After my Firefox recently fell victim to malware (again), I reinstalled Windows and decided to give Opera and Chrome a real serious try.
What I like about Opera:
- The scrolling is fantastic, just buttery smooth - The search bar works well - Tab control is nice
What I hate about Opera:
- It just seems massively unstable sometimes. Opening multiple Slashdot tabs completely locks it up every time on me for example. - I'm used to middle-clicking on everything to open stuff in new tabs, which both Firefox and Chrome allow me to do. Opera's support for this is inconsistent; ie it works on links but not with Bookmarks. I know you can press Shift to accomplish the same thing but that's not acceptable to me; I want to browse with just the mouse unless scrolling or typing.
These are both kinda deal breakers for me, which limits Opera to a secondary browser role. I'll definitely check out the new version tho.
He's made exactly two feature films since T2: True Lies and Titanic.
True Lies - Admittedly his weakest film, it has 68% on RT, was the third highest grosser of 1994, and won Jamie Lee Curtis a Golden Globe, and had a score of other nominations.
Titanic - Highest grossing film of all time. 11 Oscar wins. Roger Ebert described it as "flawlessly crafted, intelligently constructed, strongly acted, and spellbinding..."
Personal tastes aside, this is your definition of "a whole bunch of shit movies"?
The simple fact is, every single feature that James Cameron has helmed (and no, I don't count Piranha 2, he "inherited" that when the original director left) has been a critical and commercial success. He simply took a big break from feature films after Titanic.
This is the guy who directed (and even more importantly, WROTE) Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss, and Terminator 2. The latter two in particular also pioneered groundbreaking CGI effects for the time, and the stories certainly didn't suffer as a result.
Cameron has proven himself a visionary and gifted storyteller (particularly in the sci-fi realm) many times over. Your self-assured criticism of the story (based on a TEASER, ffs) is unwarranted and premature. This isn't Michael Bay or McG we're talking about here, it's a man whose previous forays into sci-fi are widely considered classics of the genre.
Ah, but "point five past light speed" is never explicitly explained, so counting it as 150% of lightspeed is just an assumption. For all we know they use a different scale to measure things past light speed, and "point five" could be the equivalent of "Warp factor 5" or some such.
And if you want the Expanded Universe retconned answer, read this: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Hyperdrive#Classes. (0.5 is the Falcon's "hyperdrive class", which acts as a multiplier on the travel time. Class 0.0 would be infinite speed, like Warp 10)
the whole premise is flawed. The humans don't act like humans. They have no knowledge of the aliens and don't even seem interested
Are you kidding me? You want ANOTHER fucking movie where aliens show up and it's all about trying to figure them out? Spielberg (and others) have already told that story several times.
Part of what makes D9 so fresh and original is that very premise; what if aliens show up, and well, we just don't like them very much? You're also neglecting the fact that this movie takes place decades after they arrived; the novelty has simply faded.
They shove ET into a ghetto and there are no scholars, philosophers, doctors, scientists or even media trying to gain access to them?
Now you're just pulling assumptions out of your ass. Who's to say they aren't being studied the world over, in countless facilities? Just because we weren't shown that? Why would they want to study them in the ghetto? It's not their natural habitat or anything, and is contaminated by human influence.
A sequel has the potential to be much better, especially if it explains why the aliens are so ineffectual
It DID explain that, they are basically worker bees, accustomed to taking orders. Christopher Johnston was clearly more advanced, some sort of engineer.
The context of your full original post does not change the fact that you claim most faults are caused by hardware, which is the specific point he was disputing.
If you have something to strengthen your claim (from your original "context" or otherwise), present it. Otherwise, complaining about being quoted "out of context" is just rhetorical posturing.
OK, so you're clearly not in the segment this car would be good for (not having an outlet available pretty much kills it, plus your need for longer trips). But a lot of your other points are silly.
2) Bridge out? As another poster mentioned, idling won't drain juice like a gas car.
5) You're forgetful? So fucking what? That's like saying "What if I forget to shower in the morning and stink all day! I need to be able to go without showering for at least a weeK!" Would it be THAT hard to get in the habit of taking the few seconds needed to plug it in at night? If you forget, well I guess you are cabbing it. Don't forget.
