies by local government.
$$ spent on Debian from first install to the last apt-get upgrade: $0
# of systems it is run on that I control: 2. Homebuilt PC that acts as a server for my home LAN. Work Dell PC.
# of versions of Windows bought over the same timeframe: 4. Windows 95, Windows 98SE, Windows NT, Windows 2000.
Heck if I know how much the cost was on those but clearly it is going to be far more than the $0 I've spent on Debian thus far.
As for maintenance let me just relate this fact from where I work. Recently we had a little friction between SA and some programmers over the Java implementation that was to be used. One was free, one was not. SAs were worried about vendor support and who they could contact when things went bad. Myself and several other programmers were just floored by this reasoning. Simple reason, every piece of software that we have problems with and are constantly fighting to keep working are vendor backed. EVERY PIECE. No lie. Every piece of software that works and we rarely have to worry about having problems with is open source.
We use a closed-source web report generator. It hasn't been able to handle our log volume since day one in spite of reassurances from the vendor to get right on it. I dropped off the project 10 MONTHS ago and we still have problems near the end of the month where the processor cannot do its work in under a day.
We have a closed-source web based web-page building application. The vendor support on it is abysmal. We have to fight tooth and nail to get any updates out of them.
We use closed-source software for our ecommerce solution. Tooth and nail, endless calls and bickering and delays.
Our time to get things fixed in our open source solutions are far shorted because we can do it ourselves. Of course the chances of that happening are far lower because generally the open source stuff already does what we need and does it quite well.
Even with that track record of vendor "support" SA wanted to go with the closed version. Incredible!
Sorry, the main reason that I never got into the whole console craze is because of mutliplayer. Let's compare. A console in my living room with noone loval to play a majority of the time versus the PC in its room with millions of willing players just one ethernet connection away. Multiplayer is online, not in the segmented couches across the nation.
I'd heard about the report before Katz got to it and when I read his headline I flashed to a different theme.
/any/ online multplayer action/role playing game and log in. Ya there? Good. Now see how long it takes until someone boasts about owning you. How long it takes to find someone who is TKing for the hell of it. How long it takes to find dozens upon dozens of outright pricks and assholes who are there for the shere pleasure of causing other players grief.
You equate jock with the meathead who enjoys sports and beats up geeks in high school. OK, let's go with that definition of jock.
Pick pretty much
Grief. Just like the meathead who is good at sports and beats other kids up. These players are good at their game and while they aren't phsyically beating others up, the same trend for abuse is clearly present.
It is for this reason and no other that I never, EVER got into Quake online. I can only tolorate Unreal Tournament in small doses. It is why I dropped completely out of CS after my clan tore itself apart. I'd like to get serious about DoD but I know the grief players are there as well. 9-10 months of AC and you know how much role play I saw compared to the amount of grief I saw before I quit because it was clear that Turbine/MS would do nothing against the grief players? I'd say the ratio is on the order of 1:100 if not a magnatide higher. Now I am playing AO. Need I even mention that the trend continues unabated?
I'm sorry, but the title was accurate even though the content doesn't match it. Given their own place to excel geeks... gamers... are turning into the meathead, abusive jocks they hate.
OTOH for those people who could plan ahead it was a nice convenience to have the groceries delivered. Even better was the ability to shift one's diet rather simply. I am saddened that they are gone and hope someone springs up to replace them with a viable model.
ZSH, baybe!!!
PROMPT='%(!..{)%n@%m':'%~%(!.#.}) '
No, it isn't the selling of an adaptation of a public domain story. It is the business of hardly ever telling any original stories, lifting almost everything from the public domain while at the same time lobbying hard to get copyright protections extended to keep the few original works out of the public domain.
To add on to this little subthread another fine thing that makes learning with Python nice is the interactive interpretor. Don't know how something will work, exactly? Fire up Python and just play with it until you understand it and then plop it into your script.
...or have they forgotten that one cannot prove a negative?
14. Chemical removal of facial hair
Nair, anyone? Sure, they have a woman's leg in the ad but it can be used for facial hair.
I'm telling you, all these pictures and they haven't found the outline of the buried Shadow craft that we all know is there! C'MON NASA, STOP HIDING THE TRUTH!!!!
No.
From: is clearly defined as the author of the message. In face here is the exact wording, "In all cases, the "From:" field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that does not belong to the author(s) of the message." Since the mailing list generally doesn't belong to the author as a mailbox, From cannot be used.
Sender could be used but then what header would be used for the "owner" address? This has typically been what Sender was used for so error messages would return to the Sender. In doing so the error messages went to an address that might actually be able to do something about it or, at the very least, didn't spam the list. If sender becomes the list then the list propigates errors.
Then explain the "group" addition to the To: header. ;)