Possibly, but, in my world, you have to take that into account. You can't just say "properly written perl is faster". It might be; however, it is just as important that badly written perl brings a server to its knees, while PHP seems to fail gracefully.
I'm honestly not trying to sing the praises of PHP, I'm just trying to point out that a LOT of system load of computers I deal with is due to perl code. I didn't write the code, so I don't know the specifics of how good/bad it is, but I'm just making a general comment: When I see system load due to web serving, the first thing I go check on is if the person is using perl.
While there are some numbers here available for your review, benchmarking does not provide a real world assessment for any application operating in a specific real world scenario, and this does not try to demonstrate any proof that any system is better than any other.
Not to mention that, in those graphs, perl occasionally handles more requests per second than PHP, but almost ALWAYS has higher system load, and in many applications is SIGNIFICANTLY slower than PHP. For instance, who runs mod_perl on a webserver without a LOT of those modules added in (when you add stuff like Mason, Image::Magick, DBD::MySQL, it makes mod perl slower!).
Take another look at that graph, and average all of the perl instances versus the one PHP instance that they have listed, and compare the speed and requests per second.
?? Support your inferrence that perl is faster than PHP?
I don't have hard numbers, but I have been in environments where both are used, and perl seems to perform much worse. Specifically, I administer ~100 webservers, and clients that use more php put far less of a load on the system than people writing in perl scripts executed through web pages or mod_perl. In multiple years of working with both, perl just has become synonymous with higher system load.
The load jumps related to PHP that I see are always MySQL based loads.
Thank you, that was my immediate first reaction. Perl is a regexp manipulation language first, and very well suited for a variety of other tasks, other than web development. But, for webdev, there are many other languages that have been developed since perl that are much better.
Perl had to be adapted to web development, and it still suffers from various problems (for example, it's significantly slower than php). Php was written to be a web processing language. It's easier to understand and easier to program in, and faster. The only reasons to use perl over PHP for web development are 1.) familiarity with perl (slashdot), and 2.) security (to avoid "today's php upload root exploit").
And yet... don't the owners of intellectual property rights -- such as Linus Torvalds -- have the right to expect sufficient attention to be paid to their own law enforcement needs?
If the Linux kernel got hijacked and put into, say, some other Well Known OS illegally, can you tell me that nobody around here would making any "John Ashcroft should drop the hammer on these guys" remarks?
Well, yes, but given the choice between my tax dollars busting international money laundering organizations tied in to drug cartels, or going after warez groups, I'd take the drug cartels.
The entire torque engine is doing very well for it's self, and I just wanted to chime in and say:
Legends: The Comming of a New Age is comming along nicely. It's free, and can be downloaded from here. It's made with torque's entire engine, and is enjoying a moderately good following so far.
Good game, but, I've been too distracted by UT2004 to play. I need to make a point to play legends more.
Comment 1: Haven't we been here for years, now? "Linux is almost ready", "We've all but surpassed windows", etc. Comment 2: We won't have a desktop that can compete with windows until we still fix the stupid things that are inherent to x-windows WM's. All I want in life is to be able to cut-and-paste reliably between applications. Text, and pictures, mind you, and in a perfect world, spreadsheet data. You know what else would be nice? If it were faster - i.e. didn't have to go through unix sockets to do anything. Or if it didn't have to render all image files into bitmaps offscreen to display them.
No, we've still got a long way to go. I do really like a good gnome desktop running ximian, it's true, and it's getting better. But, sorry, we're no where near the "it just works" of apple / winxp.//asbestos armor on.
It has, and it's going to get worse, due to those fine republicans abolishing the "Death Tax".
The estate tax existed solely for the taxation of the super-mega rich. Less than 1% of Americans were affected by the "death tax" (the upper 1% make salaries starting at $400,000/yr). The richest 300 families in America collectively contributed about 20% of the estate tax. Annually, by 2010, the estate tax would have put $60,000,000,000 per year into the government. For estates worth over $10 million, on average, 56% is yet-to-be-taxed capital gains.
Now, however, the solution to step 2 is easy: die.
Step 1. Buy stocks, ventures, etc. Step 2. Die Step 3. Kids inherit without having to pay capital gains taxes.
It was touted as being a measure to save small family farmers and the like. The problem was, of course, that the first 2.6 million dollars of inherited farming or small business wealth was already exempt from this tax.
