and found a whopping 0 of our old 360 games had been ported.
How many are currently available?
Also, can you reference ANYTHING Microsoft has ever put out that would make anybody think that there wasn't a whitelist of compatible games? The Xbox BC for the 360 was the same way, as I recall, though I think it was more a whitelist of games tested as working satisfactorily.
But Zeno's Paradox isn't a paradox. It's literally saying 'if you never go all the way to point B, you'll never get to point B.'
It means nothing to nobody and has no bearing on anything. "If your nose is itchy, but you never touch your nose, your nose will never get scratched! OMG, nobody can scratch their noses! Reality is a lie!"
Nor are they getting recompensed for the use of their intellectual properties and creative works, let alone the use of their client software and technical work.
My PC has 32 GB of RAM sitting unused by the game as it reloads the areas from disk over and over again.
Absoutely this. I have 32 gigs of RAM. I currently have 22.5 gb available. I could nock that down to 26 easy by closing all of my browser windows and a few other programs.
My Fallout 4 directory is 25.9 gb. There's zero reason any asset should ever be loaded more than once, and pretty much no reason to ever release anything once it's been loaded.
That's how a republic is supposed to work: you vote for someone you trust to make good decisions, and then let them do their job (or vote them out).
And that would be a wonderful thing, if you didn't have issues like institutionalized gerrymandering, voter deprivation, and all the other shenanigans endemic to the American system.
Well, how the American system was designed included things like 'no political parties,' 'senators are appointed by the state governments,' 'the vice-president is the first presidential loser' and 'approximately six percent of the population is eligible to vote.'
It's changed over the years, and not always for the better.
And that's not even getting into the idea that the States are supposed to be more like a mini-UN than a collection of provinces or districts.
The point I'm trying to make, though, is 'if somebody doesn't vote, how do you determine their intention?' Answer me that. You say you didn't vote. So how is Congress, or the President, supposed to divine how you feel on, say, health care?
1) Of the people who voted, the majority voted for Obama. I assume. After all, electoral college and all that. Therefore, Congress has been given a clear signal that the majority of Americans who care enough to bother, want Obama's suggestions to happen. So, they best help make Obama's suggestions happen.
2) Of the overall eligible voting pool, only 30% voted for Obama. Therefore, Congress must somehow mystically divine what the large block of people, who didn't vote, want them to do.
The problem with 2) is that this means they can do whatever they want, with any justification they can come up with. And it shouldn't work that way. The only 'voter intent' that matters is *how the votes tallied up.*
Sure, but then you're also making the assumption that people who have chosen not to vote have chosen to speak in other ways. And you have no way of knowing that.
No, when the entire system is defined as 'vote for the candidate you want,' the only possible way to determine the candidate somebody wants is to tally the votes. If you *ever* have to have a discussion about 'voter intent,' you've already given up completely. If your voting system is so horrible, and so open to gaming, you don't have a voting system, you have a smokescreen.
I'll also point out that whenever America 'democratizes' another country, they implement bog-standard voting systems that are widely used across the world, rather than the uniquely American system that does it's best to obfuscate and redirect.
Did the GOP agree with him at the time? If he'd said 'Hell yes, they should be able to nominate somebody the day before the election,' would they agree with him?
No, they're cherry picking a speech about a hypothetical where he says that the senate should 'consider' this and 'consider' that.
Note also that he talks about something happening within three months of the election, not eight nor nine. Note also that he does not advocate sitting in the corner, arms crossed, saying 'DON'T WANNA!' but considering all of the potential ramifications and consequences.
Then: "The government is split, so lets bring in a moderate."
Now: "We refuse to consider anybody. Even the people we've said, both in years past and in reference to this very specific instance, would be acceptable to us."
Congress should only feel obligated to represent the wishes of the people who took the opportunity to voice their wishes. Didn't vote? who's to say why they didn't. Maybe they were thinking 'none of the above.' Maybe they were thinking 'Blue's going to win, and I vote blue, so I don't need to bother.' Maybe they were thinking 'Red's going to win, and I vote red, so I don't need to bother.'
I agree. It's like democracy; it's a bad idea; just not as bad as all the other ones.
Getting some minor criminal off the street, or giving somebody who just did something stupid a lighter sentence and some probation is all well and dandy. It's more when they use the plea as the carrot to get a conviction and appear to be DOING SOMETHING and clear the docket that it's a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
How many are currently available?
Also, can you reference ANYTHING Microsoft has ever put out that would make anybody think that there wasn't a whitelist of compatible games? The Xbox BC for the 360 was the same way, as I recall, though I think it was more a whitelist of games tested as working satisfactorily.
But Zeno's Paradox isn't a paradox. It's literally saying 'if you never go all the way to point B, you'll never get to point B.'
