But I have no desire to get stuck on some locked down ARM wannabe playing Angry Birds, I want AAA gaming, I want to be able to transcode, I want to be able to build up my system as time goes on, and if this is true that just means Intel won't be coming near any of my computers, the loss of choice won't be worth the increased IPC.
Why stop there? I want to be able to eject and replace the motherboard as easily as a laser disk, I want to be able to stack CPUs like Lego bricks for my instant Beowulf Cluster, I want to be able to run any OS on any hardware, I want to have programming languages that compile into cross platform bytecode w/ the option of translating to machine code at runtime via something like LLVM!
Games still tend to be locked to Windows (annoying, I know).
Minor nitpick: Released Games. Not the games themselves. Game coders don't write their code in some MS specific Assembler. The languages we use are cross platform, yes even C# to a large degree. Even when we do code in ASM it's surrounded by a #ifdef block that lets us toggle back to the slower cross platform implementation.
Since the studio / publisher has the source code, they can get it to work on Linux if they want. It's just a matter of changing the platform specific API calls to work on the new OS / platform. They're only tied to Windows because that's what they were developed and released for. The code itself is mostly cross platform. If the devs had started off by using an engine that is natively cross platform (like they do for game consoles) then you get Linux and Mac basically for free. Such engines exist. All other things being equal, if you're starting out a new project selecting an engine why not pick the one with the bullet point that says: "PC, Mac & Linux Support"? (Translation: More marketshare for the same work; Publisher translation: Free Money). In fact, because SOME engines do have that bullet point it puts pressure on other engine devs to support Linux too. It's very rare that a AAA game's engine is made in-house from scratch. Publishers love free money, developers code to an engine, not an OS... Ergo, Games are coming to Linux, and they'll come to ARM just as easily.
For my own code it's a simple matter of git pull & make and my code written on x86-64 Linux, and compiled on the same as well as x86(-64) Windows, now also runs on ARM. Existing games that were coded to a non cross platform API are somewhat painful to port, but people will do it if the cost / benefit ratio is decent.
<!-- Optimism Engaged : Continue reading at your own risk -->
What you may not realize is that we're fast approaching the dawn of a Software Singularity, beyond which we can not predict the glorious future of software. It's a major milestone on the road to the more widely known technology singularity. With compilable languages (eg C instead of ASM) we gained platform independence. Now, there are languages that can compile to byte code for multiple different VMs. Compilers like LLVM will bridge the gap between interpreted code and machine code. Metaprogramming allows some languages to compile down to multiple "object languages" -- This is AWESOME for making native games that also run on Android & iOS.
VM's equipped with Bytecode compilers that can optionally transform bytecode into machine code will allow you to use ANY Language and distribute cross platform bytecode, then compile it into native machine code at install time (not run time like the slower Just In Time compilation method).
By compiling down to bytecode, and being able to interpret it OR continue compiling it to machine code, some languages will allow you to both enter code at run time, or compile scripts directly to machine code in the same language. Some already do...
Interpreted & VM languages like Perl and Java, Javascript, Lua, etc. have made some real inroads here with JIT compilation, but the evolution will continue. For instance Perl6's Parrot VM has frontends to compile many languages to its bytecode, e.g., you can compile Java, Lisp, C, Perl, Brainfuck, etc into Parrot bytecode, and run them on the same VM. Some non-Java languages also target the JavaVM. These are only lacking the final steps that projects like LLVM provide, i.e., compiling the cross platform bytecode into machine code.
With such a dual interpreted / native compiled language you could evaluate a program in a sandbox by running / automated inspection of the bytecode version. Then, have the OS compile the program to machine code if you like it. This also solves the problem of plugins --.DLL /.so based plugins can
Neutral or deflationary currencies are only good for the people who already have a lot of them.
Nope. You think I use US currency because I like it? Because I think it has value over any other currency? Nope. It's because that's what I get paid in, its the money they accept at the stores I go to. I put it to you that no matter what price it's trading at, if I want to exchange money into Bitcoin I'll be able to. Why would I do such a thing? Because it's the currency that some people accept, and it has far less transaction fee than a wire transfer. You think I wouldn't just use USD for that if I could? You see, I just showed you that this deflationary currency is good for even people who only have few of them. Your move.
Also, forgive the self reply, but STOP FOCUSING ON BEING SUCCESSFUL. You don't make that shit happen, it happens on its own. Trying to ensure adoption = lame boring games.
