You drained the big dome? I completed the game and I don't have any recollection of ever draining the huge-ass dome... hmm.
"Like the button that called in the sea creature to the underwater window... Never figured out what the hell that was for." - Without giving it away, put a "pebble" on the plate and then lower the metal sphere. Come back later, and you should notice something right away. It is about the sounds, try to find something elsewhere that makes the sound (think about when you take your first tram ride).
"knife fell out of the lever once" - I've never seen this, I didn't think it was possible... not that I'm necessarily calling BS.;)
"The little window looking thing with the three buttons that raised and lowered... I once did something random that let me see something in the viewport, but pushed the wrong three-button code and 2 hours later didn't have any idea what, if anything" -- I'm not sure what area you're talking about. The submarine maybe?
That's what I'm not clear on. AMD as I recall has always stated that the Hammer would be shipping in Q1 of '03. So this delay means that the CPU will be bumped a quarter... to Q1 of '03.
So what's the big deal? That they are delaying it until they ship it? =)
Let me ask you how often your heatsink has just fallen off? Must be quite often for you to even consider that a serious risk and go Intel instead. I feel sorry for your video card, must suck to be a landing pad for your HSF. =P
This is a minor bug, and if you want to talk about getting bitten in the ass, lets remember Intel's nice little i820 MTH "erratum", not to mention the 1.13GHz Pentium !!! "erratum".
But hey, it's your cash. =) Feel free to spend on overpriced components from a company that sold it's soul to Rambus.
I think that's BS.
DS9 was a much better show than Voyager. Even minor characters such as Garak had more to them than say, Ensign Kim.
Plus Odo and Kira and Jadzia Dax were just great roles.
DS9 was brave enough to take a different look at the Federation, the outskirts, an its cowboy tactics.
I never liked TOS, too cheesy. TNG was cheesy too until Gene Rodenberry died then it suddenly got better with Rick Berman and Michael Piller at the helm. DS9 was a dark Star Trek. Voyager on the other hand just seemed too commercial and frankly I didn't much like the characters except for Janeway and the Doctor.
Knowning that the next series is going to have the Quantum Leap guy as the new captain takes away all my hope for Star Trek.
The FIRST instance of tear gas was on 6th and Union I believe w/ the I-5 ramp being blocked. I don't know about the others but I was watching 3 different stations, NONE of which mentioned the police being brutal. On the contrary, all 3 (KOMO 4, KING 5, and KIRO 7) commended the police on how well restrained they were. This was not a police riot. The protesters started it as was shown on video from different stations at different angles. As for their rights, I'm pretty damn sure there's something in the Constitution about obeying law. When the city imposed a curfew in the downtown area, protesters were told over loud speaker to leave according to law or risk arrest. If they don't yield under that warning, then by all means the police have the right to enforce the laws set.
I watched the protest for about 3 hours off and on and everything I saw, from when the first trouble started at noon to later in the evening, pointed to the rioters for starting the trouble. These people were NOT just standing around and then some big bad cop came up to them and decided to be mean. Before they started firing tear gas the people were WARNED and told to disperse. Especially later on after there was a curfew implimented and by law they had to leave the affected zone, yet they just continued to provoke the police. The violent ones got what they deserved (although I think the police should have arrested any of the ones who atttacked local businesses, but they just remained standing in formation). And like it's been said before, most were peaceful, and I commend them for that. But the tear gas was only used when the people were given orders by the police and they refused to cooperate.
The police did not just suddenly start shooting tear gas. I was watching when this happened. They fired tear gas because the protesters started to block an I-5 ramp and were told to move away. When they didn't, the police began using force.
And you can't tell me that violence wasn't to be expected. Why else would protesters have brought gas masks if they didn't expect to be exposed to tear gas? From everything I saw, MOST of the protesters were peaceful (although they were a pain in the ass with blocking up traffic and making it impossible for businesses in the immediate vicinity to conduct their work as normal).
But anyone who brings gas masks and M-80s to a protest is there to make trouble. The police showed heavy restraint (they didn't even budge out of formation from what I saw when some business's windows were smashed). But they aren't going to fire tear gas into a crowd for no reason. There's no justifiable reason to purpously stop busses, slash vehicle tires, break into buildings, and loot them. And like I said, I can't see any reason a peaceful demonstrater would bring along a gas mask unless he intended to be fired upon.