So, funny thing happened: Democrats proposed bills to exclude the first $4 million per couple from estate tax. Shot down. Then they tried $8 million. Shot down. Then Sen. Fiengold (D-Wisc) proposed a bill that would exclude the first 100 MILLION from the estate tax.
The bill was shot down 48-51.
Now, thanks to President Bush and the Republican Congress, if you have enough money, only one thing in life is certain. Death, or taxes.
We're not all rich over here in America. The combined gross income of my wife and I this last tax year was under $20,000. Yet, I support tax dollars going towards space exploration. I just wish that people who could actually afford to pay taxes supported it, too.
Oh, how's the refresh rate on that thing? That's always been my problem - at 60 fps, there's always been a ghosting effect, or a motion blur, that affects accuracy, etc etc.
ooh, also, the resolution is crap. 1280x1024 native on a 17" LCD? That sucks. 17" LCD is about the size of a 19" monitor, so it should be able to do at least 16x12. My 14" screen on the laptop does 1024x768 native. My 19" monitor far out paces that, for far less money.
I'm waiting for the LCD game to come up to the level of CRT's, but we're not there yet, man.
First: I agree with you. LCD screens are getting to the point where they're almost OK for games, and they're better for text. However, two things come to mind that you really want a CRT monitor for. One is Graphics design. You can fine tune the color pallate on a CRT. But, no big deal, we could get over that.
You're a dumbass, who just wants to bash windows, and you can't get over your self to exert even the slightest bit of effort.
less intuitive? i stopped reading there. you've obviously never used gnome or kde.
You've obviously never used the "shift" key.
so every time i boot windows and it asks me about 15 times "do you want to take a tour, do you want to make a.net account" etc etc you consider this worse?
Look, einstein: When it asks you if you want to take a tour, answer *yes*, and then tell it you want to take the non-animated tour, and then close the browser window that it opens. END OF STORY, it will never ask you again. I've done this dozens of times, and NEVER been bothered by it.
Same with make a.NET account. Whenever it pops up a bubble, click on the bubble. There's ALWAYS an option for "I don't want one, thanks".
Oh, and also: Automatic updates. "Click here to learn how to keep your computer up to date". Click there, moron. Then, click the option labeled "Do not keep my computer up to date; I will update my computer manually".
what far too many of you "power users" take for granted is just how much usability engineering goes into the average *easy* to use desktop application. apple does so much more usability testing, and has so many more qualified usability professionals on its staff, compared to most OSS projects that it often only takes apple a mere fraction of the time to make a closed source app 10 times as usable as the free equivalent. take a look at ichat, mail, ical, and safari. then compare them to apps like gaim, kopete, evolution, kmail, epiphany, and konqueror (shudder). it's not that apple only picks the features they think you need, it's that based on market surveys and usability testing they've determined that the vast majority of users prefer features X through Z and expect them to be in certain places.
I'm not even sure what you're driveling here. It's just incomprehensible. But what I gather from a cursory glance is that you're stating that Apple spends money on UI, and therefore their UI is better. Isn't this what your parent post said?
not only do you get all this wonderful unusable unix software, but you get a few usable gems like apple's ilife and commercial software like photoshop and even a few games (more than linux) that are official supported.
Unusable unix software? So, now apple is bad? Wait, I'm confused. Pick a side of the fence, please.
I'm just so amazed that you could manage to write such a bad post.
This is one occasion where time shifting may not be that bad. I.E. employEE comes up to employER and says, "Hey, it was too busy for me to take a break today. Sorry, I worked my 8 hours." In this case, I think it's morally OK for the employer to take that 9-5 shift and make it 9-5:30 with a 30m break in the middle. It saves both of them from an awkward legal situation...
But, other than that, I don't have proof, but I'm pretty sure best buy used to do something like this.
It's why Nissan, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda and Hyundai all have factories here.
An excellent post, sir, until this sentance. I beliege that these companies have factories here because by having factories in the U.S., they can avoid import fees.
Oh, of course not, but i mean, these results can be skewed to say anything you want them to.
Like the ad that I saw at the ^^ top of slashdot that says "Microsoft windows server 11-22% cheaper in 4 out of 5 operations". But, that's whatever they consider TCO, and possibly not taking into account things like uptimes and reliability, etc. Plus, what about the 5th? Is linux 600% cheaper?
This is just one of those places that people can get their fuel to fan the fire.
