Root for the spammers first. Then one by one we'll all switch to rooting for MS. Maybe even root for a huge long drawn out battle for years and years with very expensive lawyers. Then in the end, even though the lawyers win (MS and spammers lose) then maybe MS and spammers both go out of business.
Okey folks, when the parent and grandparent of this post spell speech as speach I think there is a problem.
Folks, I'm not really a grammar-warrior or anything. Heck, I spell things wrong on a regular basis. But when a free-speech advocate cannot even spell the word there is a problem.
Sure, it might be a typo, but for both the parent and grandparent to typo?
Intended effect accomplished: I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV...
Nah, I haven't been following the SWG stuff at all. My wife and I played EQ for about a year and half fairly regularly and quit around January. We really liked the game, even when we left. We found that in the high end game we needed to dedicate more than 8+ hours at a time to really get anyting done though. Alas, a flaw in the genre of game I think.
Verrant seemed to only cater to the high end game though it seemed like (which makes sense economically as high end folks usually had multiple acounts and were usually the most dedicated). The didn't seem to care about mid level at all though. Very few quests were targeted for that range. Low level was just as bad until they added a couple new low level quests later on though (newbie armour).
I guess I am skeptical that Verrent (SOE, whoever they are now) just simpley wouldn't make a game about combat. They only seemed to care about *Phat Lutz!* when we played. Maybe they truly make a decent tradeskilling adventuring roleplaying game, but I doubt it once the uber type folks make it into the game.
As far as the game possibley tanking right out the gate? Sure, it possible. Either way, I don't think my wife and I will play this one. MMORPGs just seem like they take too much time once you get past a certain point. Its nice to take a couple hours and play a game, but when you are over like 4-6 hours to do anything, that is simpley too long. Too many other things in life to take care of.
One that does sound appealing though on the surface is WoW. But I haven't heard anything about it other than some initial paraphenilia in the game rags. But I typically enjoy blizzard games.
One last thing: If someone asks you if you are a god, you say YES!
Ghostbusters!
[back on topic] What sounds a little surprising is that they didn't have a filter for skywalker variations. Or similar storyline names. They should have thought about that right away.
Don't believe this guy. I'm not in the beta, but have played EQ. If you don't get in early with MMORPGs you might as well not play. Otherwise by the time you actually get in the economy is ruined and all the uber folks are camping a level 20 mob with their level 50 character cause they can sell for cash.
I dunno. This guy might be right. But that is one of my major disappointments of EQ was economy trashing and uber folks camping low level mobs with high level characters.
Sure, folks can live without most of what we have. However, because of the excess that we have we are able to enjoy life also.
When was the last time you needed to spend 90% of your waking hours worrying about food or clothing or lodging? There is a happy middle ground in life.
Myself, I enjoy playing with tech. In the last couple months I have been playing with simple ciruct design toys. Why, not because I cannot live without them, but because it is entertaining. I enjoy not worrying about all the little things in life because of many of the little toys I have that allow me not to worry about them.
I guess my point can be summed up to this:
Gadgets|life|hobbies|quality family time|commuting|working|sleeping are just used to fill voids in empty lives.
I made it through maybe half the article and get bored with it. Maybe a robot to read his articles would be something he'd approve of.
We pretty much have our bases covered with things that we need. There are not food shortages in the civilized nations of the world., we are able to provide for everyone on the planet with leftovers on top of that (minus political influences). We have the basic technology to live anywhere on the planet that is inhabitable and many places inhabitable. There are no more physical frontiers beyond space for us.
However, when you figure in that in 8000 - 12000 years we have gone from living from the land we could till to just starting to reach outer space, I'd say we've done pretty well. Its fair for folks to take a bit of luxury in life.
Once food production was not a worry, everything after that has been fluff. Do we need cars? Nah. Do we need anything that specialized labor grants us? Han, but its nice.
Do we need to have a cause? Maybe. As a Christian I believe it is serving God in the capacity he sees fit. Do others need to have a cause to believe in for focus on? I dunno. Some folks just want to eat, drink, and be merry for tommorrow they die. Perhaps that is their purpose.