It means nothing to nobody and has no bearing on anything. "If your nose is itchy, but you never touch your nose, your nose will never get scratched! OMG, nobody can scratch their noses! Reality is a lie!"
For you, the day that your emails were all redirected was the most memorable day of your life. But for Webb? For Webb, it was a Tuesday.
Now how am I going to play The Daedalus Encounter? Oh, youtube. That's how.
I was going to make a comment to this effect, actually; I've seen it suggested for a lot of games.
Nor are they getting recompensed for the use of their intellectual properties and creative works, let alone the use of their client software and technical work.
Absoutely this. I have 32 gigs of RAM. I currently have 22.5 gb available. I could nock that down to 26 easy by closing all of my browser windows and a few other programs.
My Fallout 4 directory is 25.9 gb. There's zero reason any asset should ever be loaded more than once, and pretty much no reason to ever release anything once it's been loaded.
A fine example of the abyss staring back, become the monster you fight, and so on.
A baseball bat is nothing but a repurposed warclub.
Note that the turbo button was used to downclock the CPU, not boost it.
No argument on that.
And that would be a wonderful thing, if you didn't have issues like institutionalized gerrymandering, voter deprivation, and all the other shenanigans endemic to the American system.
Well, how the American system was designed included things like 'no political parties,' 'senators are appointed by the state governments,' 'the vice-president is the first presidential loser' and 'approximately six percent of the population is eligible to vote.'
It's changed over the years, and not always for the better.
And that's not even getting into the idea that the States are supposed to be more like a mini-UN than a collection of provinces or districts.
The point I'm trying to make, though, is 'if somebody doesn't vote, how do you determine their intention?' Answer me that. You say you didn't vote. So how is Congress, or the President, supposed to divine how you feel on, say, health care?
If a robot is programmed never to do harm to a human, but is also programmed to think that left-handed redheads from Texas aren't human....
I came to say something like this. I got an iPad 3 (The New iPad) when it came out.
It still does everything I need it to do, and does it well. Which, really, is run Goodreader, iBooks and Comic Rack.
It's the only relevant thing.
Otherwise, there are two ways of looking at it:
1) Of the people who voted, the majority voted for Obama. I assume. After all, electoral college and all that. Therefore, Congress has been given a clear signal that the majority of Americans who care enough to bother, want Obama's suggestions to happen. So, they best help make Obama's suggestions happen.
2) Of the overall eligible voting pool, only 30% voted for Obama. Therefore, Congress must somehow mystically divine what the large block of people, who didn't vote, want them to do.
The problem with 2) is that this means they can do whatever they want, with any justification they can come up with. And it shouldn't work that way. The only 'voter intent' that matters is *how the votes tallied up.*
Did 30% of eligible voters vote for Obama, or did 30% of people who voted vote for Obama?
Sure, but then you're also making the assumption that people who have chosen not to vote have chosen to speak in other ways. And you have no way of knowing that.
No, when the entire system is defined as 'vote for the candidate you want,' the only possible way to determine the candidate somebody wants is to tally the votes. If you *ever* have to have a discussion about 'voter intent,' you've already given up completely. If your voting system is so horrible, and so open to gaming, you don't have a voting system, you have a smokescreen.
I'll also point out that whenever America 'democratizes' another country, they implement bog-standard voting systems that are widely used across the world, rather than the uniquely American system that does it's best to obfuscate and redirect.
Did the GOP agree with him at the time? If he'd said 'Hell yes, they should be able to nominate somebody the day before the election,' would they agree with him?
No, they're cherry picking a speech about a hypothetical where he says that the senate should 'consider' this and 'consider' that.
Note also that he talks about something happening within three months of the election, not eight nor nine. Note also that he does not advocate sitting in the corner, arms crossed, saying 'DON'T WANNA!' but considering all of the potential ramifications and consequences.
Provide a complete quote of Biden saying this, including surrounding statements. No editing or cherry-picking the once sentence.
Then: "The government is split, so lets bring in a moderate."
Now: "We refuse to consider anybody. Even the people we've said, both in years past and in reference to this very specific instance, would be acceptable to us."
Congress should only feel obligated to represent the wishes of the people who took the opportunity to voice their wishes. Didn't vote? who's to say why they didn't. Maybe they were thinking 'none of the above.' Maybe they were thinking 'Blue's going to win, and I vote blue, so I don't need to bother.' Maybe they were thinking 'Red's going to win, and I vote red, so I don't need to bother.'
I agree. It's like democracy; it's a bad idea; just not as bad as all the other ones.
Getting some minor criminal off the street, or giving somebody who just did something stupid a lighter sentence and some probation is all well and dandy. It's more when they use the plea as the carrot to get a conviction and appear to be DOING SOMETHING and clear the docket that it's a problem.
Just because something makes it into an amendment doesn't mean that, in retrospect, it can't be judged to be a bad idea.
For example, do you still think the 18th Amendment should stand?
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.