Fair enough, I'm not really someone who ever used the up button anyway as I've always preferred to use the directory tree for navigation. I personally really like the breadcrumbs because you can use them to quickly navigate to a different sub-folder of any of the displayed levels in the breadcrumbs. If that didn't make any sense, I mean you can click on the little down arrow next to a parent directory and it displays a list of subdirectories of that parent directory. So you can move up and horizontally. Now this feature saves many seconds for me, so without the up button I maintain we are moving faster with the new interface.
Fair point the breadcrumbs really fail with long directory names, but I try to keep mine trim out of habit anyway.
You need to put putty in a place that Vista will find it, or specifically tell vista to index the location of putty. Since putty is standalone I have just dropped it in my user folder, I type putty into my search box and up it pops.
The up button is not back, but again I don't understand why you need one. Vista and 7 display breadcrumbs in the path, so you can see not just one level up, but two or three simultaneously. Again... progress, don't fight the new technology, learn how to use it. I'm not saying Vista isn't without its faults, I just think people who complain about it by and large would complain about *anything* different, because its different.
I've never understood why anyone even uses classic view? Search. Its that easy, just search. Its faster, every single time its faster no matter how well you know the layout. In fact, I just typed the word "add" into the control panel serach and the number 1 result, which appeared within a second, was "Add or remove a program"
Its easy, you get new tools which make your life easier and your job faster, learn to use them. My neighbour, he's a plumber, he digs drains and puts plumbing in them. He's an old fella, been doing it since a team of 10 blokes were digging holes with spades. New tools arrived, and he does not lament the loss of the shovel, he bought a goddamn digger! Why is it that blue collar trench diggers can understand this, and yet the relatively new generation of techies have proven to be even more conservative when it comes to using new tools?
So when you inevitably have the urge to tell me you don't want to use search, please, think of the old drain digger complaining about the introduction of hydraulic diggers. Thats you.
$90 in 1995 equates to $130 today when you factor inflation, then you have to also consider that you are getting a whole lot more software bundled into that new OS these days. It really doesn't looks so bad when you think about it.
So in other words you want Win7 rerveted back to classic UI mode?
The combination 32/64 bit unfortunately has to continue so long as software vendors refuse to move forward. Seriously I have had 64 bit for a couple of years now and my programs folder for 64 bit apps is about 1/10th the size of my 32 bit folder. You should just be happy that Vista/7 implement the backwards compatability more or less seamlessly.
Add/Remove programs was changed to: "Uninstall a program". It is even plainly displayed on the standard (non-classic) control panel view in Vista. Seriously dude, what is confusing about that? In fact it makes MORE sense, who on earth *installs* a program through the windows program manager? Further, in Win7 RC1, they *have not* returned to the XP naming conventions, the Win7 control panel features the same layout as Vista with good ole "Uninstall a program" listed under the "Programs" category.
What is it with this? Do you simply look at the new layout, fail to recognise anything because it has been renamed and categorised, then just throw your arms in the air and give up, declaring the new OS an utter failure? Microsoft is not reversing the changes made in Vista. As someone who has used Vista for nearly two years and has now used 7 a good deal, I find it belly achingly hilarious that people are falling over themselves to praise 7 for its sensible layout changes, speed, and better UI when all of these things are imperceptibly different from Vista. Win7 tends to not force you so deep into dialogue boxes as Vista does, but essentially they contain the same content, in the same places. The UI is exactly the same as Vista, barring the new taskbar. Everything is almost identical to Vista.
Its not that Win7 is bad, its more that Vista is actually pretty good.
Precisely! Anyone who cannot invert a 100000x100000 matrix in their head should not be doing physics!
Seriously though, finite difference methods are about the only way to extract meaningful information from the differential equations which model anything remotely interesting, the only physics problems which are 1 or 2 dimensional, steady state and easily solvable by hand are those which drastically simplify reality and serve only to deliver the basic understanding of how calculus is used in modeling. Calculators, and more to the point: computers, are absolutely essential tools in solving even minutely interesting physics/engineering problems in the real world.