Why does this fellow feel he needs to fire us up for anything? As that does seem to be his issue here. Or more important to me is, why does he seem to think we need firing up, when many already see advances even without groundbreaking advances.
Medicine for instance is always advancing. Personally I think this is a great thing. It may not affect me every day, but it certainly will be important the next time I need surgery or come down with an illness.
I know a couple folks that work on review mirrors that auto tint when a car with its high beams are behind you are blinding you. Is that fluff or a safety measure in this guys book?
Intel and AMD are designing incrementally faster processors everyday, is that fluff or real research? By faster processors we can evaulate and process data faster, maybe to help advance medicine.
Ah, heck, enough. Sounds like this guy simply is a lost soul who is really lacking in life. Maybe he needs to find a cause to live for, I think many other people have their causes to live for.
Ah, a reasonable voice on slashdot. How wonderful.
I would agree ont he midsize car thing though. My current car is a bonneville. Which has another thing about size that I like in cars. Ride. One thing that has bothered me with smaller cars that I have driven is the ride never seems as smooth. The bonneville is a very smooth ride in the car. The smaller cars I have driven tend to feel more rought, like driving a sports car or a truck.
Well, it does seem specific to the vehicle then. There are some better, some worse. About the only catagory that seemed to be really bad was rollover. Where this was generally bad for SUVs. That seems to be the only thing going for the compact cars to me though. As long as you pick your vehicle for saftey you can get a decent one either way. That still leaves the SUVs in better shape for SUV vs compact unless there is something to say compact cars are going damage the SUV more.
I don't have any recent accident anecdotes to respond with, as I haven't been in an automobile accident in 15 years. This also allows you to not lose your car.
Yeah, when its not your fault, you don't have much of a choice unfortuneately. You can only be so defensive. Granted I haven't been in an accident that has been my fault for about 8 years now also.
Ah, you see, SUV's (atleast the blazer and suburban) are both classified as stationwagons per registration. My guess is that it does put the cars into the car catagory. I'm not sure what you mean here then.
but if your huge SUV is a hazard to others on the road (which it is),
Perhaps it is actually the little cars that are a hazard. As quite often I see them darting in traffic, which a large vehicle is unable to do. That is beside he point though.
As far as partitioning our roads for special causes, it seems silly to me. Every road would need like 8 lanes to take care of every special case. On highways semi's are already supposed to stay in the right lane or right lanes.
I would actually say that highway driving isn't an issue for SUV/mini cars in accidents. Accidents on the highway quite often are fatal simpley because of the speeds driven, granted there are fewer accidents on highways because of the uniformity of travelling speeds and such.
Sure, I am not a huge fan of destorying the environment for the sake of destorying it. However, one also has to look at the benefits and disadvantagees when a descision is made. I'm not against smaller vehicles for those who want them. I am against those who want to force their choice of vehicle on me for their political agenda.
There are many things I can do everyday that work towards a cleaner environment that are better than driving a "clean" car. I do what I can. But when it comes to the safety of my family, I will protect my family at all costs.
I will not respond to this other than to say, the other two folks that have responded to my post has userid's and their posts were intelligent and thoughful.
You, as an AC however, are a flipping idiot who has said nothing insightful or thoughtful.
Do you have evidence that two SUV's in an accident are not safer than two rice burners? How about an SUV vs a stop sign or tree compared to a rice burner and a non-moving object.
As far as being a misanthrope for desiring saftey for my children first, I'd disagree. I would much rather see everyone safer. Unfortuneately the whole world cannot afford an SUV sized vehicle. But then, 10 years ago when air bags were realatively new, only wealthy folks could afford those too since they only came in luxury vehicles.
Another issue is this. My first vehicle was an 86 k5 blazer, the big one. In my first three years of driving I was in a handful of accidents (1 my fault). Of those accidents the blazer drove away from every accident nearly unharmed. One of the accidents totalled a friend of mine's escort which was following me and he was going far to fast on the slick roads. Another the blazer was parked on the top of a hill and ice melted under the tires causing it to slide down the hill into my brothers car nearly totalling that one, and pushing his car into the garage door and pushing my folks van into the back of the garage. The third was rearending another cavilier totalling that car and damaging another infront of it. Through those accidents the blazer drove away with only bumper damage.
