It doesn't try to be goofy, it is goofy in how earnestly it portrays its story. But, as I said, it's still damn good, and yes, the world is beautiful. As to optional content, you have (in the Legends version): * 4 optional "big bosses" * Discoveries * Cham sidequest * Moonfish sidequest * Crew collection * Bounties * Piastol sidequest * Trying to get every damn chest in the game to make Legend.
the original version lacks Moonfish, Bounties, and Piastol, but has the Pinta's Quest VMU game, which is silly and entirely optional, but nets you nifty items and gold.
Actually this is the right answer. Except that due to certain constraints we'll probably have to tone down the whole death/destruction thing to multi-hundred-thousand-dollar-fines. Oh, and don't forget to go after the people who buy time on the botnets. They're as complicit as the people who set them up.
C'mon, it's not just the graphics. Granted, they're great given the hardware, but it's also the music, the characters, the wealth of optional material, and the story that just won't quit making you smile even as you tell yourself how thoroughly goofy it is. Oh, and the horribly bad "acting" of Ramirez.:)
Actually the memory requirements wouldn't go up that much, for a few reasons. First, a noticeable portion of the memory use is read-only "text" pages (executables, libraries, maybe pixmaps) that would still remain shared between the processes (you get this for free). Second, another noticeable portion of a browser's memory use is per-tab anyway. The total amount of per-tab usage won't change whether you have 20 tabs in one window, 20 tabs between 5 windows in the same process, or 20 tabs between 5 windows each in its own process.
Well let's see. An ordinary sort of DC fan such as you might find in a laptop might draw 50mA. At 12V, this is 600mW. The battery in the MBP 15" has a capacity of 60Wh, meaning that it could run the fan for 100 hours. Alternately, suppose that using your lappy, you draw 20W with no fan activity, so the battery lasts 3 hours. Now run the fan 100% of the time, you're pulling 20.6W, and the battery lasts... 5 minutes less. I wouldn't worry too much.:)
That these cards enable you to do things like Play Doom 3 at a speed hundreds of times faster than you could by doing the rendering on your CPU. What will people think of next?
I won't disagree with you. All I was saying was that the great-grandparent was sort of making the wrong argument wrt contrast ratio. The rest, I agree with. I'll still print stuff out if it's a decent amount of reading, and I'm no old fogey.
Is it now? My understanding was that ordinary black ink on ordinary white paper gives you a contrast ratio of 50:1 to 100:1. LCDs manage ratios of several hundred to one. Unfortunately, they have to do this by being fairly bright, as they can't manage super-pure blacks.
As to the resolution, of course you're right, even a crappy old laser will pull 180dpi and most printouts are higher; however, digital displays are improving in that department too. Used to be 72ppi was common, then 96 or 100; now there's a reasonable number of displays with 120ppi. I even have a device that does 200ppi; unfortunately it's only a 4" screen:)
You're assuming that people can actually read Reiser code. It's scary, and it doesn't really conform to Linux conventions. I don't particularly think Hans Reiser cares at all about Linux or its users; it's just a convenient playground for testing his filesystem code, and it comes with a whole bunch of schmucks who will test it for free.
Come on. This is a 1mW visible laser. If you avoid staring directly into it for long periods of time, you'll be just fine. And it would be pretty hard to stare into it anyway without blinking or looking away. The real dangerous lasers are the ones that have enough power to cause damage instantly, or that are invisible (usually NIR), so that you don't know that you're getting zapped by them.
Use a tool such as Off-the-Record Messaging. You get authentication to protect you against man-in-the-middle attacks, strong encryption, and a clever scheme that makes it so that if someone does manage to break a key and read a conversation, or if one of the parties to the conversation snitches, it still can't be proven that you've said anything in particular; the key material for authentication is published after the fact, so that while it's valid at the time you're having the conversation, afterwards anyone could forge a message that would pass authentication. So if someone comes out and says that you said X, and that they have logs and packet dumps to prove it, you can "prove" that you actually said Y, and that you have logs and packet dumps to prove it, and from a mathematical perspective both of your claims are equally credible -- either or both of you could be presenting a forgery. Fun!
Re:Am I just being overly simplistic...
on
IPv6 Essentials
·
· Score: 1
Let's call your idea "IPv4.1". It would still be incompatible with IPv4. It would, in fact, require just as much effort to roll out as IPv6 would... but it wouldn't make any other fundamental improvements. Same cost, less benefit. What's the point?