"Each contingency is an arrangement of time, activity, and reward, and there are an infinite number of ways these elements can be combined to produce the pattern of activity you want from your players."
Notice his article does not contain the words "fun" or "enjoyment." That's not his field. Instead it's "the pattern of activity you want."
There's a much simpler way to cut all the bullshit. Just make the game that you want to play. If you think, "Ooh! Wouldn't it be cool if ____?", then do it. There's not a single successful game that didn't start out with that exact phrase (in your language of choice).
This is why they make such good detectors for things like explosives or drugs
Oh really? I thought they made such good detectors because they can take cues from the body language of their trainers, thus validating a "hunch" and allowing an in for imaginary probable cause... I mean, an electronic chem sniffer would be far more accurate, thus inferior.
Or, do you really believe that horses and dogs can do math?
Here is the formula for an average, per-citizen, rate of consumption of entertainment, in movies per year, as a function of geek rage:
cons(rage):= 0.999*10 + 0.001*(1/rage)
What is the limit of this function with rage going to infinity?
OVER 9000!
You failed to realize rage is an irrational number roughly equivalent to 0.0001111111111 (repeating).
The limit of your function expressed in the bironic form (Internet Math Notation), is approximately equivalent to: 1!!!11!!11!!!1one111111!11
(whereby "!" replaces zeros, "one" is the fractional separator, to the right of which is the binary exponent).
Protip: There is always a smarter smartass. Get on my level.
If you want to make sure you are paid for your work, there is already a system we have in place for doing so, it's called selling it, aka taking my money before you give me your product. It's really simple, it works, and it is quite common.
THIS. I've been trying to convince people in the software world that this is how we should do business too, but nope, no one but FLOSS folks want to do this... Instead they work for publishers of software, then THE WORK IS ALREADY DONE, the publishers try to recoup their losses by selling artificially scarce bits. Furthermore they gamble on what customers MIGHT like rather than just letting the customer's vote with their wallet over what features they want implemented, charging them what it'll cost to develop the feature, and releasing the end result to everyone for free (since that single effort of work has already been paid for). Make a bad decision and work on shit no one wants? Then, you've wasted money. Most folks I know would rather have a steady income than play the lottery...
The same goes for movies and music and games... Wouldn't it be awesome if there was shit you actually wanted to see and listen to and play available to put your bucks towards, and once the devs had been paid to do the work (and make a bit of profit) everyone got to have the content for free?
Let's face it: It's the Information Age. The old ideas about Publishing are obsolete. Publishers nolonger need to exist. If your business is keeping data from being shared or used in any way the end user likes to generate page hits then you're fucked. How do I know? BECAUSE I DIDN'T EVEN READ TFA! heh.
I've been using AR glasses with my smart phone for YEARS. It's often times faster to overlay the 3D noise source map (gathered from sensors in the field) over the readily available physical model -- Depth culling to remove obscured sources in real time (industrial noise abatement). Sometimes it's faster if the CAD files can be imported easily, to just do it digitally, even so, I can just turn off the cameras. I rarely used my phone when doing this sort of work, but I have done so. I've used it experimentally in the field to visualize the pre-recorded 3D noise volumes in real time walking (while all the equipment is safely turned off). It's safer and sometimes faster because it skips the step of constructing a 3D model of the environment.
No longer work in that field, but I now do some game development on the side, and I've found craploads of uses for AR in game dev... Overlay a wireframe of the scanned object to the real 3D clay model, correct minor defects, add wrinkle details, seams and screws and bolts. It's sort of like the modern equivalent of a painter working on a portrait with a live model. If the cameras didn't make me look silly (or pervy) I'd wear them in public to do "Google Glass" right now.
I abstain from reading any patents if I can. I hope MS's new patent is properly limited so that it doesn't PREVENT EXISTING USES OF AUGMENTED REALITY. No, really, just end all patents. This is retarding.
Thaw. Chop meat into 1" cubes. Make slurry w/ 2 parts cornstarch & 1 part flour & 1/64th part baking powder, 1/128th part salt, and slowly add equal parts soy sauce and cold water stirring until smooth when not in motion, but solid when stirred quickly (you'll have to stir slowly, it's a non-Newtonian liquid at this point). Place a colander in a large bowl, pour in slurry, add turkey cubes -- There should be enough to just cover the meat. Lift the colander and drain excess batter. In a large bag of flour, add the battered turkey cubes (careful not to allow clumping) and shake. Drop battered turkey cubes into pre-heated (turkey) deep-fryer, cook until caramelized (golden brown)
The rice and sauce are left as an exercise to the reader. (seriously, use Google, and some use eggs instead of water for batter).