Now, after I sold the blazer and bought a new car (89 lesabre) I had someone pull a left infront of me and was a second later out of a car because mine was totalled. I was not at fault. I was out a car (this is a problem with michigan's no fault insurance crap).
You see, a large safe vehicle is more than just safe, it also will allow you to not lose your car in an accident in many cases.
Humans are notoriously unreliable. Computers are perfectly reliable, but they're a hell of a lot better.
You don't work with computers at all, do you? I'm going to assume that you meant "Computers are not perfectly reliable..."
Anyways, there is a reason that so many folks want human space exploration. That is simpley humans can react in ways that computers are not programmed to. Humans can improvise a solution to problems.
It is fairly simple for get a robot to run around in circles or do simple tasks. Some can even do some pretty complex tasks. All are limited to the tasks they are programmed to do though. Here in lies the problem.
Driving is not a simple task. It is quite difficult because of all the possible inputs that go into it. Humans are good at image recognition, computers are not. Humans can evaulate their surroundings in ways that a computer is unable to.
For instance, I have nothing but complaints about antilock brakes with my current car. It drives me nuts when I get near a patch of ice to no end as it pumps far to quickly for the tires to regain traction. So, instead it makes it more difficult for my to stop on ice.
Another which is less of a pain, but one none the less is automatic transmissions. They never seem to change gears when I want them to. When I want to accelerate instantly I have to wait for the transmission to down shift first.
Anyways, I don't think I'd trust a vehicle to drive for me. There are too many unknowns and AI is simpley not there yet. Maybe it never will be.
Big whoop if someone is able to travel at 200mph when the rest of traffic is cruising at 75mph. There is a reason on the US highways you see signs like:
Speed Limit
65 Cars
55 Trucks
45 Minimum
It is only safe to travel at high speeds when the entire body of traffic is moving at roughly the same speed.
I think we need to get vehicles that small banned for the general public.
I personally am sick and tired of running over you little people's cars.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, why should you be able to tell me what kind of vehicle I drive? Maybe I don't like folks driving all these little vehicles that rust out every other year and need replacing. Seems like a waste to me. Perhaps I think all vehicles should be able to carry more than the driver and passenger, to promote car pooling.
You see, the problem with deciding what others can do, it at some point they are going to decide what you can do. You may have your pet projects/ideals that others do not subscribe to. What happens when they decide yours are not worthy to exist anymore.
When my wife and I have kids that reach driving age, I certainly hope I can put them in vehicles that are safe and robust. You may value a fast fuel efficient vehicle, I value my child's life. I'm not going to impose on you my belief.
Better to hope that the delays will make a better kernel for you. This is software development. Nothing is ever on time. And almost as rare is that software is done right.
I'd prefer late software done right to on time software done wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I think the answer is simple.
Root for the spammers first. Then one by one we'll all switch to rooting for MS. Maybe even root for a huge long drawn out battle for years and years with very expensive lawyers. Then in the end, even though the lawyers win (MS and spammers lose) then maybe MS and spammers both go out of business.
Well, we can dream anyways.
Okey folks, when the parent and grandparent of this post spell speech as speach I think there is a problem.
Folks, I'm not really a grammar-warrior or anything. Heck, I spell things wrong on a regular basis. But when a free-speech advocate cannot even spell the word there is a problem.
Sure, it might be a typo, but for both the parent and grandparent to typo?
Hi.
I don't know what the ramifications are for fat, but try half and half instead of heavy cream.
Btw, I am meta moderating this currently, unfortuneately I have the "Interesting" point you got, not either of the flamebait's.
ha ha. you have no idea how funny that sounds...
Intended effect accomplished: I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV...
