With Steam made games yes - but not from other publishers. You can't register CoD4 to your steam account if you bought it in a shop (and I should know because I tried).
Steam is an excellent way to buy and play games. However when buying any 'non-steam' games (infinity ward, epic, etc) the price rockets up in comparison to that of physical media. Example: I went to my local GAME three weeks ago and bought UT3 for £20 and Cod4 Collectors Edition for £25. Absolute bargain. Go to steam and CoD4 is $70 atm which for me works out to be about £35. Add VAT and the other stupid charges and it comes to about £47 - I know this because I bought it this way for my brother over Christmas.
You're really paying for the convenience when you go with steam (in some cases - orange box is a steal).
I doubt google are trying to stop hackers getting at materials. What they are doing though, is stopping you average Mr. Joe Bloggs from being suckered in to download malware from a site found from a google search.
Saying email is dead is all fair and well when talking about friends, but any 'kid entrepreneur' who thinks they can use social networking sites entirely is just stupid. "Send your CV's or business requests to my face book page ^_^. chow." Hyped up media bs?
Apologies: I forgot to escape the One major reason why XHTML has ultimately failed is that Internet Explorer hasn't implemented it correctly. I believe it does have the capacity but requires some funky server workaround, as the <?xml tag sends IE into quirks mode. There are people out there who use true XHTML pages and send 'application/xhtml+xml' to browsers that can support it and 'text/html' to those who can't, which is fine but if they aren't using any of the capabilities that XHTML has to offer there's no point other than to prove they can. The same applies to anyone who has an 'xhtml' site running in 'text/html' - you're using the SGML rendering engine (the thing HTML uses) not XML, so you might as well be using HTML 4.01 Strict. Chances are you'll get better results.
I'm not saying let's all jump on the HTML4+ bandwagon, XHTML, even in its wrong 'text/html' form, encourages people to use standards and this can only be a good thing. Ultimately, it's up to you which you use. Converting an XHTML document back to HTML only requires the changing of all self closing tags that end in '/>' to '>' and putting in the right doctype header and.dtd.
XHTML has only been taken up quite recently in comparison to how long it's been about, and even then it's been implemented incorrectly. Most of us will have become accustomed to creating clean xhtml pages that rely on css for styling, however a vast majority of the web have, it seems, jumped the bandwagon without reading the fine print. I'll be the first to admit I was one of them thanks to numerious net articles, books and even lectures at university.
XHTML is a derivative of XML that uses html-like tags and syntax. When used correctly it will be parsed as XML. This was supposed to be the future - no more varying designs through different browsers or funny rendering quirks because the XML framework and the strict syntax rules prevent this. A page will do just this if the headers are set to 'application/xhtml+xml'. The problem comes in that most people are doing everything right but sending the wrong headers - 'text/html'. When this is done, your lean, tight xml markup becomes html and all the benefits that XHTML was supposed to bring are lost.
But what about the W3C validator I hear you say? Well, yes, it validates just fine because it is correct - but then it doesn't check if you've sent the right content headers as that isn't its job (they can be sent through the server before the page is even sent anyway). Go to an XHTML site, view the source and see how many have a meta content of 'text/html' - a lot I bet.
One major reason why XHTML has ultimately failed is that Internet Explorer hasn't implemented it correctly. I believe it does have the capacity but requires some funky server workaround, as the ' to '>' and putting in the right doctype header and.dtd.
I recommend you check out the following source which was written in 2002. This has been going on for a while - no wonder HTML5 is being considered.
Something tells me they'd use robots if they were better. There's nothing quite like having many humans to manually check on the condition of a board - you can't always rely on machines. You think they ship cars without some sort of human intervention to test them?
That wouldn't really be the best title. Intel defined the x86 architecture (which is why you might remember seeing some old software that says it's built for an Intel PC) whilst the other manufacturers were merely clones (cyrix, amd, etc.). It wasn't until a fair few years after the introduction of x86 that companies such as amd branched further away from what intel were doing. Just compare how a core duo works with an athlon x2. This could be one of the reasons why AMD weren't covered as extensively, no doubt it'd require another fair few more chapters.