So, it's all in the reporting. I mean, you know and I know that it's not suprising that there might be more hits for linux, cause the linux community tends to shout it loud that there are exploits, and that they're either fixed or being fixed, but it gets distorted by the media. And by media, I mean microsoft advertising.
I remember back in 99(?) when there was only one april fools story - the linux users group storming the microsoft complex. And all the nerd sites linked to it, rather than comming up with their own.
It was pleasant to have real news and then get hit in the face with *JOKE*, but then to move on with life.
How about redhat doing their own beta testing and QA, instead of letting a bunch of people do it for them, and then taking their contributions and merging them into a $300 linux distro that they not only didn't write, but also were too lazy to test.
Yeah, whatever happened to that company that used a file-sharing program to determine what was the new-hotness, and was willing to sell cutting-edge marketing info to record companies, based on actual interest of the target audience?
I remember someone posted a link in a discussion once to this company. I thought at the time, "There's a great use for it, and the record industry can profit". It would let them get back on the cutting edge, rather than 6 months behind.
Theft is theft. If thieves were going into each and every one of your neighbors houses day and ripping them off every day, I can guarentee there will be some dead thieves and a lot of people applauding -- well except for the thieves who will be claiming that civil rights are being taken away and everyone else is a bunch of nazis.
If you want to talk about huge conglomerates screwing over the average consumer, you better be sure that the average consumer isn't fucking things up for those few honest consumers out there first...
Theft is theft. Peer-to-Peer is not theft.
If you have an apple, and I take it away from you, the number of apples in the global sense has not changed; the change is purely relative: I have one more apple than I had previously, and you have one less apple than you had previously.
If, on the other hand, you have an apple, and I clone the apple, the global number of apples has increased. You have not lost an apple, but I have gained one.
There is no theft involved in the 2nd.
I'm not going to try and claim to you that you're in the wrong here. It would fall on deaf ears anyway. However, if I asked you to prove that you're losing money because of P2P or whatever, you'd have to show that everyone that "pirates" your software would have bought it in the first place.
I.E. if I download a copy of Maya or something off of a P2P network, I know that I have done something illegal (copyright infringement), however, I also know that the company has lost no money from this act, as I would never have bought it in the first place.
Please remember two things about peer-to-peer:
1.) The vast majority of illegally copied software and multimedia files would not have been purchased at the asking price; therefore corporations in reality lose very little money. 2.) Very few pieces of software are worth the asking price, and even fewer corporations need the price that they're asking. It is this exhuberant overpricing that drives many people to download.
Case in point: It is illegal to download photoshop. It is also absolutely absurd that it costs $600. It's not worth $600, and Adobe doesn't need $600 per copy. Case 2 in point: Windows. It is illegal to download windows. It is also absurd how much money it costs - $100 per copy. Times millions of copies a year. Microsoft doesn't need that money. Microsoft has $36,000,000,000 in the bank, in cash. If they never, ever sold another piece of software, they could continue as a corporation, and pay all of their employees at their current salary rates, solely on the interest of the money they have.
So, in closing. Downloading software is illegal. Fucking consumers is immoral.
Sure this will get them noticed more, but if the games don't have innovative graphics and gameplay, the popularity of the previous titles is not going to mean shit.
I disagree. Warcraft III had neither stunning graphics nor innovative gameplay, and somehow it sold a trillion copies. Sequals can prop another game up.
Is the U.K. in the E.U.? I thought they weren't, but then they were considering it, but then... I dunno, the U.K.'s stance on the E.U. confuses me.
The U.K. and France have cooperated in recent years, though, for instance on the U.N. security council (they're 2 of the 5 permanant members with veto power, with the U.S., Russia, and China, I believe), and they usually vote together (for instance, recent decision to issue a statement about Israel's assassination of Palestenian HAMAS leaders - I believe the vote was 12 for, 1 (the U.S.) against (veto), and France and the U.K. not voting.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, or you just turn off php_upload() or whatever the function is in your config, and keep your system patched.
Possibly, but, in my world, you have to take that into account. You can't just say "properly written perl is faster". It might be; however, it is just as important that badly written perl brings a server to its knees, while PHP seems to fail gracefully.
I'm honestly not trying to sing the praises of PHP, I'm just trying to point out that a LOT of system load of computers I deal with is due to perl code. I didn't write the code, so I don't know the specifics of how good/bad it is, but I'm just making a general comment: When I see system load due to web serving, the first thing I go check on is if the person is using perl.