Furthermore, intuition is a dangerous thing to rely upon when dealing with mathematics and physics. If you are going to say that the only people who should solve physics and engineering problems are those who can understand how the problem should pan out by intuition alone then you have limited your pool of potential physicists and engineers to a minute fragment of society. Intuition is deceptive, and frequently wrong, that is the point of the scientific method. If you have a proven model based on objective analysis, trust the model to tell you the answers, it is far more important to possess the skill in mathematics to not make mistakes in your equations than it is to "intuitively" understand what the results "should be".
I'm not trying to break your balls here but you couldn't be more wrong about your two points.
Ever tried exploding tar or wax? Or even diesel for that matter? Even good ole petrol can be hard to explode, barring stupid hollywood movies of course. This statement is only true if you remove the "generally" part and replace it with "in the right circumstances"
I've dropped a spanner across the terminals of a car battery, the posts melted. Ive heard you can boil the battery acid by drawing too much current and that could plausibly cause the case to pop, they all vent but you could drastically overcome its venting ability. I doubt it would explode, it would split the weakest seam in the case and spray a bit of mild acid around. That is if the posts don't melt away first.
And the difference between being attacked by a germ/virus invader and a human invader is...?
You americans rationalise this issue to the most ridiculous degree and cannot see the plain as day statistics in front of your faces. Every country on earth with public health care systems pay significantly less tax dollars for free universal cover, and many of them do this for higher life expectancies than the USA has. How much more simple does this have to be?
They had to pump liquid nitrogen into the melted core of Chernobyl for two weeks at a constant rate to prevent it from burning its way underground and causing an underground aquifer to explode from the steam pressure. As the previous poster said it is on record as the single most expensive catastrophe in human history. If you read about it, you see that it was significantly more monumental an event than most people seem to be aware of. Something in the order of hundreds of times more radioactive waste was dumped into the atmosphere than the Hiroshima bomb (400 times more according to wikipedia). My point here is that trivialising what happened at Chernobyl is not very smart, it was a catastrophe on a scale never seen before or since, a very, very scary event, the thing is we only know this now since there was such a vast cover up at the time.
Don't get me wrong, the reactor used at Chernobyl was a stupid design that would (hopefully) never be used in modern applications, and even better still we have new generations of breeder reactors becoming viable that would consume most of the waste products as lower grade fuel. Modern designs are orders of magnitude safer than that particular one, Chernobyl had the unfortunate feedback mechanism whereby in certain circumstances, it behaved in the exact opposite way as would be expected. I think it was something like once it was really hot, it just got even hotter, to the point where switching on certain safety mechanisms made it go super super critical... Kind of stupid? Yes...
The big question I think is whether or not it is morally sound to engage in an activity that creates waste that will continue to be dangerous to life for centuries after we are gone. To me that is a morally dubious activity, regardless of the quantity of waste we are producing. Breeder reactors dodge this problem quite neatly, producing waste that is hot for only a few decades, but as far as I know they are not commercially viable just yet. Nothing wrong with nuclear power, but there are very important questions about the nature of the waste products that I think few people actually consider in any adequate seriousness, for or against.
No its basically like you describe, there are of course engineers who make fun of mathematicians. In my particular institute the maths guys are really quite full on about it. Yes its all 'just jokes' but many of them do get their noses out of joint quite easily, it goes far and above 'just jokes'. They often expect and engineer who spends perhaps 30% of his program studying maths to have as good a grasp on the topic as a mathematician who spends 100% of his program studying maths.
Sorry but I should have added the disclaimer: I am a mathematics student (who also happens to study engineering, or vice versa).
And you are kidding yourself if you think mathematicians have by and large let go of their disdain for science and engineering. Yes yes on the surface they express the required decorum, but in private... wow. The thing I love about it is its the scientists and engineers, particularly the latter, who are the biggest boon to our economy.
