According to TFA, he actually does some rewrites of the engine:
When I start a new game, I spend 3-4 months rewriting the worst or most dated part of my engine, and then I take that old (but solid) engine and make the coolest story I can with it.
This allows him to not only tune the engine for performance and stability, but also to take advantage of new technology. On the flip side, the engine is not likely to be redesigned, which can be a problem if the design itself gets dated.
It's not that bad is is? I mean, you just have to split the name into logical parts Eyja-fjalla-jökull. There is also a nice example of pronounciation at the wikipedia entry, sounding something like Eva-ley-kull.
If it is illegal to have a home computer without the "anti-infringement" software, and such software does not exist for Linux, it will in practice become illegal to run Linux. A gray shade will be if the software will need to run, that is, will it be legal to dualboot with Windows/Mac (with the software) and Linux (without the software)? Either way, the requested law is a draconian invasion of privacy, as well as a backdoor into your system for anyone from malicious hackers, spies or blackmailers to use.
I think that you assume that all kids put up for adoption are from the US, which is not true. On top of this, you assume that the chance of parents putting their kids up for adoption is independent of their economic situation. I'm not sure that this is true either I have no evidence to back this claim up, but it is true that your economic situation has a major impact on your chances of getting to adopt a child. Given that black Americans are economically worse of than white Americans, one would expect relatively more black kids available for adoption.
Because if they were caught, they would go to prison. All of them. Spreading malware, breaking into someones computer and blackmailing them are serious offenses.
According to TFA they found a Chris Hemsworth, who played George Kirk in the recent Star Trek movie. According to IMDB he is currently filming the Thor movie.
I think we have the same problem as pretty much every democracy: everyone gets a vote, but only a small portion of people actually care/know enough about an issue to make an informed choice. And the governments don't seem to be under much pressure to actually be open and honest about what the policies they're pushing will actually achieve.
In an ideal democracy, the press would make the specialized information available to help the general public make an informed choice. Unfortunately, the press seems more likely to run with the pro-filter crowd, in the midst of articles on bloody murder and ads for the newest VW.
They are in their 20s or early 30s, which I consider being reasonably young. Most started smoking before they turned 16, and some never managed to quit. Others did, but being able to quit seems to be more about willpower (can you ignore the desire to take a smoke) and biology (how bad are the withdrawal symptoms) than smarts. But as I wrote, this is entirely anecdotal evidence.
From what I hear, it is generally accepted that a 5-15 min break every workhour is healthy for you, as well as for your ability to stay focused. I find that if I'm working on a difficult problem, taking a walk while thinking on it is a good way to get ideas for breaking it. Most people just don't take those breaks for a number of reasons, such as forgetting to do it or fear that a boss may think that they are lazy. Smokers, however, have a regular craving, that reminds them to take a smoking break. And it is (still) more acceptable for a smoker to take a smoking break than it is for a non-smoker to take a similar break.
I know a lot of very smart people that smoke. Yes, it is anecdotal evidence, but it illustrates one of the points of the article: It isn't just a matter of intelligence whether or not you start to smoke. Social factors such as wealth, educational background and "what my friends do" play a significant role. However, on average, it seems that smokers have a lower IQ than non-smokers. One question that the article does not pose (and can't answer due to its nature) is which is cause and which is effect. Is the reason that smokers have a lower IQ that the people that start smoking have a lower IQ, or does smoking damage your ability to reason logically?
you'd need at least a gigawatt of power to light up that kind of area.
You are sure it is not 1.21 GigaWatts? If we just could find a way to pump a lighthing bolt into space, we would be able to go back to the... no, wait, wrong movie...
So, if I live and work in a country where I get government subsidies in the form of free education, healthcare, access to roads etc, I could get to pay taxes in another country with lower tax? If I and everyone else did that, free education, healthcare, roads etc would simply collapse. Not to mention that it is against the laws of most countries. And if it is wrong for me to do so, it should also be wrong for corperations. What is needed is that governments put an ultimatum onto the corperations: If you want to make money here, you have to pay taxes here. One option could be to tax the turnover of the corperation instead of the surpluss. This is actually similar to how people are taxed: We are taxed on our income, not the amount of money we have left after paying for food, home and other necessities.