Nah, I haven't been following the SWG stuff at all. My wife and I played EQ for about a year and half fairly regularly and quit around January. We really liked the game, even when we left. We found that in the high end game we needed to dedicate more than 8+ hours at a time to really get anyting done though. Alas, a flaw in the genre of game I think.
Verrant seemed to only cater to the high end game though it seemed like (which makes sense economically as high end folks usually had multiple acounts and were usually the most dedicated). The didn't seem to care about mid level at all though. Very few quests were targeted for that range. Low level was just as bad until they added a couple new low level quests later on though (newbie armour).
I guess I am skeptical that Verrent (SOE, whoever they are now) just simpley wouldn't make a game about combat. They only seemed to care about *Phat Lutz!* when we played. Maybe they truly make a decent tradeskilling adventuring roleplaying game, but I doubt it once the uber type folks make it into the game.
As far as the game possibley tanking right out the gate? Sure, it possible. Either way, I don't think my wife and I will play this one. MMORPGs just seem like they take too much time once you get past a certain point. Its nice to take a couple hours and play a game, but when you are over like 4-6 hours to do anything, that is simpley too long. Too many other things in life to take care of.
One that does sound appealing though on the surface is WoW. But I haven't heard anything about it other than some initial paraphenilia in the game rags. But I typically enjoy blizzard games.
One last thing: If someone asks you if you are a god, you say YES!
Ghostbusters!
[back on topic]
What sounds a little surprising is that they didn't have a filter for skywalker variations. Or similar storyline names. They should have thought about that right away.
Don't believe this guy. I'm not in the beta, but have played EQ. If you don't get in early with MMORPGs you might as well not play. Otherwise by the time you actually get in the economy is ruined and all the uber folks are camping a level 20 mob with their level 50 character cause they can sell for cash.
I dunno. This guy might be right. But that is one of my major disappointments of EQ was economy trashing and uber folks camping low level mobs with high level characters.
Says the porn pimp?
Sure, folks can live without most of what we have. However, because of the excess that we have we are able to enjoy life also.
When was the last time you needed to spend 90% of your waking hours worrying about food or clothing or lodging? There is a happy middle ground in life.
Myself, I enjoy playing with tech. In the last couple months I have been playing with simple ciruct design toys. Why, not because I cannot live without them, but because it is entertaining. I enjoy not worrying about all the little things in life because of many of the little toys I have that allow me not to worry about them.
I guess my point can be summed up to this:
Gadgets|life|hobbies|quality family time|commuting|working|sleeping are just used to fill voids in empty lives.
Infact, I'd go a step further. I'd say the government should enforce mortality. It should kill you once you reach a certain age. :-)
Maybe I need to re-read things before I hit reply again.
What a whiner.
I made it through maybe half the article and get bored with it. Maybe a robot to read his articles would be something he'd approve of.
We pretty much have our bases covered with things that we need. There are not food shortages in the civilized nations of the world., we are able to provide for everyone on the planet with leftovers on top of that (minus political influences). We have the basic technology to live anywhere on the planet that is inhabitable and many places inhabitable. There are no more physical frontiers beyond space for us.
However, when you figure in that in 8000 - 12000 years we have gone from living from the land we could till to just starting to reach outer space, I'd say we've done pretty well. Its fair for folks to take a bit of luxury in life.
Once food production was not a worry, everything after that has been fluff. Do we need cars? Nah. Do we need anything that specialized labor grants us? Han, but its nice.
Do we need to have a cause? Maybe. As a Christian I believe it is serving God in the capacity he sees fit. Do others need to have a cause to believe in for focus on? I dunno. Some folks just want to eat, drink, and be merry for tommorrow they die. Perhaps that is their purpose.
Why does this fellow feel he needs to fire us up for anything? As that does seem to be his issue here. Or more important to me is, why does he seem to think we need firing up, when many already see advances even without groundbreaking advances.
Medicine for instance is always advancing. Personally I think this is a great thing. It may not affect me every day, but it certainly will be important the next time I need surgery or come down with an illness.
I know a couple folks that work on review mirrors that auto tint when a car with its high beams are behind you are blinding you. Is that fluff or a safety measure in this guys book?
