Developing software for a global bank many moons ago, the software recipients preferred/required capitalized menu items and input fields. As English was not their first language, they explained that CAPS were easier for them to read.
So either Microsoft's focus group is global or their developers are
Total Annihilation is a great RTS that still isn't quite outdone by its CPU hogging sequel Supreme Commander. Yeah, it's so old it will run with DirectX 3.0. Multiplayer won't work in Windows Vista or 7 without a boatload of firewall hacks (Probably why I'm still on XP), but its the best match of board-game meets video game out there
Otherwise, just Microsoft Visual Studio, because business still thinks that's the only game in town.
I still think those who complain about JavaScript being the only option don't really understand how awesome JavaScript is.
Heck, if you don't like coding JavaScript for the browser: port your language of choice to JavaScript! Then you can happily code in SmallTalk, ADAScript, MEL Script or whatever other codec you find more appealing.
As I poorly stated previously, I don't advocate violence over a discussion. Much less over a law imposing a certain view of how one ought to behave on the Inter-webs.
But you must admit its a disturbing precedence for the government at the higher levels deciding formally (with the threat of fines, guns, prison, and all the force government entails) what really only needs informal discussion between neighbors and parents.
In so far as they would consider abolishing freedom of association: they are going against their oath to uphold The Constitution of the United States. It suggests they don't consider their promise to the public when discussing or possibly deciding legislation. It suggests they think of themselves as rulers instead of public servants.
For example, if a corporation were to discuss defrauding the public as a way to solve a particular problem; people would generally be upset on finding out. With a company you might have a choice whether to do business with them. But with government, since they have a monopoly on force (fines, prison, etc), everyone is subject and there is no other (safe) choice. People who don't have a choice about something they disagree with: well, they sometimes resort to more physical methods of argument
I don't advocating violence over something that's just being discussed: but it's perfectly reasonable why threats of violence would be a reaction in this instance.
The genius of Brendan Eich's language is that its so flexible you define new features and redefine existing ones.
There's a (Japanese) implementation of the Java JVM in JavaScript and someone else ported Apple's Objective C in JavaScript
Now personally I don't really care to use either of those (I'd rather stick closer to the actual language being used, and in this case JavaScript is the web), but I think JavaScript is more than adequate as it is
It's unlimited supply of modeling clay: don't complain just because you can't decide what to make!
Anthropogenic global warming aside: is NASA's explanation reasonable?
A satellite launched in 1991 with an apogee of 575km degrades orbit early, and NASA cites unexpected atmospheric expansion.
If atmospheric expansion has done this to a satellite launched just 20 years ago: should we not expect a veritable shower of near-earth vehicles? It seems reasonable that such a global characteristic would exert its influence on more than just this one satellite.
Perhaps describing NASA's reasoning as spin is mildly hyperbolic, but I find their explanation illogical given the sheer number of satellites in low orbit
Right, the greenhouse effect in a planetary body: trapped solar radiation hypothetically due to atmospheric particulate resulting in an increase in temperature on the planet's surface.
But why haven't we heard anything about atmospheric expansion before? Is the atmosphere of the planet actually reaching further into space? If this claim by NASA is proven: why not present that? Forget all the ice core samples and temperature readings: just show that the atmosphere is now so many miles higher than it was in 1980!
It just seems more likely that NASA is spinning this event for political reasons.
"Experts say that a recent expansion in the Earth's atmosphere due to heating by ultraviolet radiation has been causing UARS to fall to Earth faster than expected."
So is this a backhanded endorsement of anthropogenic global warming or admission that it's the sun's fault?
Food, clothing, shelter are wealth. Having an "over-abundance" of these may be wealth in your sense of the word; having them in excess is purely subjective.
Determining whether one is sufficiently comfortable is something most readily assessed by the individual: not by another person, not by a group of other people, least of all by a government in a far-away city.
It's not crazy to postulate that people should find more to pursue than more food, clothing, and shelter, but it is unreasonable to impose your view of what is enough on someone else.
Christians believe your so-called "zombie" was the avatar of the system architect who designed this game. Reclassifying the avatar isn't going to change the association with the game's designer.
Christianity's essential claim is playing the game with hints from the game designer results in a higher score, and if you team up with the designer's player: you get to meet him in person (and all your fellow players) when the game is over.
Slashdot Mirror
People often skip overtime work because the higher withholding and taxes reduce their incentive. And yes, I have met them.
"Give us your money or no more Starbucks!"
Developing software for a global bank many moons ago, the software recipients preferred/required capitalized menu items and input fields. As English was not their first language, they explained that CAPS were easier for them to read.
So either Microsoft's focus group is global or their developers are
I have all the evidence you need: just check with me later. Like next month, or the month after...