I fully support the right to protest, but it crosses the line when any form of damage is done. The mayor of Seattle was reasonable in saying basically to go ahead and protest but be kind to the city.
Maybe you were one of the peaceful protesters, and for the most part I was impressed by the demonstration. But like always, it takes just a few rotten ones to ruin the whole batch.
P.S. -- Slashdot: paintball guns? I didn't know those were standard police issue weapons.;)
If say in several years we had the technology necessary and then actually found a planet in another system with what appeared to be life, we have to realize that seeing a planet and getting to it are incomparable.
There would be massive hurdles with technology, such as getting within the span of a lifetime (unless we were able to create some form of stasis for the crew), and also if we do go that fast we'd have to figure out a way to counter it's effects. No one wants to jump into close to light speed and be crushed into salsa. =)
As far as politics go, you're right in terms of I think there would be much fierce competition in which country/faction was to get there first. I'm almost positive that in this situation the religious right would either try and sabotage the mission or try and be the first to go to "educate" these new people. Anyone who's seen Contact can see how some religions would be threatened by the idea of another race. Think about it... according to Christianity we were created in god's image. So if we find a race superior to us... that mean we just got a mediocre god?;) There's a fairly decent book on this subject called The Sparrow.
Another factor to consider is how different an entire different race's culture would be. Who's to say they'd want any form of contact or relationship with us? You see concepts of interstellar war and peace, but what if they just didn't care?
There's really no accurate way to formulate what would happen if life was discovered elsewhere. We have no knowledge of how they'd react to us, etc. But for right now, we don't have the technology so at this point there's no point in worrying about it. Maybe 20 years or so down the line it'll be different, or maybe that's giving more credit to progress than our race deserves. We're a long way from 2001.
I remember seeing an article in PC Magazine that somewhat brushed this topic. The author stated that upon having to return to an earlier version of Windows, he had forgotten how to use a lot of it due to the fact that Windows has since them gotten "easier".
When it does you begin sacrificing quality to serve the idiots, who then continue to complain "It's too hard! Make it easier!" simply because they don't want to learn. MAKE THEM LEARN.
I agree with this, but the question is HOW MUCH should they have to learn? GUIs have definately dumbed down the user. Put the typical Mac or Windows user in front of a *nix or dos prompt and he/she will be at a loss of how the hell to operate it. So does that mean to users should have to know a basic set of commands? Or is that going to far? If for say a user can't get a program to compile... is it going to far to ask him/her to learn the programming language? I mean, yeah both of these are going a bit overboard. The standard user of a GUI should still learn how to handle hardware conflicts and edit some basic system files if necessary, but most users aren't going to be thrilled at the idea. You can't FORCE them to learn anything. There are a lot of users with a "I just want to do my work and I don't give a rip about anything else with the system." mentality. A lot of people don't have the TIME to sit down and learn the ins and outs of their system. If they just don't have the time due to say job, family, active social life, etc., can we blame them for their lack of understanding? Their "stupidity" is not necessarily due to a refusal to learn.
So what's the solution to this? There really isn't one. You can't require a computer operator to have a certain level of knowledge about the system before he or she can operate it. You're always going to have newbies and "dumbed down" users. And as long as they are there, you're going to have a market for GUIs such as MacOS and Windows.
A cool feature might be to offer users various levels of how much access they have to the system in terms of how many settings, etc they could tweak, so that novices wouldn't have to deal w/ stuff, but advanced users could go in and do as they pleased to tweak their systems. Of course I haven't seen any of the major GUI OSs offer this.
The only thing I worry about with these class-action suits would be the possiblity that these same "dumbed down" users would just get greedy and decide to join the suit despite the fact that they had no idea as to what the suit stood for.
Does Microsoft use unethical business practices? - Yes
Should they make repremands to users who were "harmed" by Microsoft's monopoly power? - I think that depends on the case.
Are some people just going to be greedy and try and get in on the cash? - Of course.
Slashdot Mirror
That file looks to be Build 2158 and not 2180.