It's not the publisher handling the DRM, but rather the distributor. Amazon handles their own DRM, and you're not locked into one single device as they will send any ebook you've purchased from them to multiple devices you've registered, as well keep them sync'd between devices.
If every sync requires the interaction with the publishers servers, the publisher has some extra costs there. And I would sortof expect them to want to be part of it - how else could they know if Amazon were selling 50 eBooks everytime they reported one?
If Amazon finds the cost of maintaining DRM on their books negligible and still willing to maintain a lower price for ebooks, more power to them. Why should a publisher even care what a seller charges for the ebook? It's not like the seller is paying the publisher any less.
What if the publisher wants to sell an eBook (to Amazon) for more than $10? In this case, Amazon would either have to sell the book at a loss or not sell the book.
It is high. Particularly when you factor in that the DRM on eBooks locks you to read it using certain readers, and may cause you to loose access to the book you paid for if you buy a new computer, or the publisher takes the DRM servers offline (even accidentally). Unfortunately, putting DRM on books are expensive, as noted by Charlie Stross on his blog, and consumers get to pay the bill.
The data exists on the company's computers, likely passed through their network and servers, and because of these things they are legally accesible by the company. Unless the company accessed her email account at Yahoo using this data, there doesn't seem to be an issue to me.
From that logic, it follows that if you send a letter by snailmail, where the letter exist in the offices of the postal service, the postal service workers have the right to open and read your letter. In my opinion, my employers have no more right to read my personal email than a postal worker has reading my letters. Usage of company email may be a gray zone, but my personal email account is not. They may argue that I sent a mail during work hours and fire me for that (if it is against company policy), but that is something very, very different.
Fortunately, not all governments have fallen for the ploy. Recently, the Socialdemocratic-Socialist opposition forced the Conservative-Liberal government in Denmark to pass a law, requiring the state to use truly open formats. One major battle were exactly if OOXML should be considered an open standard. This battle were won by the opposition, as it managed to force the government to make a series of criteria for for what an open format is, where only ODT were included, and it is highly unlikely that the OOXML version including deprecated functionality will meet the criteria.
Microsoft Office Open XML
Are you sure that is the official name? If so, why isn't the abbreviation MOOXML?
you would have no objection to the food companies could put lead in their food as a sweetener
That's a stupid comparison. Lead is a toxin. Salt is required for life.
The bottom line is that part of the reason why we have a government is to precisely to prevent people from passing poisonous or other misleading substances off as nutritious food
Salt is a poisonous substance? Your kidding me, right?
Salt reasonable quantities is needed for life, as you correctly noted, but if there is to much salt in your food, it becomes unhealthy for you. If you eat extreme amounts of salt, you could even die from dehydration.
Another few things has been happening since the 60s and the 70s. Automobile technology has advanced to protect the drivers and passengers much better than before. Where I live (not in the US, so I can't say to which degree this applies to the US) serious traffic regulation were applied during the 70s, not to mention fairly successful campaigns against driving while drunk. The interesting statistic is not the number of fatalities or injuries in total. The interesting statistic is the number of fatalities, injuries and accidents caused by distracted drivers, ie. the number of accidents that could be *avoided* had the driver been attentive.
Naturally, passing a law is not the same as a law being followed (I mentioned drunken driving earlier), but sometimes it is necessary to modify behavior. I have spoken to many people who did not know that driving while using mobile phones were dangerous. People, who would never drive while intoxicated.
As far as I remember, the studies showed significant difference between talking on a mobile phone (hand-held or not) and talking to another passenger. Why? Because not only are the drivers attention focused elsewhere, the driver will also have to focus on making out the somewhat blurred words coming out through a mobile phone. This neglects the fact that the passenger will also be able to see dangerous situations brewing, and be able to warn the driver, or at least shut up.
You are right in asserting that there are other distractions that are (just as) dangerous, such as driving while intoxicated, having sex, applying makeup etc, but is that a reason that we should ignore the issue? Or is a law a reasonable way to educate drivers that these things actually are dangerous and that they should not be done at pain of a hefty fine?
Slashdot Mirror
When I start a new game, I spend 3-4 months rewriting the worst or most dated part of my engine, and then I take that old (but solid) engine and make the coolest story I can with it.
This allows him to not only tune the engine for performance and stability, but also to take advantage of new technology. On the flip side, the engine is not likely to be redesigned, which can be a problem if the design itself gets dated.