Maybe it should be "Inside the Machine: An Illustrated Introduction to processors (made by Intel) and PC Architecture":)
So, what, we're seeing a noticeable increase in global temperature from the last 50 years (as opposed to the thousands in the past) and you're saying global warming is a load of 'hooey'? Supporting an alternative theory is all good and well but you can't just toss global warming aside, once you put two and two together its fairly obvious.
I'm an undergrad and the very first thing we were told about writing assignments was to not cite wikipedia as a source. Besides what they told us it's fairly obvious not all of the information is accurate and from trusted sources.
That seems like a plausible argument, but then like most things in life it's not that simple. I'm not willing to dare and guess the amount of money that music and video provides to some of our nations economies. Think of all the shops that will close, the people that will lose their jobs and the public uproar that will follow. Most of us live in a society where we've been fed this for our entire lives - it wouldn't go down too well if it was taken away from us. Then there's the bands (let's be fair, most movies are made by multi-million pound companies). There are some remarkable musical talents out there and unless we buy direct from them they're sure to find other ways of making money.
I'm all for de-commercialisation and the cutting out of the 'fat cats' but stopping our spending altogether seems a little drastic. DRM is a proce that needn't be paid, it's just an excuse to sponge more money from us.
I'll always remember walking past a highstreet cash point only to find a BSOD. Sure these are networked internally but wtf? If it can't handle spitting out money how will it cope with missiles?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm using the file system of a murderer.
My mobile phone runs Symbian, not linux and as such I don't get a shell.
I'll second that. It's not even been two days and I'm already getting withdrawl.
It needs to be identified as such first anyway and that's what's crashing it.
That's all fair and well if you're only expecting email from certain servers, but for most of us a deny-by-all service doesn't cut it.
What do i do with this glass turd?
Downgrade of course!
Assault doesn't require physical contact, that's battery.
Google doesn't always (if at all) index content produced by a javascript.
With Steam made games yes - but not from other publishers. You can't register CoD4 to your steam account if you bought it in a shop (and I should know because I tried).
Steam is an excellent way to buy and play games. However when buying any 'non-steam' games (infinity ward, epic, etc) the price rockets up in comparison to that of physical media. Example: I went to my local GAME three weeks ago and bought UT3 for £20 and Cod4 Collectors Edition for £25. Absolute bargain. Go to steam and CoD4 is $70 atm which for me works out to be about £35. Add VAT and the other stupid charges and it comes to about £47 - I know this because I bought it this way for my brother over Christmas.
You're really paying for the convenience when you go with steam (in some cases - orange box is a steal).
The CD check is still very much in place with UT3 (as well as CoD4).
I think it's about time someone told the captains of these ships to bring up their anchors. Either that or they tell us what's really going on.
You obviously never finished school because you've never heard of the water cycle, so shut the hell up and go back to getting my fries.
I doubt google are trying to stop hackers getting at materials. What they are doing though, is stopping you average Mr. Joe Bloggs from being suckered in to download malware from a site found from a google search.
So it was a router failure then.
They'll say anything as long as it isn't the truth.
Is it just me or does this look like a 'panic buy' tactic? There's still no way I'm shelling out £350+ even for the 60GB model.
Saying email is dead is all fair and well when talking about friends, but any 'kid entrepreneur' who thinks they can use social networking sites entirely is just stupid. "Send your CV's or business requests to my face book page ^_^. chow." Hyped up media bs?
Apologies: I forgot to escape the
/>' to '>' and putting in the right doctype header and .dtd.
One major reason why XHTML has ultimately failed is that Internet Explorer hasn't implemented it correctly. I believe it does have the capacity but requires some funky server workaround, as the <?xml tag sends IE into quirks mode. There are people out there who use true XHTML pages and send 'application/xhtml+xml' to browsers that can support it and 'text/html' to those who can't, which is fine but if they aren't using any of the capabilities that XHTML has to offer there's no point other than to prove they can. The same applies to anyone who has an 'xhtml' site running in 'text/html' - you're using the SGML rendering engine (the thing HTML uses) not XML, so you might as well be using HTML 4.01 Strict. Chances are you'll get better results.
