It's blatantly not. The trademarked term (in the field of video games) is 'Elder Scrolls'. That term is not being used. Therefore, it's not a trademark violation. This is particularly important to me, because in real life my last name is "Elder".
The proper analogy would be: Would Mojang sue if Bethesda created "Elder Scrolls VI: Mines". He wouldn't, because he doesn't have all uses of 'mines' trademarked.
FF13 would have been a great game if they had included more than just a battle system in the game. It felt crippled as it was... like a final fantasy spinoff fighter.
I appreciate how well done FF12 was, but they somehow made it as dull as sand. It felt like a particularly boring MMORPG with no other players. I appreciate how high the production values are on it, but somehow the fun got left out.
The online FF's, 11 and 14, don't even seem like they should be considered to be part of the same series. They're just vaguely related franchise items, like Kingdom Hearts is.
I think the series had a good run, though... FF3 through FFX-2 were all pretty fun. And I'm still interested enough to watch for future releases. I just have a fear that in a few more iterations, they'll be first person shooters.
FFX-2 had some of the best mechanics in the entire series; the battle system/jobs system was great, and it had a non-linear mission based storyline. I think a lot of people hated it because (1) girls and (2) it had a very different feel and mood than X. That was deliberate, I'm very sure. The theme of FFX was death, almost oppressively so... but in the end you won, and so X-2 was about life and optimism, and the lighthearted-silliness was part of that.
I'd blame it entirely on the bubble, and irrational valuation. It's not the recession's fault that Groupon's value to decreased from a trillion+ dollars... it was never worth that to begin with, and wouldn't have been even in a healthy economy. Nothing real about Groupon or Zynga has changed that caused their value to decrease 90%; those sorts of swings are entirely driven by the worst type of speculation.
It makes sense from a marketing perspective, obviously; and that makes the outrage even stronger. FF was a damn good browser; and it's painful to see it going in that direction. Most slashdot posters have experienced projects and products going astray when 'steering committees' start dictating design.
It's painful like seeing a great book being turned into a terrible film by focus-group driven studio executives.
It's not that it's not tested. It's just that what the Firefox designers want is now completely divorced from what the users want. This has been clear for me since the 'awesomebar'*.
I'm trying out Opera. I used to be a Firefox promoter, moving people off IE6 and onto FF every chance I got; but now... all the browsers seem like necessary evils.
*Not that adding the awesomebar was bad... but forcing the awesomebar, and eliminating the option to turn it off, was. That's the behavior that indicates a company is putting marketing ahead of engineering.
Yeah. "Government Motors" is clearly namecalling, and an insult... but sometimes insults are deserved, at least for a while. People need to remember that GM failed, and only exists because it leeched off tax dollars. Ford didn't. That gives me a hell of a lot more appreciation for Ford's management.
If you've read the rest of the thread, you'll find dozens of suggestions of books and online resources. These help not only the OP with his questions, but also has the potential of helping dozens or hundreds of slashdot readers expand their education. Some of these are books that they might never have known existed, or online documents that wouldn't easily have turned up on typical google searches.
In other words, you don't understand the whole point of slashdot. It's a discussion board.
DISCUSSION.
The answers to a slashdot question are not primarily for the person asking them. The purpose of the answers is to interest and enlighten thousands of browsers. The question is simply a stimulus.
Right. The further out the slower the orbit, and the bigger the star the faster the orbit. If I remember right, the orbital period is proportional to the square of the orbital radius, but inversely linear to the star's mass.
Or, if the sun's mass doubled, our year would be halved if we stayed at the same distance. If our orbital radius doubled, our year would increase in length by four times.
I should probably check that before I post to slashdot, because they'll be cruel if I remember incorrectly. But, eh. I'll take my chances.
While I'm highly skeptical about building a useful general-purpose quantum computer, I think that there may be great value in incorporating that tech into traditional computers. In other words, a four-qubit computer may be nearly useless except for very specific problems; but if it was part of your desktop computer, it would give it a large boost in all sorts of power.
For instance, encryption is highly related to compression. I believe that a quantum computer would be highly efficient at compressing and decompressing data... which is a task CPUs (and GPUs) do a lot.
Yes but does Javascript provide access to hardware (camera, microphone) and sockets? Flash does. The sockets in particular (and the new 3d features just added) should make it considerably better for games.
Javascript easily could. The browser doesn't. That's the limiting factor. People mistake the limitations that the browser enforces as limitations of Javascript.