You drained the big dome? I completed the game and I don't have any recollection of ever draining the huge-ass dome... hmm.
;)
"Like the button that called in the sea creature to the underwater window... Never figured out what the hell that was for." - Without giving it away, put a "pebble" on the plate and then lower the metal sphere. Come back later, and you should notice something right away. It is about the sounds, try to find something elsewhere that makes the sound (think about when you take your first tram ride).
"knife fell out of the lever once" - I've never seen this, I didn't think it was possible... not that I'm necessarily calling BS.
"The little window looking thing with the three buttons that raised and lowered... I once did something random that let me see something in the viewport, but pushed the wrong three-button code and 2 hours later didn't have any idea what, if anything" -- I'm not sure what area you're talking about. The submarine maybe?
That's what I'm not clear on. AMD as I recall has always stated that the Hammer would be shipping in Q1 of '03. So this delay means that the CPU will be bumped a quarter... to Q1 of '03.
So what's the big deal? That they are delaying it until they ship it? =)
That's a troll post if I've ever seen one.
Let me ask you how often your heatsink has just fallen off? Must be quite often for you to even consider that a serious risk and go Intel instead. I feel sorry for your video card, must suck to be a landing pad for your HSF. =P
This is a minor bug, and if you want to talk about getting bitten in the ass, lets remember Intel's nice little i820 MTH "erratum", not to mention the 1.13GHz Pentium !!! "erratum".
But hey, it's your cash. =) Feel free to spend on overpriced components from a company that sold it's soul to Rambus.
I think that's BS. DS9 was a much better show than Voyager. Even minor characters such as Garak had more to them than say, Ensign Kim. Plus Odo and Kira and Jadzia Dax were just great roles. DS9 was brave enough to take a different look at the Federation, the outskirts, an its cowboy tactics. I never liked TOS, too cheesy. TNG was cheesy too until Gene Rodenberry died then it suddenly got better with Rick Berman and Michael Piller at the helm. DS9 was a dark Star Trek. Voyager on the other hand just seemed too commercial and frankly I didn't much like the characters except for Janeway and the Doctor. Knowning that the next series is going to have the Quantum Leap guy as the new captain takes away all my hope for Star Trek.
The FIRST instance of tear gas was on 6th and Union I believe w/ the I-5 ramp being blocked. I don't know about the others but I was watching 3 different stations, NONE of which mentioned the police being brutal. On the contrary, all 3 (KOMO 4, KING 5, and KIRO 7) commended the police on how well restrained they were. This was not a police riot. The protesters started it as was shown on video from different stations at different angles. As for their rights, I'm pretty damn sure there's something in the Constitution about obeying law. When the city imposed a curfew in the downtown area, protesters were told over loud speaker to leave according to law or risk arrest. If they don't yield under that warning, then by all means the police have the right to enforce the laws set.
I watched the protest for about 3 hours off and on and everything I saw, from when the first trouble started at noon to later in the evening, pointed to the rioters for starting the trouble. These people were NOT just standing around and then some big bad cop came up to them and decided to be mean. Before they started firing tear gas the people were WARNED and told to disperse. Especially later on after there was a curfew implimented and by law they had to leave the affected zone, yet they just continued to provoke the police. The violent ones got what they deserved (although I think the police should have arrested any of the ones who atttacked local businesses, but they just remained standing in formation). And like it's been said before, most were peaceful, and I commend them for that. But the tear gas was only used when the people were given orders by the police and they refused to cooperate.
The police did not just suddenly start shooting tear gas. I was watching when this happened. They fired tear gas because the protesters started to block an I-5 ramp and were told to move away. When they didn't, the police began using force.
And you can't tell me that violence wasn't to be expected. Why else would protesters have brought gas masks if they didn't expect to be exposed to tear gas? From everything I saw, MOST of the protesters were peaceful (although they were a pain in the ass with blocking up traffic and making it impossible for businesses in the immediate vicinity to conduct their work as normal).
