I thought the whole point of the Wii was to try to incorporate realistic motion to the gaming world, without VR. The odd twists and motions of the Wii would still be there with a more accurate controller, just a lot more expensive and fragile (currently, smashing a broken Wii controller against the floor fixes most problems with the motion sensor [not the IR]). For most purposes the current Wii controller is just fine. This may be useful for creating extra controllers, though, like for feet.
Yes, but humans don't exactly have a great track record with underground dumping.
I remember doing a little research on CO2 sequestering a little while back for an ethics class. The problem isn't so much the idea itself but the implementation...most companies simply do not want to spend enough to create deposits that will last for, as you said, 300,000,000 years, and instead are trying to fill old coal and oil deposits without making sure they can hold that much gas. They really don't care though: they'll all be dead in 100 years anyway.
Let's just say it can be, without naming names, political parties, etc. As long as it can be rigged in some way, a better solution must be searched for.
I like the idea of leaving college students alone in the hopes that they'll eventually buy the music themselves, but I have a mjor problem with the basic principle behind DRM (which, at the moment, is the only way I know of to get the music to expire effectively) and therefore can't get behind that idea.
And yes, the RIAA as a whole is having issues, litigating when they should be innovating and all. Want college students to download less music, or at least buy much of it? Find a new medium that can't be reproduced and leaves students without the desire to reproduce it. I don't have the answer, but if the major labels want to survive they had better find it soon.
Which is why democracy can't just suddenly be implemented. The people have to want it, leaders included (or, at least, the majority of them). The U.S. democracy (or, I should say, democratic republic) only got started because the people at the time didn't want a monarchy or the like and would not have immediately voted to change it back (not like votes matter all that much as it is, they only put people in power to "represent" you).
In short, this just helps to prove that the neo-con idealogical goal of converting the world to democracy is misguided at best.
Every technology has to start somewhere. How many people 100 years ago would have thought it possible that the people of the future would have magic electric devices that allowed them to communicate through the air and all the way across the world? Small steps, small steps...
As a side note, the cancers that aren't curable aren't curable yet. I welcome anything that helps to move humanity free of cancer.
Unfortunately too many people receiving PhD's, while able to solve problems in their field, refuse to apply the basic ability to rationalize things to their surroundings. Upbringing has something to do with it too...it's amazing how hard it is even for someone who already cast off the crutch of religion to remain that way with all of the pressures from society (a topic for a completely different discussion, and one not likely to be on Slashdot).
Based on those around me in my engineering training, I'd have to say that the majority are not radical nor conservative (neither am I). I call bullshit.
I don't like U2 at all, but be reasonable: it's the manager who's saying all this, not the band. The band would make more money without the label (given their current fame) and probably could care less, so if you like their music don't just get rid of it.
Unfortunately it won't work if it's only optional. Filesharing remains prevalent because so few people see any consequences for it. If the tax were optional, the only people who would pay (ok, maybe not the only ones, but at least 85%) are the people who already pay for music, and at current music prices the music industry would then be losing money. Oh, and they'd still go after people for bootlegs and illegally obtained music (which they already do on a much larger scale than going after filesharers), so the litigation wouldn't end.
All that being said, I despise the music corporations and hope they never try to push a bill like this in the states. Hey, my opinion, right?
Ah, my mistake. In my opinion, the style attribute still isn't a whole lot better unless it's used as an override to a stylesheet, and even then there are better practices (disagree with the person the question was initially directed toward). I guess the only point may be that "font" has been deprecated since HTML4 (I think), whereas only now are they considering dropping the style attribute in favor of id attributes.
With the exception of "canvas" and a few other API descriptors, I still think most of the language is for layout and grouping things for CSS and the actual content to use. However, point taken.
This is more of a philosophical "what is HTML for?" question. The reason using CSS is better than the font attribute is that, at the core, HTML is designed for layout only, and at that only basic layout. The hope was, especially at the introduction of CSS, that all styling would take place in the stylesheets and not on the pages themselves. This, of course, is not what happened in practice. By simplifying the standard even further and removing formerly deprecated elements (the "font" element being one of them) HTML5 is attempting to make HTML even more basic and fundamental. Which, from a certain point of view, is a very good thing.
I realize that until something other than HTML is the standard for webpages there is never going to be a regard for strict standards, but one can hope.
Absent Elements font, although it is allowed when inserted by a WYSIWYG editor due to limitations in the state of the art in user interface for these editors.
I know this is for ease of use, but seriously: if the people at W3C really want a "standard", doing stuff like this does nothing but make it ok to ignore the standard. So which is it, CSS or font? Pick one!
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the whole point of the Wii was to try to incorporate realistic motion to the gaming world, without VR. The odd twists and motions of the Wii would still be there with a more accurate controller, just a lot more expensive and fragile (currently, smashing a broken Wii controller against the floor fixes most problems with the motion sensor [not the IR]). For most purposes the current Wii controller is just fine. This may be useful for creating extra controllers, though, like for feet.
Goodbye, direct access. Hello, proxy!