Also, be careful with open flame and flour -- Before serving, remove oil from burner then toss a hand full of flower into the air above the open flame to create a most impressive fuel-air bomb.
Woah, slow down... Why pull the "racist" card? Isn't that precisely what genetics is about? I'm not a racist but I think they might have a valid point. Our ancestors with dark skin weren't the result of breeding with Neanderthals, but the light skinned folks were. So, hmm, I don't know if you'd say blacks were closer to being apes, but whites are more likely to carry Neanderthal genes as well as homsapien genes. That probably means they're further from apes if you measure "distance" by genetic differentiation. If you count that merging as a node in the graph, that's one more node further, no? Not that it matters much, I'm sure there's been sufficient cross breeding that you'd have a hard time finding anyone alive without Neanderthal genes.
It's hard to convince the general public not steeped in an interest in science from an early age the way a lot of the geekverse was. People need to see something happening in a big, clear way before they believe it.
I've been saying this for years. The bad thing is that all the scientists have too many morals to band together and LIE to the general public about some seriously imminent disaster, so we can actually get to fixing things... Then honestly proclaim afterwards,"You saved the world, yay!" (because we would have averted disaster instead of rush headlong into it). The same goes for keeping all our eggs in one basket here on Earth -- priority #2 should be space colonization, as any rational entity can see. Just lie and say we detected a huge meteor headed for earth in the next 20 years, but with enough funding we can save the world. People like saving the world. That's why my grandparents gave up all their iron crockery in WWII... I imagine folks would willingly sacrifice a bit of CO2 footprint to save the planet, but only if we incentivize them to do so (or put it in a game or movie).
I'm fully aware of the deceptive ethical implications here; However, you have to make do with whatever world you find yourself on, and I'm stuck here... We allow those with established vested interests to persuade our politicians to the detriment of all, and it seems we're powerless to fix the situation as it stands. Thus, desperate times & measures... There is another possible way to fix it, but that'll never happen: Only allow those who are knowledgeable about something to vote for / against that thing, or make judgments for or against a thing. Take a test w/ the vote, then scale their vote by the test score. Then, dumbasses couldn't drown out the smart folks as easily, and it might even boost education.
However I do believe there are many things the USPTO does right, and I do believe they are still needed.
I am a scientist. I use logic and reason to make up my mind. You clearly do not. You believe patents are still needed. I do not. Let us test your hypothesis, that they are still needed? If you are rational you will realize that the only thing to do now is run the experiment. Yes? So, let's abolish the patents and see if they're needed. You have no supporting evidence for your claim that they are needed otherwise. I mean, the Information Age happened, and is rocking the world's economies. Perhaps it's time to re-evaluate either way, no?
Let me put it to you this way: The fashion industry is very innovative. Automotive designs are very innovative too. However, did you know that neither the fashion industry or automotive industries are allowed design patents? I now have a very strong data point in my favor for the assertion that patents are not required at all. Now it's your turn... Oh, that's right, you're not a scientist. You don't want to run the experiment. You'd rather us continue running the world on via your hypotheses.
No rational being would agree to be ruled in such a way...
And PNG is alive and well, but I still can't figure out how to make animations in the format.
You need APNG format, not PNG. It's an "unofficial" extension to PNG, which I believe Firefox eventually wants to support. Didn't think any other browser is planning on supporting it -- Which is a big deal for "Animated Portable Network Graphics" unless you like "Best Viewed With" banners. None the less, to make animations with it I use GIMP.
P.S. I have it on good authority that PNG is pronounced like "Peeing". I guess it's a reference to the "Striesand effect"; i.e., "Removing an image from the Internet is like trying to remove pee from a pool."
Slashdot Mirror
But I have no desire to get stuck on some locked down ARM wannabe playing Angry Birds, I want AAA gaming, I want to be able to transcode, I want to be able to build up my system as time goes on, and if this is true that just means Intel won't be coming near any of my computers, the loss of choice won't be worth the increased IPC.
Why stop there? I want to be able to eject and replace the motherboard as easily as a laser disk, I want to be able to stack CPUs like Lego bricks for my instant Beowulf Cluster, I want to be able to run any OS on any hardware, I want to have programming languages that compile into cross platform bytecode w/ the option of translating to machine code at runtime via something like LLVM!
Damn it, I ran out of sarcasm again...