How does your level of competence enter into anything that I said at all? Why should I care whether you invented the internet or you're a complete idiot? I wasn't discussing you. I was discussing programming problems and solutions. Although I do wonder a little bit how your system could be so good and not support having a little data-driven table dropped into the middle of an existing application.:)
Where do you see "constraint"? Some people think that there is a benefit to working in this field, and they do. Scientists aren't being held at gunpoint and forced to do string-theory work.
Who said anything about "pure CGI"? If you could do it in PHP, you could have done it in half the number of developer-hours with Jifty or Rails or that Django thing, or you could have done it more powerfully and reliably with Catalyst or Struts, or... whatever. PHP isn't an efficient or effective solution to the problem -- any problem really, when compared to other tools that are available; it survives because people are under the misapprehension that it is.:)
Well... there's the lazy evaluation and autolambda stuff that lets us steal some more of the best tricks from the functional programmers. There's the junctioning and type inferencing stuff that opens up something vaguely like logic programming. There's the OO and metaclass stuff that gives you a consistent object model, roles, multimethods, contract programming... the ability to have stricture like the Java folks do (Perl 5 offers a good number of opportunities to impose stricture, but when it comes to OO, it's all out the window. You can't enforce anything and if anything goes wrong, it will go wrong at runtime). Instead of regexes, you can use the new Rules system that's not only a zillion times more powerful, but also not complete punctuation soup, and a whole lot easier to write. What else am I forgetting? Plenty, I'm sure.
You're kidding, right? PHP is dead. It's just going to take a number of years before the people using it realize that. Nothing truly important is going to happen with PHP, because it's the wrong kind of lanaguage, with the wrong kind of community. Perl, Python, Ruby, even Java are non-toy languages with truly amazing web stuff going for them; PHP is for the kids, always has been, always will be -- even if some people are under the temporary delusion that it's more than that.
Your statement is akin to "I don't want gcc! I want C! You expect me to write my programs for this free gcc crap? What, will RMS just wave a wand someday and gcc will be C?"
Slashdot Mirror
The usual way for "a small cartel of megacorporations" to gain a foothold in the first place is through... you guessed it... government regulation :)
It doesn't try to be goofy, it is goofy in how earnestly it portrays its story. But, as I said, it's still damn good, and yes, the world is beautiful. As to optional content, you have (in the Legends version):
* 4 optional "big bosses"
* Discoveries
* Cham sidequest
* Moonfish sidequest
* Crew collection
* Bounties
* Piastol sidequest
* Trying to get every damn chest in the game to make Legend.
the original version lacks Moonfish, Bounties, and Piastol, but has the Pinta's Quest VMU game, which is silly and entirely optional, but nets you nifty items and gold.
Actually this is the right answer. Except that due to certain constraints we'll probably have to tone down the whole death/destruction thing to multi-hundred-thousand-dollar-fines. Oh, and don't forget to go after the people who buy time on the botnets. They're as complicit as the people who set them up.
C'mon, it's not just the graphics. Granted, they're great given the hardware, but it's also the music, the characters, the wealth of optional material, and the story that just won't quit making you smile even as you tell yourself how thoroughly goofy it is. Oh, and the horribly bad "acting" of Ramirez. :)
Don't forget that anyone who is investigated as a terrorist and finds out about it, can't tell you about it.
Actually the memory requirements wouldn't go up that much, for a few reasons. First, a noticeable portion of the memory use is read-only "text" pages (executables, libraries, maybe pixmaps) that would still remain shared between the processes (you get this for free). Second, another noticeable portion of a browser's memory use is per-tab anyway. The total amount of per-tab usage won't change whether you have 20 tabs in one window, 20 tabs between 5 windows in the same process, or 20 tabs between 5 windows each in its own process.
Well let's see. An ordinary sort of DC fan such as you might find in a laptop might draw 50mA. At 12V, this is 600mW. The battery in the MBP 15" has a capacity of 60Wh, meaning that it could run the fan for 100 hours. Alternately, suppose that using your lappy, you draw 20W with no fan activity, so the battery lasts 3 hours. Now run the fan 100% of the time, you're pulling 20.6W, and the battery lasts... 5 minutes less. I wouldn't worry too much. :)
That these cards enable you to do things like Play Doom 3 at a speed hundreds of times faster than you could by doing the rendering on your CPU. What will people think of next?
Yes. Because I like the color scheme over here.