Yes, but humans don't exactly have a great track record with underground dumping.
I remember doing a little research on CO2 sequestering a little while back for an ethics class. The problem isn't so much the idea itself but the implementation...most companies simply do not want to spend enough to create deposits that will last for, as you said, 300,000,000 years, and instead are trying to fill old coal and oil deposits without making sure they can hold that much gas. They really don't care though: they'll all be dead in 100 years anyway.
Is this a trap?
Let's just say it can be, without naming names, political parties, etc. As long as it can be rigged in some way, a better solution must be searched for.
I like the idea of leaving college students alone in the hopes that they'll eventually buy the music themselves, but I have a mjor problem with the basic principle behind DRM (which, at the moment, is the only way I know of to get the music to expire effectively) and therefore can't get behind that idea.
And yes, the RIAA as a whole is having issues, litigating when they should be innovating and all. Want college students to download less music, or at least buy much of it? Find a new medium that can't be reproduced and leaves students without the desire to reproduce it. I don't have the answer, but if the major labels want to survive they had better find it soon.
Have you tried XP on it? Considering the fitbox has 500mHz and only 256mb ram, I somehow doubt it would run well, despite it being advertised.
How well does it work as a desktop PC?
Which is why democracy can't just suddenly be implemented. The people have to want it, leaders included (or, at least, the majority of them). The U.S. democracy (or, I should say, democratic republic) only got started because the people at the time didn't want a monarchy or the like and would not have immediately voted to change it back (not like votes matter all that much as it is, they only put people in power to "represent" you).
In short, this just helps to prove that the neo-con idealogical goal of converting the world to democracy is misguided at best.
I suggest the tag "Prey", for all of you Michael Crichton fans.
Much like the scientists working on the nanotubes/people familiar with the technology do today?
Every technology has to start somewhere. How many people 100 years ago would have thought it possible that the people of the future would have magic electric devices that allowed them to communicate through the air and all the way across the world? Small steps, small steps...
As a side note, the cancers that aren't curable aren't curable yet. I welcome anything that helps to move humanity free of cancer.
So they can control the rain. But where does all of that energy go?
Come now: this is the U.S. government we're talking about. What could be evil about that?
Unfortunately too many people receiving PhD's, while able to solve problems in their field, refuse to apply the basic ability to rationalize things to their surroundings. Upbringing has something to do with it too...it's amazing how hard it is even for someone who already cast off the crutch of religion to remain that way with all of the pressures from society (a topic for a completely different discussion, and one not likely to be on Slashdot).
Based on those around me in my engineering training, I'd have to say that the majority are not radical nor conservative (neither am I). I call bullshit.
That's like saying George W. Bush speaks for me...
I don't like U2 at all, but be reasonable: it's the manager who's saying all this, not the band. The band would make more money without the label (given their current fame) and probably could care less, so if you like their music don't just get rid of it.
Yeah. By my manual count, 76 times so far.
Unfortunately it won't work if it's only optional. Filesharing remains prevalent because so few people see any consequences for it. If the tax were optional, the only people who would pay (ok, maybe not the only ones, but at least 85%) are the people who already pay for music, and at current music prices the music industry would then be losing money. Oh, and they'd still go after people for bootlegs and illegally obtained music (which they already do on a much larger scale than going after filesharers), so the litigation wouldn't end.
All that being said, I despise the music corporations and hope they never try to push a bill like this in the states. Hey, my opinion, right?
Ah, my mistake. In my opinion, the style attribute still isn't a whole lot better unless it's used as an override to a stylesheet, and even then there are better practices (disagree with the person the question was initially directed toward). I guess the only point may be that "font" has been deprecated since HTML4 (I think), whereas only now are they considering dropping the style attribute in favor of id attributes.
With the exception of "canvas" and a few other API descriptors, I still think most of the language is for layout and grouping things for CSS and the actual content to use. However, point taken.
This is more of a philosophical "what is HTML for?" question. The reason using CSS is better than the font attribute is that, at the core, HTML is designed for layout only, and at that only basic layout. The hope was, especially at the introduction of CSS, that all styling would take place in the stylesheets and not on the pages themselves. This, of course, is not what happened in practice. By simplifying the standard even further and removing formerly deprecated elements (the "font" element being one of them) HTML5 is attempting to make HTML even more basic and fundamental. Which, from a certain point of view, is a very good thing.
I realize that until something other than HTML is the standard for webpages there is never going to be a regard for strict standards, but one can hope.
Well, I guess changing the results does constitute "human error"...
Now there's a way to simulate the sagging economy! Have them pay more for commuting to work!
font, although it is allowed when inserted by a WYSIWYG editor due to limitations in the state of the art in user interface for these editors.
I know this is for ease of use, but seriously: if the people at W3C really want a "standard", doing stuff like this does nothing but make it ok to ignore the standard. So which is it, CSS or font? Pick one!
This is the main reason I stopped playing AA. If I wanted to learn, I wouldn't be playing an FPS.
Given that in most areas I can see individual cars on the ground, I'm not too impressed...
Nothing to see here...move along.