It should read "of a more typical design than the Classic Controller". You do not use this to replace a Wiimote. You use this to replace a Classic Controller (or Gamecube controller - but not for Gamecube games).
To be honest, it seems a bit pointless to me. Having a classic controller around for SNES and other 8- and 16-bit era games is nice, since the form has the nostalgia value, as well as a proper button layout (A/B/X/Y in the proper places for SNES games). A Gamecube controller works very well for N64 games (though, for some, the Classic works equally as well), and works for Gamecube games.
Just means some intrepid soul will hack either the hardware or the software to simply disable the click. Probably not take all that long, considering how phones like the IPhone run on well-known systems (an OSX/Darwin case in this instance).
Also doesn't account for the people who simply take a real camera that doesn't click, or an older camera phone from before this law is enacted.
Or a camera phone acquired out-of-country.
Or will the government prosecute anyone with an old/foreign phone, and tell them they are required by law to destroy it and replace it, at their own cost?
And, I don't want to arouse any fanboy ire, but I have a sneaking suspicion that similarities in graphical capabilities between the Wii and PS2 might help the economics of releasing a PS2 port...
The PS2 is graphically less capable than a GameCube. Any developer who is lazy enough to only dress up a PS2 game (considering the Xbox360 and the Wii both use DVDs - alleviating any storage space considerations) is not using the console to anywhere near it's full potential. Sure, it's not high-def (resolution equal to a DVD) or as powerful as the PS3 or 360, but it's not that far behind.
And why is using it's own widget set that doesn't entirely integrate with any existing operating system or desktop environment an 'encouraging' thing?
For the record, it's closest to fitting with Windows. With Linux, it emulates GTK+ reasonably closely, but it does not completely respect the GTK+ theme (particularly with respect to fonts and colours, among other things). With OSX it just... Doesn't look like a native app, and doesn't integrate with any other system component.
Do you believe for a minute that this has anything to do with quality (other than as perceived by being a 'big name')? It's got to do with the 'prestige'.
For a bit more context, there are usually (to my knowledge) somewhere on the order of five to ten times as many embryos prepared as ending up being required (for the odd chances that they -are- needed for success).
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that never ever 'wasting' an embryo would require a good percentage of the potential mothers in your country (would you force people to have these kids to 'save' the embryos?), and introduce a whole host of legal problems (who is responsible financially for the children's lives?), as well as problems with genetic diversity (suddenly you'd have ten kids from the same two parents, spread out, unknown to each other, probably replacing ten other kids these forced surrogate mothers would have had eventually).
Ah, with the bloat I mainly think about it in just how huge Firefox and such have become (not strictly in terms of speed or RAM usage). It was supposed to be the 'small and light' Mozilla, and it's source code is some 37M or something, compressed, for one thing. I used to run Gentoo quite a bit, and compiling XUL Runner (more or less Gecko only) took around 30 minutes (about the same as glibc, or gcc!) on a C2D system with... Uh, 2 gigs of RAM. The only other applications/libraries I remember being -that- nasty was... QT, the toolkit. I even did a quick comparison and SeaMonkey (the updated Mozilla suite) was actually faster at running than Firefox, oddly enough.
I remember running it on an old system (PII, ~400 MHz) and even version 1 would take a good 40 seconds to load...
Maybe I just have unobtainable standards on how a good browser should work/be.;)
If web standards aren't designed to make pages render in the same manner, what's the point of them then? (I was not referring to pixel-imperfections, but to rather larger details, for example, to do with CSS, colors, and the hover property, that render inconsistently - while being perfectly valid code.)
I mean, if standards don't define how web pages render, then one could make the argument that IE6 is perfectly standards compliant. Just because it doesn't render the same as other browsers doesn't mean it isn't!
Hm, good point. I usually forget about Mozilla-style UIs, since I'm not a huge fan of... Chrome, is it, that they call it? Applying web rendering principles and styles to a browser UI just seems sloppy to me, not to mention all the troubles with integrating into various OSes and not looking horridly out of place. (Gecko, on the other hand, I don't mind. I do have a problem with the huge bloat, though. Part of that is (notably the compile time) probably attributed to it being in C++.)
Well, that just goes back to square one then, about trying to figure out how they're defining scripting languages...
I was referring to the most common usage (though I had a feeling someone was going to decide to pick at that...). I've never, ever seen JavaScript used for or run in such a way that it's not intended to be used with a webpage (though I have seen semi-standalone JavaScript interpreters, they're mostly intended for working out bugs without using a full browser).
Or if you want to look at it the other way, I've never seen Python/Perl/Ruby scripting capabilities embedded in a browser, setting them apart in the same way.
I think, judging by this list, is that a 'scripting language' is considered to be anything that can be/usually is run directly from the source code (for example, via a #!/usr/bin/interpreter under any Unix-like).
I'm not sure why JavaScript is on this list, by that definition, though. The rest are system scripting languages (best term I could come up with - i.e. sysadmins writing scripts), or server-side. JavaScript is web browser-only, client-side scripting.