It's not that bad is is? I mean, you just have to split the name into logical parts Eyja-fjalla-jökull. There is also a nice example of pronounciation at the wikipedia entry, sounding something like Eva-ley-kull.
and if a few eggs get smashed along the way, they're quite fine with that.
Will their shareholders feel the same way when Ubisoft titles have the reputation of being flaky, hard to play, and prone to technical malfunction?
That depends on the bottom line ...
The Americans elected George W. Bush ... twice. Try to google "bushism" to find some increadible quotes.
If it is illegal to have a home computer without the "anti-infringement" software, and such software does not exist for Linux, it will in practice become illegal to run Linux. A gray shade will be if the software will need to run, that is, will it be legal to dualboot with Windows/Mac (with the software) and Linux (without the software)? Either way, the requested law is a draconian invasion of privacy, as well as a backdoor into your system for anyone from malicious hackers, spies or blackmailers to use.
I think that you assume that all kids put up for adoption are from the US, which is not true. On top of this, you assume that the chance of parents putting their kids up for adoption is independent of their economic situation. I'm not sure that this is true either I have no evidence to back this claim up, but it is true that your economic situation has a major impact on your chances of getting to adopt a child. Given that black Americans are economically worse of than white Americans, one would expect relatively more black kids available for adoption.
Because if they were caught, they would go to prison. All of them. Spreading malware, breaking into someones computer and blackmailing them are serious offenses.
According to TFA they found a Chris Hemsworth, who played George Kirk in the recent Star Trek movie. According to IMDB he is currently filming the Thor movie.
... mainly powered by solar energy ...
So they will not need to refuel that often :D
I think most laws have a concept of criminal negligence, which would seem to apply, particularly if someone comes to bodily harm.
I think we have the same problem as pretty much every democracy: everyone gets a vote, but only a small portion of people actually care/know enough about an issue to make an informed choice. And the governments don't seem to be under much pressure to actually be open and honest about what the policies they're pushing will actually achieve.
In an ideal democracy, the press would make the specialized information available to help the general public make an informed choice. Unfortunately, the press seems more likely to run with the pro-filter crowd, in the midst of articles on bloody murder and ads for the newest VW.
They are in their 20s or early 30s, which I consider being reasonably young. Most started smoking before they turned 16, and some never managed to quit. Others did, but being able to quit seems to be more about willpower (can you ignore the desire to take a smoke) and biology (how bad are the withdrawal symptoms) than smarts. But as I wrote, this is entirely anecdotal evidence.
From what I hear, it is generally accepted that a 5-15 min break every workhour is healthy for you, as well as for your ability to stay focused. I find that if I'm working on a difficult problem, taking a walk while thinking on it is a good way to get ideas for breaking it. Most people just don't take those breaks for a number of reasons, such as forgetting to do it or fear that a boss may think that they are lazy. Smokers, however, have a regular craving, that reminds them to take a smoking break. And it is (still) more acceptable for a smoker to take a smoking break than it is for a non-smoker to take a similar break.
I know a lot of very smart people that smoke. Yes, it is anecdotal evidence, but it illustrates one of the points of the article: It isn't just a matter of intelligence whether or not you start to smoke. Social factors such as wealth, educational background and "what my friends do" play a significant role. However, on average, it seems that smokers have a lower IQ than non-smokers. One question that the article does not pose (and can't answer due to its nature) is which is cause and which is effect. Is the reason that smokers have a lower IQ that the people that start smoking have a lower IQ, or does smoking damage your ability to reason logically?
you'd need at least a gigawatt of power to light up that kind of area.
You are sure it is not 1.21 GigaWatts? If we just could find a way to pump a lighthing bolt into space, we would be able to go back to the ... no, wait, wrong movie ...
So, if I live and work in a country where I get government subsidies in the form of free education, healthcare, access to roads etc, I could get to pay taxes in another country with lower tax? If I and everyone else did that, free education, healthcare, roads etc would simply collapse. Not to mention that it is against the laws of most countries. And if it is wrong for me to do so, it should also be wrong for corperations. What is needed is that governments put an ultimatum onto the corperations: If you want to make money here, you have to pay taxes here. One option could be to tax the turnover of the corperation instead of the surpluss. This is actually similar to how people are taxed: We are taxed on our income, not the amount of money we have left after paying for food, home and other necessities.