Intel and AMD are designing incrementally faster processors everyday, is that fluff or real research? By faster processors we can evaulate and process data faster, maybe to help advance medicine.
Ah, heck, enough. Sounds like this guy simply is a lost soul who is really lacking in life. Maybe he needs to find a cause to live for, I think many other people have their causes to live for.
Ah, a reasonable voice on slashdot. How wonderful.
I would agree ont he midsize car thing though. My current car is a bonneville. Which has another thing about size that I like in cars. Ride. One thing that has bothered me with smaller cars that I have driven is the ride never seems as smooth. The bonneville is a very smooth ride in the car. The smaller cars I have driven tend to feel more rought, like driving a sports car or a truck.
Well, it does seem specific to the vehicle then. There are some better, some worse. About the only catagory that seemed to be really bad was rollover. Where this was generally bad for SUVs. That seems to be the only thing going for the compact cars to me though. As long as you pick your vehicle for saftey you can get a decent one either way. That still leaves the SUVs in better shape for SUV vs compact unless there is something to say compact cars are going damage the SUV more.
I don't have any recent accident anecdotes to respond with, as I haven't been in an automobile accident in 15 years. This also allows you to not lose your car.
Yeah, when its not your fault, you don't have much of a choice unfortuneately. You can only be so defensive. Granted I haven't been in an accident that has been my fault for about 8 years now also.
Ah, you see, SUV's (atleast the blazer and suburban) are both classified as stationwagons per registration. My guess is that it does put the cars into the car catagory. I'm not sure what you mean here then.
but if your huge SUV is a hazard to others on the road (which it is),
Perhaps it is actually the little cars that are a hazard. As quite often I see them darting in traffic, which a large vehicle is unable to do. That is beside he point though.
As far as partitioning our roads for special causes, it seems silly to me. Every road would need like 8 lanes to take care of every special case. On highways semi's are already supposed to stay in the right lane or right lanes.
I would actually say that highway driving isn't an issue for SUV/mini cars in accidents. Accidents on the highway quite often are fatal simpley because of the speeds driven, granted there are fewer accidents on highways because of the uniformity of travelling speeds and such.
Sure, I am not a huge fan of destorying the environment for the sake of destorying it. However, one also has to look at the benefits and disadvantagees when a descision is made. I'm not against smaller vehicles for those who want them. I am against those who want to force their choice of vehicle on me for their political agenda.
There are many things I can do everyday that work towards a cleaner environment that are better than driving a "clean" car. I do what I can. But when it comes to the safety of my family, I will protect my family at all costs.
I will not respond to this other than to say, the other two folks that have responded to my post has userid's and their posts were intelligent and thoughful.
You, as an AC however, are a flipping idiot who has said nothing insightful or thoughtful.
Perhaps there is a pattern here?
Do you have evidence that two SUV's in an accident are not safer than two rice burners? How about an SUV vs a stop sign or tree compared to a rice burner and a non-moving object.
As far as being a misanthrope for desiring saftey for my children first, I'd disagree. I would much rather see everyone safer. Unfortuneately the whole world cannot afford an SUV sized vehicle. But then, 10 years ago when air bags were realatively new, only wealthy folks could afford those too since they only came in luxury vehicles.
Another issue is this. My first vehicle was an 86 k5 blazer, the big one. In my first three years of driving I was in a handful of accidents (1 my fault). Of those accidents the blazer drove away from every accident nearly unharmed. One of the accidents totalled a friend of mine's escort which was following me and he was going far to fast on the slick roads. Another the blazer was parked on the top of a hill and ice melted under the tires causing it to slide down the hill into my brothers car nearly totalling that one, and pushing his car into the garage door and pushing my folks van into the back of the garage. The third was rearending another cavilier totalling that car and damaging another infront of it. Through those accidents the blazer drove away with only bumper damage.
Now, after I sold the blazer and bought a new car (89 lesabre) I had someone pull a left infront of me and was a second later out of a car because mine was totalled. I was not at fault. I was out a car (this is a problem with michigan's no fault insurance crap).