I'm not saying let's all jump on the HTML4+ bandwagon, XHTML, even in its wrong 'text/html' form, encourages people to use standards and this can only be a good thing. Ultimately, it's up to you which you use. Converting an XHTML document back to HTML only requires the changing of all self closing tags that end in '
XHTML has only been taken up quite recently in comparison to how long it's been about, and even then it's been implemented incorrectly. Most of us will have become accustomed to creating clean xhtml pages that rely on css for styling, however a vast majority of the web have, it seems, jumped the bandwagon without reading the fine print. I'll be the first to admit I was one of them thanks to numerious net articles, books and even lectures at university.
.dtd.
XHTML is a derivative of XML that uses html-like tags and syntax. When used correctly it will be parsed as XML. This was supposed to be the future - no more varying designs through different browsers or funny rendering quirks because the XML framework and the strict syntax rules prevent this. A page will do just this if the headers are set to 'application/xhtml+xml'. The problem comes in that most people are doing everything right but sending the wrong headers - 'text/html'. When this is done, your lean, tight xml markup becomes html and all the benefits that XHTML was supposed to bring are lost.
But what about the W3C validator I hear you say? Well, yes, it validates just fine because it is correct - but then it doesn't check if you've sent the right content headers as that isn't its job (they can be sent through the server before the page is even sent anyway). Go to an XHTML site, view the source and see how many have a meta content of 'text/html' - a lot I bet.
One major reason why XHTML has ultimately failed is that Internet Explorer hasn't implemented it correctly. I believe it does have the capacity but requires some funky server workaround, as the ' to '>' and putting in the right doctype header and
I recommend you check out the following source which was written in 2002. This has been going on for a while - no wonder HTML5 is being considered.
http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
Something tells me they'd use robots if they were better. There's nothing quite like having many humans to manually check on the condition of a board - you can't always rely on machines. You think they ship cars without some sort of human intervention to test them?
That wouldn't really be the best title. Intel defined the x86 architecture (which is why you might remember seeing some old software that says it's built for an Intel PC) whilst the other manufacturers were merely clones (cyrix, amd, etc.). It wasn't until a fair few years after the introduction of x86 that companies such as amd branched further away from what intel were doing. Just compare how a core duo works with an athlon x2. This could be one of the reasons why AMD weren't covered as extensively, no doubt it'd require another fair few more chapters.
:)
Maybe it should be "Inside the Machine: An Illustrated Introduction to processors (made by Intel) and PC Architecture"
So, what, we're seeing a noticeable increase in global temperature from the last 50 years (as opposed to the thousands in the past) and you're saying global warming is a load of 'hooey'? Supporting an alternative theory is all good and well but you can't just toss global warming aside, once you put two and two together its fairly obvious.
I'm an undergrad and the very first thing we were told about writing assignments was to not cite wikipedia as a source. Besides what they told us it's fairly obvious not all of the information is accurate and from trusted sources.
That seems like a plausible argument, but then like most things in life it's not that simple. I'm not willing to dare and guess the amount of money that music and video provides to some of our nations economies. Think of all the shops that will close, the people that will lose their jobs and the public uproar that will follow. Most of us live in a society where we've been fed this for our entire lives - it wouldn't go down too well if it was taken away from us. Then there's the bands (let's be fair, most movies are made by multi-million pound companies). There are some remarkable musical talents out there and unless we buy direct from them they're sure to find other ways of making money.
I'm all for de-commercialisation and the cutting out of the 'fat cats' but stopping our spending altogether seems a little drastic. DRM is a proce that needn't be paid, it's just an excuse to sponge more money from us.
Indeed.
I'll always remember walking past a highstreet cash point only to find a BSOD. Sure these are networked internally but wtf? If it can't handle spitting out money how will it cope with missiles?