~Will
I call bullshit on your link:
While there are some numbers here available for your review, benchmarking does not provide a real world assessment for any application operating in a specific real world scenario, and this does not try to demonstrate any proof that any system is better than any other.
Not to mention that, in those graphs, perl occasionally handles more requests per second than PHP, but almost ALWAYS has higher system load, and in many applications is SIGNIFICANTLY slower than PHP. For instance, who runs mod_perl on a webserver without a LOT of those modules added in (when you add stuff like Mason, Image::Magick, DBD::MySQL, it makes mod perl slower!).
Take another look at that graph, and average all of the perl instances versus the one PHP instance that they have listed, and compare the speed and requests per second.
~Will
?? Support your inferrence that perl is faster than PHP?
I don't have hard numbers, but I have been in environments where both are used, and perl seems to perform much worse. Specifically, I administer ~100 webservers, and clients that use more php put far less of a load on the system than people writing in perl scripts executed through web pages or mod_perl. In multiple years of working with both, perl just has become synonymous with higher system load.
The load jumps related to PHP that I see are always MySQL based loads.
~Will
Thank you, that was my immediate first reaction. Perl is a regexp manipulation language first, and very well suited for a variety of other tasks, other than web development. But, for webdev, there are many other languages that have been developed since perl that are much better.
Perl had to be adapted to web development, and it still suffers from various problems (for example, it's significantly slower than php). Php was written to be a web processing language. It's easier to understand and easier to program in, and faster. The only reasons to use perl over PHP for web development are 1.) familiarity with perl (slashdot), and 2.) security (to avoid "today's php upload root exploit").
~Will
And yet... don't the owners of intellectual property rights -- such as Linus Torvalds -- have the right to expect sufficient attention to be paid to their own law enforcement needs?
If the Linux kernel got hijacked and put into, say, some other Well Known OS illegally, can you tell me that nobody around here would making any "John Ashcroft should drop the hammer on these guys" remarks?
Well, yes, but given the choice between my tax dollars busting international money laundering organizations tied in to drug cartels, or going after warez groups, I'd take the drug cartels.
The entire torque engine is doing very well for it's self, and I just wanted to chime in and say:
Legends: The Comming of a New Age is comming along nicely. It's free, and can be downloaded from here. It's made with torque's entire engine, and is enjoying a moderately good following so far.
Good game, but, I've been too distracted by UT2004 to play. I need to make a point to play legends more.
~Will
the review doesn't seem to show any marked advantages over VMware
Market advantage over VMWare? How about that if it's $20, as you say, it's 1/30th the cost of VMWare.
Dude, VMWare costs a shitton.
~Will
has all but surpassed proprietary alternatives.
Comment 1: Haven't we been here for years, now? "Linux is almost ready", "We've all but surpassed windows", etc.
Comment 2: We won't have a desktop that can compete with windows until we still fix the stupid things that are inherent to x-windows WM's. All I want in life is to be able to cut-and-paste reliably between applications. Text, and pictures, mind you, and in a perfect world, spreadsheet data. You know what else would be nice? If it were faster - i.e. didn't have to go through unix sockets to do anything. Or if it didn't have to render all image files into bitmaps offscreen to display them.
No, we've still got a long way to go. I do really like a good gnome desktop running ximian, it's true, and it's getting better. But, sorry, we're no where near the "it just works" of apple / winxp.
~Will
I'm sure it's gotten worse since
It has, and it's going to get worse, due to those fine republicans abolishing the "Death Tax".
The estate tax existed solely for the taxation of the super-mega rich. Less than 1% of Americans were affected by the "death tax" (the upper 1% make salaries starting at $400,000/yr). The richest 300 families in America collectively contributed about 20% of the estate tax. Annually, by 2010, the estate tax would have put $60,000,000,000 per year into the government. For estates worth over $10 million, on average, 56% is yet-to-be-taxed capital gains.
Now, however, the solution to step 2 is easy: die.
Step 1. Buy stocks, ventures, etc.
Step 2. Die
Step 3. Kids inherit without having to pay capital gains taxes.
It was touted as being a measure to save small family farmers and the like. The problem was, of course, that the first 2.6 million dollars of inherited farming or small business wealth was already exempt from this tax.
So, funny thing happened: Democrats proposed bills to exclude the first $4 million per couple from estate tax. Shot down. Then they tried $8 million. Shot down.
Then Sen. Fiengold (D-Wisc) proposed a bill that would exclude the first 100 MILLION from the estate tax.