I won't disagree with you. All I was saying was that the great-grandparent was sort of making the wrong argument wrt contrast ratio. The rest, I agree with. I'll still print stuff out if it's a decent amount of reading, and I'm no old fogey.
Is it now? My understanding was that ordinary black ink on ordinary white paper gives you a contrast ratio of 50:1 to 100:1. LCDs manage ratios of several hundred to one. Unfortunately, they have to do this by being fairly bright, as they can't manage super-pure blacks.
:)
As to the resolution, of course you're right, even a crappy old laser will pull 180dpi and most printouts are higher; however, digital displays are improving in that department too. Used to be 72ppi was common, then 96 or 100; now there's a reasonable number of displays with 120ppi. I even have a device that does 200ppi; unfortunately it's only a 4" screen
You're assuming that people can actually read Reiser code. It's scary, and it doesn't really conform to Linux conventions. I don't particularly think Hans Reiser cares at all about Linux or its users; it's just a convenient playground for testing his filesystem code, and it comes with a whole bunch of schmucks who will test it for free.
Funny, I thought those two things had huge amounts of overlap.
Come on. This is a 1mW visible laser. If you avoid staring directly into it for long periods of time, you'll be just fine. And it would be pretty hard to stare into it anyway without blinking or looking away. The real dangerous lasers are the ones that have enough power to cause damage instantly, or that are invisible (usually NIR), so that you don't know that you're getting zapped by them.
If I play enough Guitar Hero II will I be able to pass the code test? ;)
Use a tool such as Off-the-Record Messaging. You get authentication to protect you against man-in-the-middle attacks, strong encryption, and a clever scheme that makes it so that if someone does manage to break a key and read a conversation, or if one of the parties to the conversation snitches, it still can't be proven that you've said anything in particular; the key material for authentication is published after the fact, so that while it's valid at the time you're having the conversation, afterwards anyone could forge a message that would pass authentication. So if someone comes out and says that you said X, and that they have logs and packet dumps to prove it, you can "prove" that you actually said Y, and that you have logs and packet dumps to prove it, and from a mathematical perspective both of your claims are equally credible -- either or both of you could be presenting a forgery. Fun!
Let's call your idea "IPv4.1". It would still be incompatible with IPv4. It would, in fact, require just as much effort to roll out as IPv6 would... but it wouldn't make any other fundamental improvements. Same cost, less benefit. What's the point?
What's good for the world doesn't agree with what the US wants, and must be stopped at all costs!
How does your level of competence enter into anything that I said at all? Why should I care whether you invented the internet or you're a complete idiot? I wasn't discussing you. I was discussing programming problems and solutions. Although I do wonder a little bit how your system could be so good and not support having a little data-driven table dropped into the middle of an existing application. :)
Where do you see "constraint"? Some people think that there is a benefit to working in this field, and they do. Scientists aren't being held at gunpoint and forced to do string-theory work.
Who said anything about "pure CGI"? If you could do it in PHP, you could have done it in half the number of developer-hours with Jifty or Rails or that Django thing, or you could have done it more powerfully and reliably with Catalyst or Struts, or... whatever. PHP isn't an efficient or effective solution to the problem -- any problem really, when compared to other tools that are available; it survives because people are under the misapprehension that it is. :)
No, Perl 1-4 was the First System. Perl 5 is the Second System. Perl 6 is the Third System.
Well... there's the lazy evaluation and autolambda stuff that lets us steal some more of the best tricks from the functional programmers. There's the junctioning and type inferencing stuff that opens up something vaguely like logic programming. There's the OO and metaclass stuff that gives you a consistent object model, roles, multimethods, contract programming... the ability to have stricture like the Java folks do (Perl 5 offers a good number of opportunities to impose stricture, but when it comes to OO, it's all out the window. You can't enforce anything and if anything goes wrong, it will go wrong at runtime). Instead of regexes, you can use the new Rules system that's not only a zillion times more powerful, but also not complete punctuation soup, and a whole lot easier to write. What else am I forgetting? Plenty, I'm sure.
You're kidding, right? PHP is dead. It's just going to take a number of years before the people using it realize that. Nothing truly important is going to happen with PHP, because it's the wrong kind of lanaguage, with the wrong kind of community. Perl, Python, Ruby, even Java are non-toy languages with truly amazing web stuff going for them; PHP is for the kids, always has been, always will be -- even if some people are under the temporary delusion that it's more than that.
Your statement is akin to "I don't want gcc! I want C! You expect me to write my programs for this free gcc crap? What, will RMS just wave a wand someday and gcc will be C?"