Games still tend to be locked to Windows (annoying, I know).
Minor nitpick: Released Games. Not the games themselves. Game coders don't write their code in some MS specific Assembler. The languages we use are cross platform, yes even C# to a large degree. Even when we do code in ASM it's surrounded by a #ifdef block that lets us toggle back to the slower cross platform implementation.
Since the studio / publisher has the source code, they can get it to work on Linux if they want. It's just a matter of changing the platform specific API calls to work on the new OS / platform. They're only tied to Windows because that's what they were developed and released for. The code itself is mostly cross platform. If the devs had started off by using an engine that is natively cross platform (like they do for game consoles) then you get Linux and Mac basically for free. Such engines exist. All other things being equal, if you're starting out a new project selecting an engine why not pick the one with the bullet point that says: "PC, Mac & Linux Support"? (Translation: More marketshare for the same work; Publisher translation: Free Money). In fact, because SOME engines do have that bullet point it puts pressure on other engine devs to support Linux too. It's very rare that a AAA game's engine is made in-house from scratch. Publishers love free money, developers code to an engine, not an OS... Ergo, Games are coming to Linux, and they'll come to ARM just as easily.
For my own code it's a simple matter of git pull & make and my code written on x86-64 Linux, and compiled on the same as well as x86(-64) Windows, now also runs on ARM. Existing games that were coded to a non cross platform API are somewhat painful to port, but people will do it if the cost / benefit ratio is decent.
<!-- Optimism Engaged : Continue reading at your own risk -->
What you may not realize is that we're fast approaching the dawn of a Software Singularity, beyond which we can not predict the glorious future of software. It's a major milestone on the road to the more widely known technology singularity. With compilable languages (eg C instead of ASM) we gained platform independence. Now, there are languages that can compile to byte code for multiple different VMs. Compilers like LLVM will bridge the gap between interpreted code and machine code. Metaprogramming allows some languages to compile down to multiple "object languages" -- This is AWESOME for making native games that also run on Android & iOS.
VM's equipped with Bytecode compilers that can optionally transform bytecode into machine code will allow you to use ANY Language and distribute cross platform bytecode, then compile it into native machine code at install time (not run time like the slower Just In Time compilation method).
By compiling down to bytecode, and being able to interpret it OR continue compiling it to machine code, some languages will allow you to both enter code at run time, or compile scripts directly to machine code in the same language. Some already do...
Interpreted & VM languages like Perl and Java, Javascript, Lua, etc. have made some real inroads here with JIT compilation, but the evolution will continue. For instance Perl6's Parrot VM has frontends to compile many languages to its bytecode, e.g., you can compile Java, Lisp, C, Perl, Brainfuck, etc into Parrot bytecode, and run them on the same VM. Some non-Java languages also target the JavaVM. These are only lacking the final steps that projects like LLVM provide, i.e., compiling the cross platform bytecode into machine code.
With such a dual interpreted / native compiled language you could evaluate a program in a sandbox by running / automated inspection of the bytecode version. Then, have the OS compile the program to machine code if you like it. This also solves the problem of plugins -- .DLL / .so based plugins can
We're civilization- either you're with us, or you're against us.
My network of neural networks (machine intelligence) only had this to say when it scanned your post: false dichotomy
(un)Ironcially, that is actually the problem you should be fighting...
Neutral or deflationary currencies are only good for the people who already have a lot of them.
Nope. You think I use US currency because I like it? Because I think it has value over any other currency? Nope. It's because that's what I get paid in, its the money they accept at the stores I go to. I put it to you that no matter what price it's trading at, if I want to exchange money into Bitcoin I'll be able to. Why would I do such a thing? Because it's the currency that some people accept, and it has far less transaction fee than a wire transfer. You think I wouldn't just use USD for that if I could? You see, I just showed you that this deflationary currency is good for even people who only have few of them. Your move.
Also, forgive the self reply, but STOP FOCUSING ON BEING SUCCESSFUL. You don't make that shit happen, it happens on its own. Trying to ensure adoption = lame boring games.
Reminds me of another article:
"Each contingency is an arrangement of time, activity, and reward, and there are an infinite number of ways these elements can be combined to produce the pattern of activity you want from your players."
Notice his article does not contain the words "fun" or "enjoyment." That's not his field. Instead it's "the pattern of activity you want."
There's a much simpler way to cut all the bullshit. Just make the game that you want to play. If you think, "Ooh! Wouldn't it be cool if ____?", then do it. There's not a single successful game that didn't start out with that exact phrase (in your language of choice).