You see, a large safe vehicle is more than just safe, it also will allow you to not lose your car in an accident in many cases.
Humans are notoriously unreliable. Computers are perfectly reliable, but they're a hell of a lot better.
You don't work with computers at all, do you? I'm going to assume that you meant "Computers are not perfectly reliable..."
Anyways, there is a reason that so many folks want human space exploration. That is simpley humans can react in ways that computers are not programmed to. Humans can improvise a solution to problems.
It is fairly simple for get a robot to run around in circles or do simple tasks. Some can even do some pretty complex tasks. All are limited to the tasks they are programmed to do though. Here in lies the problem.
Driving is not a simple task. It is quite difficult because of all the possible inputs that go into it. Humans are good at image recognition, computers are not. Humans can evaulate their surroundings in ways that a computer is unable to.
For instance, I have nothing but complaints about antilock brakes with my current car. It drives me nuts when I get near a patch of ice to no end as it pumps far to quickly for the tires to regain traction. So, instead it makes it more difficult for my to stop on ice.
Another which is less of a pain, but one none the less is automatic transmissions. They never seem to change gears when I want them to. When I want to accelerate instantly I have to wait for the transmission to down shift first.
Anyways, I don't think I'd trust a vehicle to drive for me. There are too many unknowns and AI is simpley not there yet. Maybe it never will be.
Consistent speed is much safer.
Big whoop if someone is able to travel at 200mph when the rest of traffic is cruising at 75mph. There is a reason on the US highways you see signs like:
Speed Limit
65 Cars
55 Trucks
45 Minimum
It is only safe to travel at high speeds when the entire body of traffic is moving at roughly the same speed.
#define THE_QUESTION (TO_BE) ((TO_BE) | !(TO_BE))
TO_BE == 1
((1) | !(1))
((1) | (0))
1
TO_BE == 123
((123) | !(123))
((123) | (0))
123
TO_BE == 0
((0) | !(0))
((0) | (1))
1
So, really, there is no question. The result of THE_QUESTION is always non-zero, which is C is considered "true".
TO_BE == 123
((123) || !(123))
((123) || (0))
1
Also, I don't know if you really meant a bitwise or, you might have meant a logical or, as then you would always wind up with 1.
Anyways.
I think we need to get vehicles that small banned for the general public.
I personally am sick and tired of running over you little people's cars.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, why should you be able to tell me what kind of vehicle I drive? Maybe I don't like folks driving all these little vehicles that rust out every other year and need replacing. Seems like a waste to me. Perhaps I think all vehicles should be able to carry more than the driver and passenger, to promote car pooling.
You see, the problem with deciding what others can do, it at some point they are going to decide what you can do. You may have your pet projects/ideals that others do not subscribe to. What happens when they decide yours are not worthy to exist anymore.
When my wife and I have kids that reach driving age, I certainly hope I can put them in vehicles that are safe and robust. You may value a fast fuel efficient vehicle, I value my child's life. I'm not going to impose on you my belief.
Problem was that slashdot has been in an infinite loop for a while. But, since they are running linux, it's finished already.
cats will suddenly run full tilt from room to room.
*phew*
That explains our cats. Maybe I should just let a bunch of rats run around the house so I can get some sleep at night.
No, Boromir has been shot with arrows, like three times.
No... no wait, he's fine.
No... no, wait, he's really dead.
Have you gotten the drivers working on anything other than the 2.4.18 kernel? If so, might sharing how?
I can only get the ATI drivers working with 2.4.18.
Yeah, the driver writes to /dev/null instead of the disk. They get nearly 30% better performace over their normal drivers.
:-)
ATI's drivers reorder the writes so all your data is munged, but they only get 2-5% increase in performace.
Better to hope that the delays will make a better kernel for you. This is software development. Nothing is ever on time. And almost as rare is that software is done right.
I'd prefer late software done right to on time software done wrong.
I've played with 2.5 on a couple less used machines, but I always seem to have module problems. Is this still the case?