P.S. since you obviously missed the joke the first time around I'll note that I love and value every aspect of the intense rigor involved in the pure mathematics. I study it too. I just also love machines, designs and the industrial output of the engineering field. The thing is that while mathematicians (not always) frequently express such extreme view of their lesser bretheren, I've yet to meet an engineer that had anything but the utmost respect for the work of mathematicians. Go figure.
That is because in mathematics, you should be able to discern if there are zeros or not from your equations, graphs cannot be trusted, and graphs are utterly useless once you get beyond 3 dimensional functions.
You see mathematics is about being an arrogant ass who expresses condescention for all other beings of lesser godliness (ie: any other field). And by requiring a graphics calculator you simply fail the test for acceptance into this cloister of quite simply better people.
Now face it, you might as well just go off and become something utterly useless to society, like an engineer or a scientist.
You make the assumption that a scientist (or engineer) needs to be a good programmer. This is a totally false assumption. Coding math is goddamn easy, and requires nearly no understanding of computing other than floating point error and some basics on recursion. Scientific computing is far more about learning methods for numerical analysis, convergence of sequences, series, truncation errors and so on. You don't need to be a good programmer when all you really need to do is convert the units of 100000000000 data points you have stored in some text file and run them through a simple power law you worked out on the back of a napkin. The algorithms are there for you, no scientists would develop his own, they likely lack the skill in mathematics to do this effectively anyway.
Its fairly obvious in this/. discussion who the scientists are and who the programmers are, because when it comes down to it scientific programming is only a slightly higher level than manipulating an excel spreadsheet (and you can achieve basically all of it using excel too!).
This reminds me of the age old battle royale of Mathematicians vs Engineers. Mathematicians never let up about how poorly engineers understand maths but they are entirely missing the point: engineering is about achieving outcomes, it has nothing to do with mathematical rigor! This whole debate on programming is entirely analogous, goddamn programmers are being as arrogant as a bunch of mathematicians here. Meanwhile the scientists and engineers are out solving problems within tolerable error.
"but it's at least a contender for the best first language."
The exact philosophy adopted by the Mechanical engineering department at my university. Engineering students aren't typically computer minded, and balk even at learning a dead simple language such as python. Scoff at this all you like but its the plain truth of it. The professors use it too.
"I've never seen anyone do any sort of scientific research programming with Python, unless it was a control script or GUI interface to something written in Fortran or a C derivative"
Like, say NumPy? Seriously dude, the others are right, get out more, Python is gaining a lot of momentum in the scientific community because it is fast to code in, open source, and has fast libraries written in C for doing the number crunching (NumPy). It also has some functional flavour to it.
In my engineering degree, we learny Python, the Mech eng department uses a lot of python for scientific modelling, and they do some high class research. In CS at my university they have replaced Scheme with Python. Python simply rocks, and is used quite widely in science and engineering.
Sorry but, fail. Pretty much every large flat panel I've seen comes with a DVI input, and many with good ole analogue and coax inputs. You don't buy a goddamn 42" computer screen, you just go buy a 42" TV and plug your computer into it. You can even get a DVI -> HDMI adapter so on the off and bizarre circumstance that your new TV doesn't have a DVI input you can directly connect your computer output into HDMI anyway.
The tradeoff is power consumption, the eee 901 claims up to 8hrs battery running xp and on low power, I know thats a stretch but you can squeeze 5-7 hrs out of them. Its absolutely worth the performance cost for those kilowatt savings, imo.
Either way this argument is silly, just replace the words "four years ago" with "eight years ago" and you are still in the same boat. XP is circa 2002 software, office 2000, and its mild upgrade, 2003 run perfectly fine on these systems, gp's point stands if you ask me. The problem is microsoft don't want to give away their perceived value for free, but this is silly, its like selling two identical models of car, putting a power limiter on one of them and selling it for 1/5th the price... Kind of stupid.
Somebody didn't RTFA (I know who expects you to, really). I will distill it down for you:
Chrome on Windows: Hacked to be funky and unique, non standard libraries for rendering, etc.
Chrome for Mac: Easy to replicate windows experience using standard OSX API's.
Chrome on Linux: Clusterfuck, standard API's are not standard, and not good enough. Hacks will not be cross platform, difficulties everywhere.