A lot of the will be lost, but not all.
I see what you did there...
</article>
There, now you don't have to read it.
This is why they make such good detectors for things like explosives or drugs
Oh really? I thought they made such good detectors because they can take cues from the body language of their trainers, thus validating a "hunch" and allowing an in for imaginary probable cause... I mean, an electronic chem sniffer would be far more accurate, thus inferior.
Or, do you really believe that horses and dogs can do math?
If everyone did this, the game would change.
Here is the formula for an average, per-citizen, rate of consumption of entertainment, in movies per year, as a function of geek rage:
cons(rage) := 0.999*10 + 0.001*(1/rage)
What is the limit of this function with rage going to infinity?
OVER 9000!
You failed to realize rage is an irrational number roughly equivalent to 0.0001111111111 (repeating).
The limit of your function expressed in the bironic form (Internet Math Notation), is approximately equivalent to: 1!!!11!!11!!!1one111111!11
(whereby "!" replaces zeros, "one" is the fractional separator, to the right of which is the binary exponent).
Protip: There is always a smarter smartass. Get on my level.
If you want to make sure you are paid for your work, there is already a system we have in place for doing so, it's called selling it, aka taking my money before you give me your product. It's really simple, it works, and it is quite common.
THIS. I've been trying to convince people in the software world that this is how we should do business too, but nope, no one but FLOSS folks want to do this... Instead they work for publishers of software, then THE WORK IS ALREADY DONE, the publishers try to recoup their losses by selling artificially scarce bits. Furthermore they gamble on what customers MIGHT like rather than just letting the customer's vote with their wallet over what features they want implemented, charging them what it'll cost to develop the feature, and releasing the end result to everyone for free (since that single effort of work has already been paid for). Make a bad decision and work on shit no one wants? Then, you've wasted money. Most folks I know would rather have a steady income than play the lottery...
The same goes for movies and music and games... Wouldn't it be awesome if there was shit you actually wanted to see and listen to and play available to put your bucks towards, and once the devs had been paid to do the work (and make a bit of profit) everyone got to have the content for free?
Let's face it: It's the Information Age. The old ideas about Publishing are obsolete. Publishers nolonger need to exist. If your business is keeping data from being shared or used in any way the end user likes to generate page hits then you're fucked. How do I know? BECAUSE I DIDN'T EVEN READ TFA! heh.
I've been using AR glasses with my smart phone for YEARS.
It's often times faster to overlay the 3D noise source map (gathered from sensors in the field) over the readily available physical model -- Depth culling to remove obscured sources in real time (industrial noise abatement). Sometimes it's faster if the CAD files can be imported easily, to just do it digitally, even so, I can just turn off the cameras. I rarely used my phone when doing this sort of work, but I have done so. I've used it experimentally in the field to visualize the pre-recorded 3D noise volumes in real time walking (while all the equipment is safely turned off). It's safer and sometimes faster because it skips the step of constructing a 3D model of the environment.
No longer work in that field, but I now do some game development on the side, and I've found craploads of uses for AR in game dev... Overlay a wireframe of the scanned object to the real 3D clay model, correct minor defects, add wrinkle details, seams and screws and bolts. It's sort of like the modern equivalent of a painter working on a portrait with a live model. If the cameras didn't make me look silly (or pervy) I'd wear them in public to do "Google Glass" right now.
I abstain from reading any patents if I can. I hope MS's new patent is properly limited so that it doesn't PREVENT EXISTING USES OF AUGMENTED REALITY. No, really, just end all patents. This is retarding.
Thaw. Chop meat into 1" cubes. Make slurry w/ 2 parts cornstarch & 1 part flour & 1/64th part baking powder, 1/128th part salt, and slowly add equal parts soy sauce and cold water stirring until smooth when not in motion, but solid when stirred quickly (you'll have to stir slowly, it's a non-Newtonian liquid at this point). Place a colander in a large bowl, pour in slurry, add turkey cubes -- There should be enough to just cover the meat. Lift the colander and drain excess batter. In a large bag of flour, add the battered turkey cubes (careful not to allow clumping) and shake. Drop battered turkey cubes into pre-heated (turkey) deep-fryer, cook until caramelized (golden brown)
The rice and sauce are left as an exercise to the reader. (seriously, use Google, and some use eggs instead of water for batter). Also, be careful with open flame and flour -- Before serving, remove oil from burner then toss a hand full of flower into the air above the open flame to create a most impressive fuel-air bomb.