A car like this needs extensive infrastructure that just doesn't exist.
You mean like a global electricity grid, that already has extra capacity at night? Methinks you doth protest too much. Sure, we need more outlets, anywhere people are likely to stay the night, but you act like we need to create infrastructure from scratch.
Swappable batteries would definitely be a good idea though, I will agree.
Good lord, stop being such a literalist. "Dark" can refer to more than the absence of visible light. Ie, from answers.com:
7) Difficult to understand; obscure: stories that are large in scope and dark in substance. 8) Concealed or secret; mysterious: âoethe dark mysteries of Africa and the fabled wonders of the Eastâ (W. Bruce Lincoln).
The far side of the moon is "dark" in the sense that it is cannot be observed from Earth. It is also "dark" in the sense of radio transmissions with Earth.
Oh FFS, of course SOME people do. Exceptions that prove the rule. My point was simply that it is not in common usage. Heck, Firefox's spell checker doesn't even know about it.;)
An initialism is a type of acronym, which is a type of abbreviation.
Sounds good to me. The OP was arguing that an initialism is NOT a type of acronyn; they are mutually exclusive groups. I think that's a silly distinction; another poster mentioned JPEG and a few others as examples of ones that don't fit either category, which is why "acronym" should simply refer to all of them in the general sense.
Why reinvent the wheel when there's already a term for it? You wouldn't call a hard drive "permanent RAM".
Um, great example? The term "HARD drive" was coined by adding an adjective to an existing term, instead of inventing a new word. You make my point for me.;)
If acronym means abbreviation, why have two words?
Because, as you said yourself, "not all abbreviations are acronyms". Mass. is an abbreviation of Massachusetts, but it's certainly not an acronym by any definition.
How do we communicate the lost specificity of the word acronym?
Adjectives? "Spoken acronym", if you really need to make the distinction? (How often does that happen?)
The point is, right or wrong, nobody uses "initialism", and that's not likely to change.
CoreAVC is the fastest software H.264 decoder, you might want to try that out with MPC. I haven't had any video playback issues since switching to it. Of course it's Windows only, and not free.
My problem is that my stupid Yamaha receiver has a "DTS bitstream bomb" problem... certain BluRay movies exhibit extremely loud "digital popping" noises during DTS passthrough playback, forcing me to switch to Dolby Digital.:( Hopefully Yamaha support can provide me with a firmware fix I've read about on some forums.
The thing is, you're not really serving XHTML to the browser, the browser still interprets it as text/html. The DOCTYPE does nothing except trigger standards mode in IE.
Unless you're actually getting your server to send content-type: application/xhtml+xml in the response header (which IE6 can't handle, so nobody does it), the browser just treats it as malformed HTML (technically, >br/> is invalid HTML).
I code in XHTML "style" (lowercase, self-closing tags, etc) as well, but "strictness" doesn't really enter into it, nothing is really enforcing that.
2) If you released, say, an 8-bit Mario clone today, it would certainly be new, but I don't think it would be considered "modern". It is possible for "new" things to be outdated. Modern implies more than just the release date.
Heh. I am just starting down that road on Fallout 3.:) Misc items for inventions in here, extraneous apparel over there. Backup weapons and armor laid out nicely on shelves over here. Fridge stocked with booze and purified water, and heavy weapons laid out upstairs. Mini-nukes, my preciousss...
Virtually all pages are served (ie, content-type header) as text/html, not application/xhtml+xml. And for good reason; IE6 does not support the latter.
There is a widely held misconception that having an XHTML DOCTYPE means the page is treated as XHTML, this is incorrect. A proper DOCTYPE simply triggers standards mode in IE, that's it.
Thus, we are in a weird situation today where everyone writes "XHTML style" HTML (ie, all lowercase tags, quoted attributes, self-closing tags, etc), but the browsers are all leniently treating it as poorly formed HTML (technically, <br/> is invalid HTML).
It all in general was working toward having authors writing better, more interpolatable pages.
I don't disagree.
An alternative approach which is gaining ground, is to define your site using pure abstract XML, and then transform it into final markup with XSLT.
Slashdot Mirror
His voice work as Joker in the new Batman Arkham Asylum is absolutely fantastic.