Basically the question was posed: Do we even bother to try and replicate the windows chrome experience? Or simply put our fast little engine inside a totally different visual experience?
This is a good point, ultimately an MMO is a social activity, and you have to consider that. Most of the enjoyment people gain from it, I believe, is the fact that you are doing it with other people.
Now, Fallout 3 and Oblivion... that is something quite different.:)
"a) if you need to exceed the speed limit to overtake, then you don't need to overtake"
I hate this argument, lets sat someone is doing 10kph under the speed limit, it is perfectly reasonable to overtake them. Now is it safer to overtake them at 10kph relative speed? or 30kph relative speed? (divide numbers by 1.6 to get old-timey measurements)
Speeding while overtaking makes a helluva lot of sense.
Well said sir. I have my own take on it, there are far too many people on the road who are *terrible* drivers, and never will be good drivers no matter what we do. As a society, in Australia and the USA, we expect far too much from people in terms of driving ability. All too often we are completely stranded or socially crippled if we cannot drive a car, as a result every stupid person who never should be put behind the wheel of a car ends up there, often in the most expensive ones too (or just a Volvo). An example: there is a moderate to easy bend in a corner of a highway near a place I used to live, at the bottom of a hill, if you were doing the correct speed limit (100kph or about 60 mph), you would have to be really bad at driving to stuff it up, and yet people slid across the road into oncoming traffic repeatedly. Any driver of even barely average skill could not possibly have done that, and yet it happened again and again because of the sheer volume of absolutely terrible drivers out there. Now as a result they dropped the speed limit to 60 (around 35mph) for this one corner, on a major highway, the biggest one we have in fact right down the east coast and yes it does cause the kind of massive bottleneck in traffic that it sounds like it would.
Stupid drivers is the reason for too many accidents, speed just kills stupid teenage drivers and darwin award nominees.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough, I'm not really someone who ever used the up button anyway as I've always preferred to use the directory tree for navigation. I personally really like the breadcrumbs because you can use them to quickly navigate to a different sub-folder of any of the displayed levels in the breadcrumbs. If that didn't make any sense, I mean you can click on the little down arrow next to a parent directory and it displays a list of subdirectories of that parent directory. So you can move up and horizontally. Now this feature saves many seconds for me, so without the up button I maintain we are moving faster with the new interface.
Fair point the breadcrumbs really fail with long directory names, but I try to keep mine trim out of habit anyway.
You need to put putty in a place that Vista will find it, or specifically tell vista to index the location of putty. Since putty is standalone I have just dropped it in my user folder, I type putty into my search box and up it pops.
The up button is not back, but again I don't understand why you need one. Vista and 7 display breadcrumbs in the path, so you can see not just one level up, but two or three simultaneously. Again... progress, don't fight the new technology, learn how to use it. I'm not saying Vista isn't without its faults, I just think people who complain about it by and large would complain about *anything* different, because its different.
I've never understood why anyone even uses classic view? Search. Its that easy, just search. Its faster, every single time its faster no matter how well you know the layout. In fact, I just typed the word "add" into the control panel serach and the number 1 result, which appeared within a second, was "Add or remove a program"
Its easy, you get new tools which make your life easier and your job faster, learn to use them. My neighbour, he's a plumber, he digs drains and puts plumbing in them. He's an old fella, been doing it since a team of 10 blokes were digging holes with spades. New tools arrived, and he does not lament the loss of the shovel, he bought a goddamn digger! Why is it that blue collar trench diggers can understand this, and yet the relatively new generation of techies have proven to be even more conservative when it comes to using new tools?
So when you inevitably have the urge to tell me you don't want to use search, please, think of the old drain digger complaining about the introduction of hydraulic diggers. Thats you.
Groupthink.
$90 in 1995 equates to $130 today when you factor inflation, then you have to also consider that you are getting a whole lot more software bundled into that new OS these days. It really doesn't looks so bad when you think about it.
So in other words you want Win7 rerveted back to classic UI mode?