It's not the publisher handling the DRM, but rather the distributor. Amazon handles their own DRM, and you're not locked into one single device as they will send any ebook you've purchased from them to multiple devices you've registered, as well keep them sync'd between devices.
If every sync requires the interaction with the publishers servers, the publisher has some extra costs there. And I would sortof expect them to want to be part of it - how else could they know if Amazon were selling 50 eBooks everytime they reported one?
If Amazon finds the cost of maintaining DRM on their books negligible and still willing to maintain a lower price for ebooks, more power to them. Why should a publisher even care what a seller charges for the ebook? It's not like the seller is paying the publisher any less.
What if the publisher wants to sell an eBook (to Amazon) for more than $10? In this case, Amazon would either have to sell the book at a loss or not sell the book.
It is high. Particularly when you factor in that the DRM on eBooks locks you to read it using certain readers, and may cause you to loose access to the book you paid for if you buy a new computer, or the publisher takes the DRM servers offline (even accidentally). Unfortunately, putting DRM on books are expensive, as noted by Charlie Stross on his blog, and consumers get to pay the bill.
The government can mandate all they want, but until people's attitudes change, horsepower sells more cars than MPG.
Or prices on gas soar ...
The data exists on the company's computers, likely passed through their network and servers, and because of these things they are legally accesible by the company. Unless the company accessed her email account at Yahoo using this data, there doesn't seem to be an issue to me.
From that logic, it follows that if you send a letter by snailmail, where the letter exist in the offices of the postal service, the postal service workers have the right to open and read your letter. In my opinion, my employers have no more right to read my personal email than a postal worker has reading my letters. Usage of company email may be a gray zone, but my personal email account is not. They may argue that I sent a mail during work hours and fire me for that (if it is against company policy), but that is something very, very different.
Fortunately, not all governments have fallen for the ploy. Recently, the Socialdemocratic-Socialist opposition forced the Conservative-Liberal government in Denmark to pass a law, requiring the state to use truly open formats. One major battle were exactly if OOXML should be considered an open standard. This battle were won by the opposition, as it managed to force the government to make a series of criteria for for what an open format is, where only ODT were included, and it is highly unlikely that the OOXML version including deprecated functionality will meet the criteria.
Microsoft Office Open XML
Are you sure that is the official name? If so, why isn't the abbreviation MOOXML?
you would have no objection to the food companies could put lead in their food as a sweetener
That's a stupid comparison. Lead is a toxin. Salt is required for life.
The bottom line is that part of the reason why we have a government is to precisely to prevent people from passing poisonous or other misleading substances off as nutritious food
Salt is a poisonous substance? Your kidding me, right?
Salt reasonable quantities is needed for life, as you correctly noted, but if there is to much salt in your food, it becomes unhealthy for you. If you eat extreme amounts of salt, you could even die from dehydration.
Another few things has been happening since the 60s and the 70s. Automobile technology has advanced to protect the drivers and passengers much better than before. Where I live (not in the US, so I can't say to which degree this applies to the US) serious traffic regulation were applied during the 70s, not to mention fairly successful campaigns against driving while drunk. The interesting statistic is not the number of fatalities or injuries in total. The interesting statistic is the number of fatalities, injuries and accidents caused by distracted drivers, ie. the number of accidents that could be *avoided* had the driver been attentive.
Naturally, passing a law is not the same as a law being followed (I mentioned drunken driving earlier), but sometimes it is necessary to modify behavior. I have spoken to many people who did not know that driving while using mobile phones were dangerous. People, who would never drive while intoxicated.
As far as I remember, the studies showed significant difference between talking on a mobile phone (hand-held or not) and talking to another passenger. Why? Because not only are the drivers attention focused elsewhere, the driver will also have to focus on making out the somewhat blurred words coming out through a mobile phone. This neglects the fact that the passenger will also be able to see dangerous situations brewing, and be able to warn the driver, or at least shut up.
You are right in asserting that there are other distractions that are (just as) dangerous, such as driving while intoxicated, having sex, applying makeup etc, but is that a reason that we should ignore the issue? Or is a law a reasonable way to educate drivers that these things actually are dangerous and that they should not be done at pain of a hefty fine?
Have you tried to put on the seatbelt first, and then start the engine?