But anyone who brings gas masks and M-80s to a protest is there to make trouble. The police showed heavy restraint (they didn't even budge out of formation from what I saw when some business's windows were smashed). But they aren't going to fire tear gas into a crowd for no reason. There's no justifiable reason to purpously stop busses, slash vehicle tires, break into buildings, and loot them. And like I said, I can't see any reason a peaceful demonstrater would bring along a gas mask unless he intended to be fired upon.
I fully support the right to protest, but it crosses the line when any form of damage is done. The mayor of Seattle was reasonable in saying basically to go ahead and protest but be kind to the city.
Maybe you were one of the peaceful protesters, and for the most part I was impressed by the demonstration. But like always, it takes just a few rotten ones to ruin the whole batch.
P.S. -- Slashdot: paintball guns? I didn't know those were standard police issue weapons. ;)
If say in several years we had the technology necessary and then actually found a planet in another system with what appeared to be life, we have to realize that seeing a planet and getting to it are incomparable.
There would be massive hurdles with technology, such as getting within the span of a lifetime (unless we were able to create some form of stasis for the crew), and also if we do go that fast we'd have to figure out a way to counter it's effects. No one wants to jump into close to light speed and be crushed into salsa. =)
As far as politics go, you're right in terms of I think there would be much fierce competition in which country/faction was to get there first. I'm almost positive that in this situation the religious right would either try and sabotage the mission or try and be the first to go to "educate" these new people. Anyone who's seen Contact can see how some religions would be threatened by the idea of another race. Think about it... according to Christianity we were created in god's image. So if we find a race superior to us... that mean we just got a mediocre god? ;) There's a fairly decent book on this subject called The Sparrow.
Another factor to consider is how different an entire different race's culture would be. Who's to say they'd want any form of contact or relationship with us? You see concepts of interstellar war and peace, but what if they just didn't care?
There's really no accurate way to formulate what would happen if life was discovered elsewhere. We have no knowledge of how they'd react to us, etc. But for right now, we don't have the technology so at this point there's no point in worrying about it. Maybe 20 years or so down the line it'll be different, or maybe that's giving more credit to progress than our race deserves. We're a long way from 2001.
I remember seeing an article in PC Magazine that somewhat brushed this topic. The author stated that upon having to return to an earlier version of Windows, he had forgotten how to use a lot of it due to the fact that Windows has since them gotten "easier".
When it does you begin sacrificing quality to serve the idiots, who then continue to complain "It's too hard! Make it easier!" simply because they don't want to learn. MAKE THEM LEARN.
I agree with this, but the question is HOW MUCH should they have to learn? GUIs have definately dumbed down the user. Put the typical Mac or Windows user in front of a *nix or dos prompt and he/she will be at a loss of how the hell to operate it. So does that mean to users should have to know a basic set of commands? Or is that going to far? If for say a user can't get a program to compile... is it going to far to ask him/her to learn the programming language? I mean, yeah both of these are going a bit overboard. The standard user of a GUI should still learn how to handle hardware conflicts and edit some basic system files if necessary, but most users aren't going to be thrilled at the idea. You can't FORCE them to learn anything. There are a lot of users with a "I just want to do my work and I don't give a rip about anything else with the system." mentality. A lot of people don't have the TIME to sit down and learn the ins and outs of their system. If they just don't have the time due to say job, family, active social life, etc., can we blame them for their lack of understanding? Their "stupidity" is not necessarily due to a refusal to learn.So what's the solution to this? There really isn't one. You can't require a computer operator to have a certain level of knowledge about the system before he or she can operate it. You're always going to have newbies and "dumbed down" users. And as long as they are there, you're going to have a market for GUIs such as MacOS and Windows.
A cool feature might be to offer users various levels of how much access they have to the system in terms of how many settings, etc they could tweak, so that novices wouldn't have to deal w/ stuff, but advanced users could go in and do as they pleased to tweak their systems. Of course I haven't seen any of the major GUI OSs offer this.
The only thing I worry about with these class-action suits would be the possiblity that these same "dumbed down" users would just get greedy and decide to join the suit despite the fact that they had no idea as to what the suit stood for.
Does Microsoft use unethical business practices? - Yes
Should they make repremands to users who were "harmed" by Microsoft's monopoly power? - I think that depends on the case.
Are some people just going to be greedy and try and get in on the cash? - Of course.