The combination 32/64 bit unfortunately has to continue so long as software vendors refuse to move forward. Seriously I have had 64 bit for a couple of years now and my programs folder for 64 bit apps is about 1/10th the size of my 32 bit folder. You should just be happy that Vista/7 implement the backwards compatability more or less seamlessly.
Add/Remove programs was changed to: "Uninstall a program". It is even plainly displayed on the standard (non-classic) control panel view in Vista. Seriously dude, what is confusing about that? In fact it makes MORE sense, who on earth *installs* a program through the windows program manager? Further, in Win7 RC1, they *have not* returned to the XP naming conventions, the Win7 control panel features the same layout as Vista with good ole "Uninstall a program" listed under the "Programs" category.
What is it with this? Do you simply look at the new layout, fail to recognise anything because it has been renamed and categorised, then just throw your arms in the air and give up, declaring the new OS an utter failure? Microsoft is not reversing the changes made in Vista. As someone who has used Vista for nearly two years and has now used 7 a good deal, I find it belly achingly hilarious that people are falling over themselves to praise 7 for its sensible layout changes, speed, and better UI when all of these things are imperceptibly different from Vista. Win7 tends to not force you so deep into dialogue boxes as Vista does, but essentially they contain the same content, in the same places. The UI is exactly the same as Vista, barring the new taskbar. Everything is almost identical to Vista.
Its not that Win7 is bad, its more that Vista is actually pretty good.
Precisely! Anyone who cannot invert a 100000x100000 matrix in their head should not be doing physics!
Seriously though, finite difference methods are about the only way to extract meaningful information from the differential equations which model anything remotely interesting, the only physics problems which are 1 or 2 dimensional, steady state and easily solvable by hand are those which drastically simplify reality and serve only to deliver the basic understanding of how calculus is used in modeling. Calculators, and more to the point: computers, are absolutely essential tools in solving even minutely interesting physics/engineering problems in the real world.
Furthermore, intuition is a dangerous thing to rely upon when dealing with mathematics and physics. If you are going to say that the only people who should solve physics and engineering problems are those who can understand how the problem should pan out by intuition alone then you have limited your pool of potential physicists and engineers to a minute fragment of society. Intuition is deceptive, and frequently wrong, that is the point of the scientific method. If you have a proven model based on objective analysis, trust the model to tell you the answers, it is far more important to possess the skill in mathematics to not make mistakes in your equations than it is to "intuitively" understand what the results "should be".
I'm not trying to break your balls here but you couldn't be more wrong about your two points.
Ever tried exploding tar or wax? Or even diesel for that matter? Even good ole petrol can be hard to explode, barring stupid hollywood movies of course. This statement is only true if you remove the "generally" part and replace it with "in the right circumstances"
I've dropped a spanner across the terminals of a car battery, the posts melted. Ive heard you can boil the battery acid by drawing too much current and that could plausibly cause the case to pop, they all vent but you could drastically overcome its venting ability. I doubt it would explode, it would split the weakest seam in the case and spray a bit of mild acid around. That is if the posts don't melt away first.
if an invader attacks me
And the difference between being attacked by a germ/virus invader and a human invader is...?
You americans rationalise this issue to the most ridiculous degree and cannot see the plain as day statistics in front of your faces. Every country on earth with public health care systems pay significantly less tax dollars for free universal cover, and many of them do this for higher life expectancies than the USA has. How much more simple does this have to be?
They had to pump liquid nitrogen into the melted core of Chernobyl for two weeks at a constant rate to prevent it from burning its way underground and causing an underground aquifer to explode from the steam pressure. As the previous poster said it is on record as the single most expensive catastrophe in human history. If you read about it, you see that it was significantly more monumental an event than most people seem to be aware of. Something in the order of hundreds of times more radioactive waste was dumped into the atmosphere than the Hiroshima bomb (400 times more according to wikipedia). My point here is that trivialising what happened at Chernobyl is not very smart, it was a catastrophe on a scale never seen before or since, a very, very scary event, the thing is we only know this now since there was such a vast cover up at the time.