Just make sure to document (even if after the fact - wink wink nudge nudge) that you reported that the server room needed more cooling, but were not listened to...
What is it with nutjobs and claiming they have done work for important government agencies? Yeah, I understand there was a program in the 70s to explore using psychics against the commies but is there a form of dementia that causes one to hallucinate that they are serving a higher power?
Schizophrenia often has this effect on people. Auditory hallucinations are particularly common, and among those the "command hallucinations" are the most dangerous (for example, they may believe god is telling them what to do).
I don't know what's different here (Canada), but every time I've purchased a computer of any sort (for quite literally years), be it from IBM, Dell, Lenovo, or HP (I don't recall others, but there may have been), it's always come with an install CD/DVD. Every single time. Hell, I don't even think it needed activation when it was reinstalled (at least for a Dell). No product key, no phoning home that I recall...
Really? Mozilla (Gecko) and Safari (Webkit) support -all- standards? Why don't they always render things identically, then? Why do most fancy JavaScript (AJAX - yuck) need browser detection to actually work?
Seriously, there's no browser that supports every standard. They just break them in less ways.
This is true, almost. I'm young (18) with good vision (while wearing glasses - but good nonetheless), and it's becoming -increasingly- common for me to have to enter a CAPTCHA (at least) twice before it's right. They're getting bizarrely unreadable these days.
There's been a lot of bad moderations going on in this discussion... Parent is -not- a troll. Grammatically, they missed a capital letter (oh no!), but their point is perfectly valid, and very important.
Condoms, for instance, in preventing pregnancy are only about 80% effective (over the course of a year), meaning they break (or leak/etc.) relatively commonly. Probably the chance is about one in a few thousand, but that's -not- odds I really want to stake my life on.
Is it "How can I recover data from a failing/failed solid-state drive?"? Or is it "How easily can someone else find my 'deleted' data on my solid-state drive?"?
I'm not sure of the answer to either question, directly, but I'd suggest multiple backups for the first one, and encryption for the second one (full/near-full disk encryption is quite fast on a multi-core system).
Yes - if it was really such a huge problem, it wouldn't just be "please turn off your cellphones". It would be "please turn off your cellphone, show it to us, and put it in a bag that's not with you, or give it to us for the duration of the flight".
I've even once, by accident, left my cellphone on - I thought it was off, but I found out when I went to turn it back on after the flight, I'd forgotten to turn it off. Guess what? Nothing happened. Perfectly safe, normal flight.
Slashdot Mirror
It should read "of a more typical design than the Classic Controller". You do not use this to replace a Wiimote. You use this to replace a Classic Controller (or Gamecube controller - but not for Gamecube games).
To be honest, it seems a bit pointless to me. Having a classic controller around for SNES and other 8- and 16-bit era games is nice, since the form has the nostalgia value, as well as a proper button layout (A/B/X/Y in the proper places for SNES games). A Gamecube controller works very well for N64 games (though, for some, the Classic works equally as well), and works for Gamecube games.
If you can't provide what you're being paid for, stop overselling the network you have.
Just means some intrepid soul will hack either the hardware or the software to simply disable the click. Probably not take all that long, considering how phones like the IPhone run on well-known systems (an OSX/Darwin case in this instance).
Also doesn't account for the people who simply take a real camera that doesn't click, or an older camera phone from before this law is enacted.
Or a camera phone acquired out-of-country.
Or will the government prosecute anyone with an old/foreign phone, and tell them they are required by law to destroy it and replace it, at their own cost?
Activity Monitor is your friend.
I've found that Mail.app has an occasional memory leak, at least using my setup, as an example. Quit/restart of it, and everything is back to normal.
The PS2 is graphically less capable than a GameCube. Any developer who is lazy enough to only dress up a PS2 game (considering the Xbox360 and the Wii both use DVDs - alleviating any storage space considerations) is not using the console to anywhere near it's full potential. Sure, it's not high-def (resolution equal to a DVD) or as powerful as the PS3 or 360, but it's not that far behind.
And why is using it's own widget set that doesn't entirely integrate with any existing operating system or desktop environment an 'encouraging' thing?
For the record, it's closest to fitting with Windows. With Linux, it emulates GTK+ reasonably closely, but it does not completely respect the GTK+ theme (particularly with respect to fonts and colours, among other things). With OSX it just... Doesn't look like a native app, and doesn't integrate with any other system component.
Do you believe for a minute that this has anything to do with quality (other than as perceived by being a 'big name')? It's got to do with the 'prestige'.
For a bit more context, there are usually (to my knowledge) somewhere on the order of five to ten times as many embryos prepared as ending up being required (for the odd chances that they -are- needed for success).
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that never ever 'wasting' an embryo would require a good percentage of the potential mothers in your country (would you force people to have these kids to 'save' the embryos?), and introduce a whole host of legal problems (who is responsible financially for the children's lives?), as well as problems with genetic diversity (suddenly you'd have ten kids from the same two parents, spread out, unknown to each other, probably replacing ten other kids these forced surrogate mothers would have had eventually).