That is all
No, it's not. "Many" is a perfectly fine adjective for "27% of scientists".
You're acting like they wrote "majority". They did not.
After my Firefox recently fell victim to malware (again), I reinstalled Windows and decided to give Opera and Chrome a real serious try.
What I like about Opera:
- The scrolling is fantastic, just buttery smooth
- The search bar works well
- Tab control is nice
What I hate about Opera:
- It just seems massively unstable sometimes. Opening multiple Slashdot tabs completely locks it up every time on me for example.
- I'm used to middle-clicking on everything to open stuff in new tabs, which both Firefox and Chrome allow me to do. Opera's support for this is inconsistent; ie it works on links but not with Bookmarks. I know you can press Shift to accomplish the same thing but that's not acceptable to me; I want to browse with just the mouse unless scrolling or typing.
These are both kinda deal breakers for me, which limits Opera to a secondary browser role. I'll definitely check out the new version tho.
Yeah, what a failure that was.
Titanic was a victim of its own success, like an overplayed song on the radio.
Either way, Cameron deserves more than a scornful assumption that all he'll produce is vacuous eye candy.
LOL, excuse me?
He's made exactly two feature films since T2: True Lies and Titanic.
Personal tastes aside, this is your definition of "a whole bunch of shit movies"?
The simple fact is, every single feature that James Cameron has helmed (and no, I don't count Piranha 2, he "inherited" that when the original director left) has been a critical and commercial success. He simply took a big break from feature films after Titanic.
I'm a little stunned at the lack of faith here.
This is the guy who directed (and even more importantly, WROTE) Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss, and Terminator 2. The latter two in particular also pioneered groundbreaking CGI effects for the time, and the stories certainly didn't suffer as a result.
Cameron has proven himself a visionary and gifted storyteller (particularly in the sci-fi realm) many times over. Your self-assured criticism of the story (based on a TEASER, ffs) is unwarranted and premature. This isn't Michael Bay or McG we're talking about here, it's a man whose previous forays into sci-fi are widely considered classics of the genre.
Ah, but "point five past light speed" is never explicitly explained, so counting it as 150% of lightspeed is just an assumption. For all we know they use a different scale to measure things past light speed, and "point five" could be the equivalent of "Warp factor 5" or some such.
And if you want the Expanded Universe retconned answer, read this: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Hyperdrive#Classes. (0.5 is the Falcon's "hyperdrive class", which acts as a multiplier on the travel time. Class 0.0 would be infinite speed, like Warp 10)
Coruscant was even called Trantor (the name of Asimov's city planet) in an early Star Wars draft.
I believe the name Coruscant actually comes from Timothy Zahn's excellent Thrawn trilogy.
Are you kidding me? You want ANOTHER fucking movie where aliens show up and it's all about trying to figure them out? Spielberg (and others) have already told that story several times.
Part of what makes D9 so fresh and original is that very premise; what if aliens show up, and well, we just don't like them very much? You're also neglecting the fact that this movie takes place decades after they arrived; the novelty has simply faded.
Now you're just pulling assumptions out of your ass. Who's to say they aren't being studied the world over, in countless facilities? Just because we weren't shown that? Why would they want to study them in the ghetto? It's not their natural habitat or anything, and is contaminated by human influence.
It DID explain that, they are basically worker bees, accustomed to taking orders. Christopher Johnston was clearly more advanced, some sort of engineer.
The context of your full original post does not change the fact that you claim most faults are caused by hardware, which is the specific point he was disputing.
If you have something to strengthen your claim (from your original "context" or otherwise), present it. Otherwise, complaining about being quoted "out of context" is just rhetorical posturing.
OK, so you're clearly not in the segment this car would be good for (not having an outlet available pretty much kills it, plus your need for longer trips). But a lot of your other points are silly.
2) Bridge out? As another poster mentioned, idling won't drain juice like a gas car.
5) You're forgetful? So fucking what? That's like saying "What if I forget to shower in the morning and stink all day! I need to be able to go without showering for at least a weeK!" Would it be THAT hard to get in the habit of taking the few seconds needed to plug it in at night? If you forget, well I guess you are cabbing it. Don't forget.