Don't get me wrong, the reactor used at Chernobyl was a stupid design that would (hopefully) never be used in modern applications, and even better still we have new generations of breeder reactors becoming viable that would consume most of the waste products as lower grade fuel. Modern designs are orders of magnitude safer than that particular one, Chernobyl had the unfortunate feedback mechanism whereby in certain circumstances, it behaved in the exact opposite way as would be expected. I think it was something like once it was really hot, it just got even hotter, to the point where switching on certain safety mechanisms made it go super super critical... Kind of stupid? Yes...
The big question I think is whether or not it is morally sound to engage in an activity that creates waste that will continue to be dangerous to life for centuries after we are gone. To me that is a morally dubious activity, regardless of the quantity of waste we are producing. Breeder reactors dodge this problem quite neatly, producing waste that is hot for only a few decades, but as far as I know they are not commercially viable just yet. Nothing wrong with nuclear power, but there are very important questions about the nature of the waste products that I think few people actually consider in any adequate seriousness, for or against.
No its basically like you describe, there are of course engineers who make fun of mathematicians. In my particular institute the maths guys are really quite full on about it. Yes its all 'just jokes' but many of them do get their noses out of joint quite easily, it goes far and above 'just jokes'. They often expect and engineer who spends perhaps 30% of his program studying maths to have as good a grasp on the topic as a mathematician who spends 100% of his program studying maths.
Anyway, cheers mate, may the math be with you ;)
Sorry but I should have added the disclaimer: I am a mathematics student (who also happens to study engineering, or vice versa).
And you are kidding yourself if you think mathematicians have by and large let go of their disdain for science and engineering. Yes yes on the surface they express the required decorum, but in private... wow. The thing I love about it is its the scientists and engineers, particularly the latter, who are the biggest boon to our economy.
P.S. since you obviously missed the joke the first time around I'll note that I love and value every aspect of the intense rigor involved in the pure mathematics. I study it too. I just also love machines, designs and the industrial output of the engineering field. The thing is that while mathematicians (not always) frequently express such extreme view of their lesser bretheren, I've yet to meet an engineer that had anything but the utmost respect for the work of mathematicians. Go figure.
That is because in mathematics, you should be able to discern if there are zeros or not from your equations, graphs cannot be trusted, and graphs are utterly useless once you get beyond 3 dimensional functions.
You see mathematics is about being an arrogant ass who expresses condescention for all other beings of lesser godliness (ie: any other field). And by requiring a graphics calculator you simply fail the test for acceptance into this cloister of quite simply better people.
Now face it, you might as well just go off and become something utterly useless to society, like an engineer or a scientist.
(/sarcasm in case you somehow missed it :D)
You make the assumption that a scientist (or engineer) needs to be a good programmer. This is a totally false assumption. Coding math is goddamn easy, and requires nearly no understanding of computing other than floating point error and some basics on recursion. Scientific computing is far more about learning methods for numerical analysis, convergence of sequences, series, truncation errors and so on. You don't need to be a good programmer when all you really need to do is convert the units of 100000000000 data points you have stored in some text file and run them through a simple power law you worked out on the back of a napkin. The algorithms are there for you, no scientists would develop his own, they likely lack the skill in mathematics to do this effectively anyway.
Its fairly obvious in this /. discussion who the scientists are and who the programmers are, because when it comes down to it scientific programming is only a slightly higher level than manipulating an excel spreadsheet (and you can achieve basically all of it using excel too!).
This reminds me of the age old battle royale of Mathematicians vs Engineers. Mathematicians never let up about how poorly engineers understand maths but they are entirely missing the point: engineering is about achieving outcomes, it has nothing to do with mathematical rigor! This whole debate on programming is entirely analogous, goddamn programmers are being as arrogant as a bunch of mathematicians here. Meanwhile the scientists and engineers are out solving problems within tolerable error.
"but it's at least a contender for the best first language."
The exact philosophy adopted by the Mechanical engineering department at my university. Engineering students aren't typically computer minded, and balk even at learning a dead simple language such as python. Scoff at this all you like but its the plain truth of it. The professors use it too.