yeah, blacks
No. Racists
Woah, slow down... Why pull the "racist" card? Isn't that precisely what genetics is about? I'm not a racist but I think they might have a valid point. Our ancestors with dark skin weren't the result of breeding with Neanderthals, but the light skinned folks were. So, hmm, I don't know if you'd say blacks were closer to being apes, but whites are more likely to carry Neanderthal genes as well as homsapien genes. That probably means they're further from apes if you measure "distance" by genetic differentiation. If you count that merging as a node in the graph, that's one more node further, no? Not that it matters much, I'm sure there's been sufficient cross breeding that you'd have a hard time finding anyone alive without Neanderthal genes.
Me too. Everyone takes that same wrong turn at Albuquerque.
Or even just "Known"...
Love Fox News? I seriously hope you guys don't do that...
Do you KNOW that you will be in a car accident the day that it happens?
Why the fuck do you wear a seat-belt then?
It's hard to convince the general public not steeped in an interest in science from an early age the way a lot of the geekverse was. People need to see something happening in a big, clear way before they believe it.
I've been saying this for years. The bad thing is that all the scientists have too many morals to band together and LIE to the general public about some seriously imminent disaster, so we can actually get to fixing things... Then honestly proclaim afterwards,"You saved the world, yay!" (because we would have averted disaster instead of rush headlong into it). The same goes for keeping all our eggs in one basket here on Earth -- priority #2 should be space colonization, as any rational entity can see. Just lie and say we detected a huge meteor headed for earth in the next 20 years, but with enough funding we can save the world. People like saving the world. That's why my grandparents gave up all their iron crockery in WWII... I imagine folks would willingly sacrifice a bit of CO2 footprint to save the planet, but only if we incentivize them to do so (or put it in a game or movie).
I'm fully aware of the deceptive ethical implications here; However, you have to make do with whatever world you find yourself on, and I'm stuck here... We allow those with established vested interests to persuade our politicians to the detriment of all, and it seems we're powerless to fix the situation as it stands. Thus, desperate times & measures... There is another possible way to fix it, but that'll never happen: Only allow those who are knowledgeable about something to vote for / against that thing, or make judgments for or against a thing. Take a test w/ the vote, then scale their vote by the test score. Then, dumbasses couldn't drown out the smart folks as easily, and it might even boost education.
Minor nitpick: Shouldn't that be "Mou-outh" ?
The current patent ecosystem [...] has incentivized [...] product innovation. [...] many businesses [...] produce [...] true innovation [...]
See? Everyone agrees that David Kappos is right and our patent system is the envy of the world.
I see what you did there.
However I do believe there are many things the USPTO does right, and I do believe they are still needed.
I am a scientist. I use logic and reason to make up my mind. You clearly do not. You believe patents are still needed. I do not. Let us test your hypothesis, that they are still needed? If you are rational you will realize that the only thing to do now is run the experiment. Yes? So, let's abolish the patents and see if they're needed. You have no supporting evidence for your claim that they are needed otherwise. I mean, the Information Age happened, and is rocking the world's economies. Perhaps it's time to re-evaluate either way, no?
Let me put it to you this way: The fashion industry is very innovative. Automotive designs are very innovative too. However, did you know that neither the fashion industry or automotive industries are allowed design patents? I now have a very strong data point in my favor for the assertion that patents are not required at all. Now it's your turn... Oh, that's right, you're not a scientist. You don't want to run the experiment. You'd rather us continue running the world on via your hypotheses.
No rational being would agree to be ruled in such a way...
I believe the layman's term for this practice is 'not shitting where one eats.'
Which is funny when you realize that to fix this, in layman's terms, one needs to: Not eat your own shit.
Journalists really are no longer in the business of letting their readers know what their government doesn't want them to know.
The old journalists have now been replaced with livejournalists.
And PNG is alive and well, but I still can't figure out how to make animations in the format.
You need APNG format, not PNG. It's an "unofficial" extension to PNG, which I believe Firefox eventually wants to support. Didn't think any other browser is planning on supporting it -- Which is a big deal for "Animated Portable Network Graphics" unless you like "Best Viewed With" banners. None the less, to make animations with it I use GIMP.
P.S. I have it on good authority that PNG is pronounced like "Peeing". I guess it's a reference to the "Striesand effect"; i.e., "Removing an image from the Internet is like trying to remove pee from a pool."
Confusyah say: Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana.