Perhaps thats part of the problem then. Dev houses are flocking to where the biggest reward is, which is also where the biggest risk is. PC gaming may have smaller rewards, but I know that I'd rather have a small slice of a big pie (PC gaming) than a big slice of a small pie (console X).
I'd rather risk a loss of $100k for a potential reward of $100k than risk a loss of $35m for a potential reward of $15m.
Self-defence. You can/in the heat of an argument/ strike someone if they first strike your kid. (Don't think this was in the heat of the argument though)
Offering a bribe shouldn't be illegal, accepting a bribe should be. This lets us test officials every now and again without being implicated.
sidenote: Anyone here remember a Stephen King/Peter Straub book called "The Talisman"? My memory could be failing me, as I read it in 1986, but ISTR a similar setup there... corrupt cops, court officials and childrens sanctuary, but I always thought "Nah, that could never happen". When did horror novels become state official instruction books?
No, not necessarily... it's merely two modifiers, both of which negate the root word "regard".
and both of which together make it incorrect.
Yes, one of them would have been adequate and probably preferable to convey the intended meaning. However, before you say that two negatives equals a positive, please refer back to the first three words of this post.
trite, but nevertheless still incorrect (or would that be "nonnevertheless"?:-)
Between the previous and next sequence point an object shall have its stored value modied at most once by the evaluation of an expression. Furthermore, the prior value shall be read only to determine the value to be stored.71)
And footnote 71 explains that, for example, a[i++] = i; is undefined. I don't see a pertinent difference between that and the expression in question (though footnotes are non-normative).
There is a large difference - the one is an assignment (which is undefined due to no sequence point between the variable undergoing modification) and the other is a comparison, with the variable not undergoing any modification, hence this: c = c++;
is undefined while this: c == c++
or this: c != c++
are both well-defined.
Seconded - I'm currently in the middle of a starcraft multiplayer Free4All with AI players. Whats that, like, 640x480? Whatever it is, it's still loads of fun with bags and bags of style:-)
Yup, I always reply to my coffee first. If it makes sense to a cup of coffee, chances are it may make sense to the marginally more sentient modder who reads my post:-)
The Gun is Civilization, by Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and
force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either
convincing me via argument, or make me do your bidding under threat of
force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact
through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social
interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the
personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use
reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat
or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal
footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing
with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a
carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity
in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and
a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force
equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized
if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier
for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the
mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by
legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential
marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by
the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a
civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful
living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal
that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious
in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute
lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of
it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force
easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger
attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an
octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't
work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily
employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but
because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I
cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid,
but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions
of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of
those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and
that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed
and can only be persuaded, never forced.
As I said, that will admittedly exclude some people
Yeah, I like the way you call the overwhelming majority some people. Face it, the people who know and care about a local sports team are few and far between... they may know 'dog', 'sunday' because thats not limited to a tiny slice of the population. They may even know 'New York', due to it's heavy references in popular culture, but 'Astros' is limited to a very very small population
Yes, reviewers are not paid, but the few pubs I've been accepted as a review make it quite clear that they *verify* your credentials as a reviewer. Very few people work for free.
If the publishers are really over-charging, I would be expecting them to make obscene profits
(are they? I actually don't know for sure - I've never heard of publishers being very rich).
In any event, it seems that the middleman *can* be cut out while retaining the peer process
(even if not "peer review") like the way arxive is doing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats how it usually works - seriously. Having women around you makes you more desirable.
Perhaps thats part of the problem then. Dev houses are flocking to where the biggest reward is, which is also where the biggest risk is. PC gaming may have smaller rewards, but I know that I'd rather have a small slice of a big pie (PC gaming) than a big slice of a small pie (console X).
I'd rather risk a loss of $100k for a potential reward of $100k than risk a loss of $35m for a potential reward of $15m.
Self-defence. You can /in the heat of an argument/ strike someone if they first strike your kid. (Don't think this was in the heat of the argument though)
Actually, I recall once seeing a snippet of code he supposedly wrote, and trust me, that code was very much written by a hacker ...
(Some car game, or something - very primitive)
Decent AI?
Anyway, IIRC (and I'm pretty certain I do) I played quake 2 without needing to select a grenade from a menu.
Offering a bribe shouldn't be illegal, accepting a bribe should be. This lets us test officials every now and again without being implicated.
... corrupt cops, court officials and childrens sanctuary, but I always thought "Nah, that could never happen". When did horror novels become state official instruction books?
sidenote: Anyone here remember a Stephen King/Peter Straub book called "The Talisman"? My memory could be failing me, as I read it in 1986, but ISTR a similar setup there
Actually, this looks like smalltalk, but without the all the good parts
Doctors can keep the patient alive longer, but they can't prevent the inevitable.
Technically that's true, with or without HIV
well, I just looked it up now - here and it would still be a "no no" to use it, so my gentle teasing probably wasn't that out of place ;-)
No, not necessarily... it's merely two modifiers, both of which negate the root word "regard".
and both of which together make it incorrect.
Yes, one of them would have been adequate and probably preferable to convey the intended meaning. However, before you say that two negatives equals a positive, please refer back to the first three words of this post.
trite, but nevertheless still incorrect (or would that be "nonnevertheless"? :-)
irregardless, eh? Surely thats unpossible?
Quoth C99:
And footnote 71 explains that, for example, a[i++] = i; is undefined. I don't see a pertinent difference between that and the expression in question (though footnotes are non-normative).
There is a large difference - the one is an assignment (which is undefined due to no sequence point between the variable undergoing modification) and the other is a comparison, with the variable not undergoing any modification, hence this:
c = c++;
is undefined while this:
c == c++
or this:
c != c++
are both well-defined.
Actually, C != C++ is undefined behavior.
Actually, it isn't.
"But the century of the fruitbat is over"
"Well, then it's about time we entered it"
(apologies to TP)
Seconded - I'm currently in the middle of a starcraft multiplayer Free4All with AI players. Whats that, like, 640x480? Whatever it is, it's still loads of fun with bags and bags of style :-)
Yup, I always reply to my coffee first. If it makes sense to a cup of coffee, chances are it may make sense to the marginally more sentient modder who reads my post :-)
Thanks for that :-)
The Gun is Civilization, by Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or make me do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
1,200 engineers out of 30,000 colonists.
Not on 'B' Ark
echo "echo Hello World" > hello
. hello
Hello World
A "simple text editor" dev environment stopped being useful or productive back in the 90s.
"Closed source at work"
As I said, that will admittedly exclude some people
Yeah, I like the way you call the overwhelming majority some people. Face it, the people who know and care about a local sports team are few and far between ... they may know 'dog', 'sunday' because thats not limited to a tiny slice of the population. They may even know 'New York', due to it's heavy references in popular culture, but 'Astros' is limited to a very very small population
OK, so that's 1 in 6 that get past it. With not much work, you could make it a lot harder. Using a bit of the original example:
"Jim and Sue go to New York on Sunday. Billy the dog goes too. Did they seen the Astros play at home?"
Whats the Astros?
(see how quickly your "current events" look stupid?)
Yes, reviewers are not paid, but the few pubs I've been accepted as a review make it quite clear that they *verify* your credentials as a reviewer. Very few people work for free.
If the publishers are really over-charging, I would be expecting them to make obscene profits (are they? I actually don't know for sure - I've never heard of publishers being very rich).
In any event, it seems that the middleman *can* be cut out while retaining the peer process (even if not "peer review") like the way arxive is doing it.