Total Annihilation is a great RTS that still isn't quite outdone by its CPU hogging sequel Supreme Commander. Yeah, it's so old it will run with DirectX 3.0. Multiplayer won't work in Windows Vista or 7 without a boatload of firewall hacks (Probably why I'm still on XP), but its the best match of board-game meets video game out there
Otherwise, just Microsoft Visual Studio, because business still thinks that's the only game in town.
Touché
I still think those who complain about JavaScript being the only option don't really understand how awesome JavaScript is.
Heck, if you don't like coding JavaScript for the browser: port your language of choice to JavaScript! Then you can happily code in SmallTalk, ADAScript, MEL Script or whatever other codec you find more appealing.
Yes, its that flexible
A competing model does not need to show an alternate prediction: only that any net warming is not dictated by man-made emissions.
Nothing gets built in England for less than 10 million.
Voting the idiots out is the only option (unless the day dreams of Bev Perdue become reality)
As I poorly stated previously, I don't advocate violence over a discussion. Much less over a law imposing a certain view of how one ought to behave on the Inter-webs.
But you must admit its a disturbing precedence for the government at the higher levels deciding formally (with the threat of fines, guns, prison, and all the force government entails) what really only needs informal discussion between neighbors and parents.
In so far as they would consider abolishing freedom of association: they are going against their oath to uphold The Constitution of the United States.
It suggests they don't consider their promise to the public when discussing or possibly deciding legislation. It suggests they think of themselves as rulers instead of public servants.
For example, if a corporation were to discuss defrauding the public as a way to solve a particular problem; people would generally be upset on finding out.
With a company you might have a choice whether to do business with them. But with government, since they have a monopoly on force (fines, prison, etc), everyone is subject and there is no other (safe) choice. People who don't have a choice about something they disagree with: well, they sometimes resort to more physical methods of argument
I don't advocating violence over something that's just being discussed: but it's perfectly reasonable why threats of violence would be a reaction in this instance.
This was already posted on slashdot
http://ejohn.org/blog/running-java-in-javascript/
The genius of Brendan Eich's language is that its so flexible you define new features and redefine existing ones.
There's a (Japanese) implementation of the Java JVM in JavaScript and someone else ported Apple's Objective C in JavaScript
Now personally I don't really care to use either of those (I'd rather stick closer to the actual language being used, and in this case JavaScript is the web), but I think JavaScript is more than adequate as it is
It's unlimited supply of modeling clay: don't complain just because you can't decide what to make!
I blame my command-line fetish on the Legend of Zork.
Anthropogenic global warming aside: is NASA's explanation reasonable?
A satellite launched in 1991 with an apogee of 575km degrades orbit early, and NASA cites unexpected atmospheric expansion.
If atmospheric expansion has done this to a satellite launched just 20 years ago: should we not expect a veritable shower of near-earth vehicles? It seems reasonable that such a global characteristic would exert its influence on more than just this one satellite.
Perhaps describing NASA's reasoning as spin is mildly hyperbolic, but I find their explanation illogical given the sheer number of satellites in low orbit
Right, the greenhouse effect in a planetary body: trapped solar radiation hypothetically due to atmospheric particulate resulting in an increase in temperature on the planet's surface.
But why haven't we heard anything about atmospheric expansion before? Is the atmosphere of the planet actually reaching further into space? If this claim by NASA is proven: why not present that? Forget all the ice core samples and temperature readings: just show that the atmosphere is now so many miles higher than it was in 1980!
It just seems more likely that NASA is spinning this event for political reasons.
"Experts say that a recent expansion in the Earth's atmosphere due to heating by ultraviolet radiation has been causing UARS to fall to Earth faster than expected."
So is this a backhanded endorsement of anthropogenic global warming or admission that it's the sun's fault?
Brilliant reduction and contrast.
Thanks for saying what I wanted to (only better)
Food, clothing, shelter are wealth. Having an "over-abundance" of these may be wealth in your sense of the word; having them in excess is purely subjective.
Determining whether one is sufficiently comfortable is something most readily assessed by the individual: not by another person, not by a group of other people, least of all by a government in a far-away city.
It's not crazy to postulate that people should find more to pursue than more food, clothing, and shelter, but it is unreasonable to impose your view of what is enough on someone else.
So while we're wasting energy, resources, and brain power on cosmogony, the Chinese are applying all of that to what we have now.
Western science needs to get over itself, accept what we have, and move on to making our lives better.
America and capitalism are providing you choices: buy something or from someone else.
Operators should be comfortable with the dynamics of SIM City before moving on to Supreme Commander
This is a great point. Almost every video game ever made has used the concept of a "label" that reveals further information.
Christians believe your so-called "zombie" was the avatar of the system architect who designed this game. Reclassifying the avatar isn't going to change the association with the game's designer.
Christianity's essential claim is playing the game with hints from the game designer results in a higher score, and if you team up with the designer's player: you get to meet him in person (and all your fellow players) when the game is over.