Ah, with the bloat I mainly think about it in just how huge Firefox and such have become (not strictly in terms of speed or RAM usage). It was supposed to be the 'small and light' Mozilla, and it's source code is some 37M or something, compressed, for one thing. I used to run Gentoo quite a bit, and compiling XUL Runner (more or less Gecko only) took around 30 minutes (about the same as glibc, or gcc!) on a C2D system with ... Uh, 2 gigs of RAM. The only other applications/libraries I remember being -that- nasty was... QT, the toolkit. I even did a quick comparison and SeaMonkey (the updated Mozilla suite) was actually faster at running than Firefox, oddly enough.
I remember running it on an old system (PII, ~400 MHz) and even version 1 would take a good 40 seconds to load...
Maybe I just have unobtainable standards on how a good browser should work/be. ;)
If web standards aren't designed to make pages render in the same manner, what's the point of them then? (I was not referring to pixel-imperfections, but to rather larger details, for example, to do with CSS, colors, and the hover property, that render inconsistently - while being perfectly valid code.)
I mean, if standards don't define how web pages render, then one could make the argument that IE6 is perfectly standards compliant. Just because it doesn't render the same as other browsers doesn't mean it isn't!
Hm, good point. I usually forget about Mozilla-style UIs, since I'm not a huge fan of... Chrome, is it, that they call it? Applying web rendering principles and styles to a browser UI just seems sloppy to me, not to mention all the troubles with integrating into various OSes and not looking horridly out of place. (Gecko, on the other hand, I don't mind. I do have a problem with the huge bloat, though. Part of that is (notably the compile time) probably attributed to it being in C++.)
Well, that just goes back to square one then, about trying to figure out how they're defining scripting languages...
I was referring to the most common usage (though I had a feeling someone was going to decide to pick at that...). I've never, ever seen JavaScript used for or run in such a way that it's not intended to be used with a webpage (though I have seen semi-standalone JavaScript interpreters, they're mostly intended for working out bugs without using a full browser).
Or if you want to look at it the other way, I've never seen Python/Perl/Ruby scripting capabilities embedded in a browser, setting them apart in the same way.
I think, judging by this list, is that a 'scripting language' is considered to be anything that can be/usually is run directly from the source code (for example, via a #!/usr/bin/interpreter under any Unix-like).
I'm not sure why JavaScript is on this list, by that definition, though. The rest are system scripting languages (best term I could come up with - i.e. sysadmins writing scripts), or server-side. JavaScript is web browser-only, client-side scripting.
Just make sure to document (even if after the fact - wink wink nudge nudge) that you reported that the server room needed more cooling, but were not listened to...
Schizophrenia often has this effect on people. Auditory hallucinations are particularly common, and among those the "command hallucinations" are the most dangerous (for example, they may believe god is telling them what to do).
I don't know what's different here (Canada), but every time I've purchased a computer of any sort (for quite literally years), be it from IBM, Dell, Lenovo, or HP (I don't recall others, but there may have been), it's always come with an install CD/DVD. Every single time. Hell, I don't even think it needed activation when it was reinstalled (at least for a Dell). No product key, no phoning home that I recall...
Really? Mozilla (Gecko) and Safari (Webkit) support -all- standards? Why don't they always render things identically, then? Why do most fancy JavaScript (AJAX - yuck) need browser detection to actually work?
Seriously, there's no browser that supports every standard. They just break them in less ways.
Please, please, reveal what you're on.
I want to see the universe like that...
This is true, almost. I'm young (18) with good vision (while wearing glasses - but good nonetheless), and it's becoming -increasingly- common for me to have to enter a CAPTCHA (at least) twice before it's right. They're getting bizarrely unreadable these days.
There's been a lot of bad moderations going on in this discussion... Parent is -not- a troll. Grammatically, they missed a capital letter (oh no!), but their point is perfectly valid, and very important.
Condoms, for instance, in preventing pregnancy are only about 80% effective (over the course of a year), meaning they break (or leak/etc.) relatively commonly. Probably the chance is about one in a few thousand, but that's -not- odds I really want to stake my life on.
Is it "How can I recover data from a failing/failed solid-state drive?"? Or is it "How easily can someone else find my 'deleted' data on my solid-state drive?"?
I'm not sure of the answer to either question, directly, but I'd suggest multiple backups for the first one, and encryption for the second one (full/near-full disk encryption is quite fast on a multi-core system).
(After a little more digging, no, not the "electrical engineering-like". But yup, same school.)
uwdir, huh. I'm another one.
I'm only in first year, however - software (the aforementioned "electrical engineering-like"?). Hope things don't turn out too badly for me...
Yes - if it was really such a huge problem, it wouldn't just be "please turn off your cellphones". It would be "please turn off your cellphone, show it to us, and put it in a bag that's not with you, or give it to us for the duration of the flight".
I've even once, by accident, left my cellphone on - I thought it was off, but I found out when I went to turn it back on after the flight, I'd forgotten to turn it off. Guess what? Nothing happened. Perfectly safe, normal flight.