It would be great if they could evolve it in the direction Adobe did with Actionscript 3.0. That is a nice little language.
The biggest problem, though, isn't Javascript; it's the horrible API and document model it has to struggle with when doing anything in a web browser. That would make programming in any scripting language a nightmare.
(1) If a nation attempts to assassinate our president, we are justified in toppling the government. That, by itself, was sufficient (although not necessary) justification for removing Saddam.
(2) We can't get rid of all tyrants at once. We have to take them out one at a time, as we can afford to. The fact that we can't do everything doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything.
(3) Nobody important claimed we were attacking Iraq because they caused 9/11. This is mainly a straw-man.
(4) If we hadn't spent 1T on the war, we MIGHT be 1T less in debt now. We would still be in great debt, and the biggest problems (those going on in Europe) having nothing to do with that war debt.
It's fun to believe that everybody that disagrees from you is just innately ignorant and flawed, isn't it? It means you never have to revise any opinion.
Yes, that is what I meant by "completely devalued." Thank you for confirming your reading comprehension to be of the average level for the republican redneck retard fringe.
Do you not realize you're marginalizing yourself? You're driving more people away from your views than towards them, purely because of the ridiculously juvenile and insulting way you write.
What if the maximum speed in the universe was the speed of the Neutrino (N), and that photons just happened to travel at 99.9999% of N? Perhaps general relativity is correct, and the Lorentz equations work, but instead of Sqrt( (1 + V/C) / (1 - V/C) ) it is Sqrt( (1 + V/N) / (1 - V/N) ). If C and N are sufficiently close, it would explain why we haven't noticed the difference before. This would mean that casuality wouldn't need to be abandoned; space/time diagrams would just be based on the speed of the Neutron instead of Light.
By the way, I know everybody at CERN is both smarter and more knowledgeable than I. I'm just having fun.
Slashdot Mirror
It's blatantly not. The trademarked term (in the field of video games) is 'Elder Scrolls'. That term is not being used. Therefore, it's not a trademark violation. This is particularly important to me, because in real life my last name is "Elder".
The proper analogy would be: Would Mojang sue if Bethesda created "Elder Scrolls VI: Mines". He wouldn't, because he doesn't have all uses of 'mines' trademarked.
So?
This is a freedom that people have always had. You can't stop other people from talking about you, and you shouldn't be ABLE to stop them.
FF13 would have been a great game if they had included more than just a battle system in the game. It felt crippled as it was... like a final fantasy spinoff fighter.
I appreciate how well done FF12 was, but they somehow made it as dull as sand. It felt like a particularly boring MMORPG with no other players. I appreciate how high the production values are on it, but somehow the fun got left out.
The online FF's, 11 and 14, don't even seem like they should be considered to be part of the same series. They're just vaguely related franchise items, like Kingdom Hearts is.
I think the series had a good run, though... FF3 through FFX-2 were all pretty fun. And I'm still interested enough to watch for future releases. I just have a fear that in a few more iterations, they'll be first person shooters.
FFX-2 had some of the best mechanics in the entire series; the battle system/jobs system was great, and it had a non-linear mission based storyline. I think a lot of people hated it because (1) girls and (2) it had a very different feel and mood than X. That was deliberate, I'm very sure. The theme of FFX was death, almost oppressively so... but in the end you won, and so X-2 was about life and optimism, and the lighthearted-silliness was part of that.
I'd blame it entirely on the bubble, and irrational valuation. It's not the recession's fault that Groupon's value to decreased from a trillion+ dollars... it was never worth that to begin with, and wouldn't have been even in a healthy economy. Nothing real about Groupon or Zynga has changed that caused their value to decrease 90%; those sorts of swings are entirely driven by the worst type of speculation.
Because the change makes no goddamned sense.
It makes sense from a marketing perspective, obviously; and that makes the outrage even stronger. FF was a damn good browser; and it's painful to see it going in that direction. Most slashdot posters have experienced projects and products going astray when 'steering committees' start dictating design.
It's painful like seeing a great book being turned into a terrible film by focus-group driven studio executives.
How about "FireFox 2011, 3rd Week September"? That would distinguish it from next week's version.
It's not that it's not tested. It's just that what the Firefox designers want is now completely divorced from what the users want. This has been clear for me since the 'awesomebar'*.
I'm trying out Opera. I used to be a Firefox promoter, moving people off IE6 and onto FF every chance I got; but now... all the browsers seem like necessary evils.