The bill was shot down 48-51.
Now, thanks to President Bush and the Republican Congress, if you have enough money, only one thing in life is certain. Death, or taxes.
We're not all rich over here in America. The combined gross income of my wife and I this last tax year was under $20,000. Yet, I support tax dollars going towards space exploration. I just wish that people who could actually afford to pay taxes supported it, too.
~Will
Oh, how's the refresh rate on that thing? That's always been my problem - at 60 fps, there's always been a ghosting effect, or a motion blur, that affects accuracy, etc etc.
ooh, also, the resolution is crap. 1280x1024 native on a 17" LCD? That sucks. 17" LCD is about the size of a 19" monitor, so it should be able to do at least 16x12. My 14" screen on the laptop does 1024x768 native. My 19" monitor far out paces that, for far less money.
I'm waiting for the LCD game to come up to the level of CRT's, but we're not there yet, man.
First: I agree with you. LCD screens are getting to the point where they're almost OK for games, and they're better for text. However, two things come to mind that you really want a CRT monitor for. One is Graphics design. You can fine tune the color pallate on a CRT. But, no big deal, we could get over that.
The other is TV's.
That's the big hurdle here.
~Will
You're a dumbass, who just wants to bash windows, and you can't get over your self to exert even the slightest bit of effort.
less intuitive? i stopped reading there. you've obviously never used gnome or kde.
You've obviously never used the "shift" key.
so every time i boot windows and it asks me about 15 times "do you want to take a tour, do you want to make a
Look, einstein: When it asks you if you want to take a tour, answer *yes*, and then tell it you want to take the non-animated tour, and then close the browser window that it opens. END OF STORY, it will never ask you again. I've done this dozens of times, and NEVER been bothered by it.
Same with make a
Oh, and also: Automatic updates. "Click here to learn how to keep your computer up to date". Click there, moron. Then, click the option labeled "Do not keep my computer up to date; I will update my computer manually".
what far too many of you "power users" take for granted is just how much usability engineering goes into the average *easy* to use desktop application. apple does so much more usability testing, and has so many more qualified usability professionals on its staff, compared to most OSS projects that it often only takes apple a mere fraction of the time to make a closed source app 10 times as usable as the free equivalent. take a look at ichat, mail, ical, and safari. then compare them to apps like gaim, kopete, evolution, kmail, epiphany, and konqueror (shudder). it's not that apple only picks the features they think you need, it's that based on market surveys and usability testing they've determined that the vast majority of users prefer features X through Z and expect them to be in certain places.
I'm not even sure what you're driveling here. It's just incomprehensible. But what I gather from a cursory glance is that you're stating that Apple spends money on UI, and therefore their UI is better. Isn't this what your parent post said?
not only do you get all this wonderful unusable unix software, but you get a few usable gems like apple's ilife and commercial software like photoshop and even a few games (more than linux) that are official supported.
Unusable unix software? So, now apple is bad? Wait, I'm confused. Pick a side of the fence, please.
I'm just so amazed that you could manage to write such a bad post.
~Will
This is one occasion where time shifting may not be that bad. I.E. employEE comes up to employER and says, "Hey, it was too busy for me to take a break today. Sorry, I worked my 8 hours." In this case, I think it's morally OK for the employer to take that 9-5 shift and make it 9-5:30 with a 30m break in the middle. It saves both of them from an awkward legal situation...
But, other than that, I don't have proof, but I'm pretty sure best buy used to do something like this.
It's why Nissan, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda and Hyundai all have factories here.
An excellent post, sir, until this sentance. I beliege that these companies have factories here because by having factories in the U.S., they can avoid import fees.
But, other than that, dead on.
Oh, of course not, but i mean, these results can be skewed to say anything you want them to.
Like the ad that I saw at the ^^ top of slashdot that says "Microsoft windows server 11-22% cheaper in 4 out of 5 operations". But, that's whatever they consider TCO, and possibly not taking into account things like uptimes and reliability, etc. Plus, what about the 5th? Is linux 600% cheaper?
This is just one of those places that people can get their fuel to fan the fire.
Not intended as a troll, but:
Google for Microsoft Vulnerability" yields 4,900 hits.
Google for "Linux Vulnerability" yields 2,470 hits.
But, if you search another way...
Google for "Microsoft Exploit" yields 993 hits,
Google for "Linux exploit" yields 1880 hits.