You mean like a global electricity grid, that already has extra capacity at night? Methinks you doth protest too much. Sure, we need more outlets, anywhere people are likely to stay the night, but you act like we need to create infrastructure from scratch.
Swappable batteries would definitely be a good idea though, I will agree.
All we know is that there's no contact with the colony, and that Ridley Scott is now confirmed to be involved.
Good lord, stop being such a literalist. "Dark" can refer to more than the absence of visible light. Ie, from answers.com:
7) Difficult to understand; obscure: stories that are large in scope and dark in substance.
8) Concealed or secret; mysterious: âoethe dark mysteries of Africa and the fabled wonders of the Eastâ (W. Bruce Lincoln).
The far side of the moon is "dark" in the sense that it is cannot be observed from Earth. It is also "dark" in the sense of radio transmissions with Earth.
Oh FFS, of course SOME people do. Exceptions that prove the rule. My point was simply that it is not in common usage. Heck, Firefox's spell checker doesn't even know about it. ;)
Sounds good to me. The OP was arguing that an initialism is NOT a type of acronyn; they are mutually exclusive groups. I think that's a silly distinction; another poster mentioned JPEG and a few others as examples of ones that don't fit either category, which is why "acronym" should simply refer to all of them in the general sense.
Um, great example? The term "HARD drive" was coined by adding an adjective to an existing term, instead of inventing a new word. You make my point for me. ;)
Because, as you said yourself, "not all abbreviations are acronyms". Mass. is an abbreviation of Massachusetts, but it's certainly not an acronym by any definition.
Adjectives? "Spoken acronym", if you really need to make the distinction? (How often does that happen?)
The point is, right or wrong, nobody uses "initialism", and that's not likely to change.
CoreAVC is the fastest software H.264 decoder, you might want to try that out with MPC. I haven't had any video playback issues since switching to it. Of course it's Windows only, and not free.
My problem is that my stupid Yamaha receiver has a "DTS bitstream bomb" problem... certain BluRay movies exhibit extremely loud "digital popping" noises during DTS passthrough playback, forcing me to switch to Dolby Digital. :( Hopefully Yamaha support can provide me with a firmware fix I've read about on some forums.
The thing is, you're not really serving XHTML to the browser, the browser still interprets it as text/html. The DOCTYPE does nothing except trigger standards mode in IE.
Unless you're actually getting your server to send content-type: application/xhtml+xml in the response header (which IE6 can't handle, so nobody does it), the browser just treats it as malformed HTML (technically, >br /> is invalid HTML).
I code in XHTML "style" (lowercase, self-closing tags, etc) as well, but "strictness" doesn't really enter into it, nothing is really enforcing that.
Rogue Touch is pretty good
1) It was just a joke
2) If you released, say, an 8-bit Mario clone today, it would certainly be new, but I don't think it would be considered "modern". It is possible for "new" things to be outdated. Modern implies more than just the release date.
Heh. I am just starting down that road on Fallout 3. :) Misc items for inventions in here, extraneous apparel over there. Backup weapons and armor laid out nicely on shelves over here. Fridge stocked with booze and purified water, and heavy weapons laid out upstairs. Mini-nukes, my preciousss...
But it's a property of your caps lock key?
This gives microsites a bad name. I can't recall ever seeing something so amateurish associated with a major brand.
The entire page is a background image, with an embedded video and Google Analytics script.
XHTML was stillborn.
Virtually all pages are served (ie, content-type header) as text/html, not application/xhtml+xml. And for good reason; IE6 does not support the latter.
There is a widely held misconception that having an XHTML DOCTYPE means the page is treated as XHTML, this is incorrect. A proper DOCTYPE simply triggers standards mode in IE, that's it.
Thus, we are in a weird situation today where everyone writes "XHTML style" HTML (ie, all lowercase tags, quoted attributes, self-closing tags, etc), but the browsers are all leniently treating it as poorly formed HTML (technically, <br /> is invalid HTML).
I don't disagree.
An alternative approach which is gaining ground, is to define your site using pure abstract XML, and then transform it into final markup with XSLT.
He did say "casual".
Joe Average User is not going to crop and save a screencap using image editing software.