"I've never seen anyone do any sort of scientific research programming with Python, unless it was a control script or GUI interface to something written in Fortran or a C derivative"
Like, say NumPy? Seriously dude, the others are right, get out more, Python is gaining a lot of momentum in the scientific community because it is fast to code in, open source, and has fast libraries written in C for doing the number crunching (NumPy). It also has some functional flavour to it.
In my engineering degree, we learny Python, the Mech eng department uses a lot of python for scientific modelling, and they do some high class research. In CS at my university they have replaced Scheme with Python. Python simply rocks, and is used quite widely in science and engineering.
Sorry but, fail. Pretty much every large flat panel I've seen comes with a DVI input, and many with good ole analogue and coax inputs. You don't buy a goddamn 42" computer screen, you just go buy a 42" TV and plug your computer into it. You can even get a DVI -> HDMI adapter so on the off and bizarre circumstance that your new TV doesn't have a DVI input you can directly connect your computer output into HDMI anyway.
The tradeoff is power consumption, the eee 901 claims up to 8hrs battery running xp and on low power, I know thats a stretch but you can squeeze 5-7 hrs out of them. Its absolutely worth the performance cost for those kilowatt savings, imo.
Either way this argument is silly, just replace the words "four years ago" with "eight years ago" and you are still in the same boat. XP is circa 2002 software, office 2000, and its mild upgrade, 2003 run perfectly fine on these systems, gp's point stands if you ask me. The problem is microsoft don't want to give away their perceived value for free, but this is silly, its like selling two identical models of car, putting a power limiter on one of them and selling it for 1/5th the price... Kind of stupid.
Somebody didn't RTFA (I know who expects you to, really). I will distill it down for you:
Chrome on Windows: Hacked to be funky and unique, non standard libraries for rendering, etc.
Chrome for Mac: Easy to replicate windows experience using standard OSX API's.
Chrome on Linux: Clusterfuck, standard API's are not standard, and not good enough. Hacks will not be cross platform, difficulties everywhere.
Basically the question was posed: Do we even bother to try and replicate the windows chrome experience? Or simply put our fast little engine inside a totally different visual experience?
This is a good point, ultimately an MMO is a social activity, and you have to consider that. Most of the enjoyment people gain from it, I believe, is the fact that you are doing it with other people.
Now, Fallout 3 and Oblivion... that is something quite different. :)
"a) if you need to exceed the speed limit to overtake, then you don't need to overtake"
I hate this argument, lets sat someone is doing 10kph under the speed limit, it is perfectly reasonable to overtake them. Now is it safer to overtake them at 10kph relative speed? or 30kph relative speed? (divide numbers by 1.6 to get old-timey measurements)
Speeding while overtaking makes a helluva lot of sense.
Maybe in your car budyy! Mwuhahahahahahah!
(old school V8's FTW!)
Sorry, wrong forum...
Well said sir. I have my own take on it, there are far too many people on the road who are *terrible* drivers, and never will be good drivers no matter what we do. As a society, in Australia and the USA, we expect far too much from people in terms of driving ability. All too often we are completely stranded or socially crippled if we cannot drive a car, as a result every stupid person who never should be put behind the wheel of a car ends up there, often in the most expensive ones too (or just a Volvo). An example: there is a moderate to easy bend in a corner of a highway near a place I used to live, at the bottom of a hill, if you were doing the correct speed limit (100kph or about 60 mph), you would have to be really bad at driving to stuff it up, and yet people slid across the road into oncoming traffic repeatedly. Any driver of even barely average skill could not possibly have done that, and yet it happened again and again because of the sheer volume of absolutely terrible drivers out there. Now as a result they dropped the speed limit to 60 (around 35mph) for this one corner, on a major highway, the biggest one we have in fact right down the east coast and yes it does cause the kind of massive bottleneck in traffic that it sounds like it would.
Stupid drivers is the reason for too many accidents, speed just kills stupid teenage drivers and darwin award nominees.