So, it's all in the reporting. I mean, you know and I know that it's not suprising that there might be more hits for linux, cause the linux community tends to shout it loud that there are exploits, and that they're either fixed or being fixed, but it gets distorted by the media. And by media, I mean microsoft advertising.
~Will
*sigh*.
I remember back in 99(?) when there was only one april fools story - the linux users group storming the microsoft complex. And all the nerd sites linked to it, rather than comming up with their own.
It was pleasant to have real news and then get hit in the face with *JOKE*, but then to move on with life.
~Will
Which is funny, because I've tried to convince my wife that we need to get this shirt for little Sean Kevin when he pops out in less than 2 months.
She said "no" of course, she doesn't want to be pushing a stroller around with a baby with a shirt that says "broken condom".
So, I just opted for this shirt. I figured "Daddy drinks because I cry" was a little better.
~Will
How about redhat doing their own beta testing and QA, instead of letting a bunch of people do it for them, and then taking their contributions and merging them into a $300 linux distro that they not only didn't write, but also were too lazy to test.
Because Redhat = Fedora.
~Will
Yeah, whatever happened to that company that used a file-sharing program to determine what was the new-hotness, and was willing to sell cutting-edge marketing info to record companies, based on actual interest of the target audience?
I remember someone posted a link in a discussion once to this company. I thought at the time, "There's a great use for it, and the record industry can profit". It would let them get back on the cutting edge, rather than 6 months behind.
~Will
Not only that, but how can anyone be anti-abortion *and* anti-gay marriage?!? Who has less abortions than gays?!?
Wx
Theft is theft. If thieves were going into each and every one of your neighbors houses day and ripping them off every day, I can guarentee there will be some dead thieves and a lot of people applauding -- well except for the thieves who will be claiming that civil rights are being taken away and everyone else is a bunch of nazis.
If you want to talk about huge conglomerates screwing over the average consumer, you better be sure that the average consumer isn't fucking things up for those few honest consumers out there first...
Theft is theft. Peer-to-Peer is not theft.
If you have an apple, and I take it away from you, the number of apples in the global sense has not changed; the change is purely relative: I have one more apple than I had previously, and you have one less apple than you had previously.
If, on the other hand, you have an apple, and I clone the apple, the global number of apples has increased. You have not lost an apple, but I have gained one.
There is no theft involved in the 2nd.
I'm not going to try and claim to you that you're in the wrong here. It would fall on deaf ears anyway. However, if I asked you to prove that you're losing money because of P2P or whatever, you'd have to show that everyone that "pirates" your software would have bought it in the first place.
I.E. if I download a copy of Maya or something off of a P2P network, I know that I have done something illegal (copyright infringement), however, I also know that the company has lost no money from this act, as I would never have bought it in the first place.
Please remember two things about peer-to-peer:
1.) The vast majority of illegally copied software and multimedia files would not have been purchased at the asking price; therefore corporations in reality lose very little money.
2.) Very few pieces of software are worth the asking price, and even fewer corporations need the price that they're asking. It is this exhuberant overpricing that drives many people to download.
Case in point: It is illegal to download photoshop. It is also absolutely absurd that it costs $600. It's not worth $600, and Adobe doesn't need $600 per copy.
Case 2 in point: Windows. It is illegal to download windows. It is also absurd how much money it costs - $100 per copy. Times millions of copies a year. Microsoft doesn't need that money. Microsoft has $36,000,000,000 in the bank, in cash. If they never, ever sold another piece of software, they could continue as a corporation, and pay all of their employees at their current salary rates, solely on the interest of the money they have.
So, in closing. Downloading software is illegal. Fucking consumers is immoral.
~Will
Sure this will get them noticed more, but if the games don't have innovative graphics and gameplay, the popularity of the previous titles is not going to mean shit.
I disagree. Warcraft III had neither stunning graphics nor innovative gameplay, and somehow it sold a trillion copies. Sequals can prop another game up.
~wx
Is the U.K. in the E.U.? I thought they weren't, but then they were considering it, but then... I dunno, the U.K.'s stance on the E.U. confuses me.
The U.K. and France have cooperated in recent years, though, for instance on the U.N. security council (they're 2 of the 5 permanant members with veto power, with the U.S., Russia, and China, I believe), and they usually vote together (for instance, recent decision to issue a statement about Israel's assassination of Palestenian HAMAS leaders - I believe the vote was 12 for, 1 (the U.S.) against (veto), and France and the U.K. not voting.
~Will