*Not that adding the awesomebar was bad... but forcing the awesomebar, and eliminating the option to turn it off, was. That's the behavior that indicates a company is putting marketing ahead of engineering.
A moniker that should stay with them.
Yeah. "Government Motors" is clearly namecalling, and an insult... but sometimes insults are deserved, at least for a while. People need to remember that GM failed, and only exists because it leeched off tax dollars. Ford didn't. That gives me a hell of a lot more appreciation for Ford's management.
Obviously, there is nothing between 0% and 100%. Only an idiot would think you can learn more about something without dedicating your life to it.
If you've read the rest of the thread, you'll find dozens of suggestions of books and online resources. These help not only the OP with his questions, but also has the potential of helping dozens or hundreds of slashdot readers expand their education. Some of these are books that they might never have known existed, or online documents that wouldn't easily have turned up on typical google searches.
In other words, you don't understand the whole point of slashdot. It's a discussion board.
DISCUSSION.
The answers to a slashdot question are not primarily for the person asking them. The purpose of the answers is to interest and enlighten thousands of browsers. The question is simply a stimulus.
Right. The further out the slower the orbit, and the bigger the star the faster the orbit. If I remember right, the orbital period is proportional to the square of the orbital radius, but inversely linear to the star's mass.
Or, if the sun's mass doubled, our year would be halved if we stayed at the same distance. If our orbital radius doubled, our year would increase in length by four times.
I should probably check that before I post to slashdot, because they'll be cruel if I remember incorrectly. But, eh. I'll take my chances.
While I'm highly skeptical about building a useful general-purpose quantum computer, I think that there may be great value in incorporating that tech into traditional computers. In other words, a four-qubit computer may be nearly useless except for very specific problems; but if it was part of your desktop computer, it would give it a large boost in all sorts of power.
For instance, encryption is highly related to compression. I believe that a quantum computer would be highly efficient at compressing and decompressing data... which is a task CPUs (and GPUs) do a lot.
Lots. They just haven't done everything for you.
Yes but does Javascript provide access to hardware (camera, microphone) and sockets? Flash does. The sockets in particular (and the new 3d features just added) should make it considerably better for games.
Javascript easily could. The browser doesn't. That's the limiting factor. People mistake the limitations that the browser enforces as limitations of Javascript.
It would be great if they could evolve it in the direction Adobe did with Actionscript 3.0. That is a nice little language.
The biggest problem, though, isn't Javascript; it's the horrible API and document model it has to struggle with when doing anything in a web browser. That would make programming in any scripting language a nightmare.
Says the guy who's not starving...
Not starving because of (1) technological progress and (2) economic expansion. Insomuch as we have welfare to give, it's because of those two factors.
2 and 3 are irrelevant. Step 1 is enough to justify step 4.
I'd classify codebreaking as technology, and it had a huge effect on the war.
(1) If a nation attempts to assassinate our president, we are justified in toppling the government. That, by itself, was sufficient (although not necessary) justification for removing Saddam.
(2) We can't get rid of all tyrants at once. We have to take them out one at a time, as we can afford to. The fact that we can't do everything doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything.
(3) Nobody important claimed we were attacking Iraq because they caused 9/11. This is mainly a straw-man.
(4) If we hadn't spent 1T on the war, we MIGHT be 1T less in debt now. We would still be in great debt, and the biggest problems (those going on in Europe) having nothing to do with that war debt.
It's fun to believe that everybody that disagrees from you is just innately ignorant and flawed, isn't it? It means you never have to revise any opinion.
Yes, that is what I meant by "completely devalued." Thank you for confirming your reading comprehension to be of the average level for the republican redneck retard fringe.
Do you not realize you're marginalizing yourself? You're driving more people away from your views than towards them, purely because of the ridiculously juvenile and insulting way you write.
What if the maximum speed in the universe was the speed of the Neutrino (N), and that photons just happened to travel at 99.9999% of N? Perhaps general relativity is correct, and the Lorentz equations work, but instead of Sqrt( (1 + V/C) / (1 - V/C) ) it is Sqrt( (1 + V/N) / (1 - V/N) ). If C and N are sufficiently close, it would explain why we haven't noticed the difference before. This would mean that casuality wouldn't need to be abandoned; space/time diagrams would just be based on the speed of the Neutron instead of Light.
By the way, I know everybody at CERN is both smarter and more knowledgeable than I. I'm just having fun.
Slaver stasis shields.
And maybe neutron stars.
Which would be just as troubling, because all the other experiments that clearly measured the speed of light would be wrong.