I think this is the point here. A "certain level" of graphics is required, but after that its gameplay all the way. storyline, plot, immersion. all of these things are far more important, but will not be fully realised without appropriate graphics.
personally i prefer an arcade feel rather than full realism, because my theory is that if i wanted realism, i wouldn't be sitting at a computer. My taste in computer games does vary from day-to-day however...
this isn't going to stop flash locking up your browser. it also wont stop any calls from blocking while you're trying to load a web page.
All it does it stop these things affecting OTHER web pages (except that IO tends to freeze everything in windows - but thats another story).
If all you're ever looking at are these OTHER web pages, then dont load the one with flash at all, and then you wont need multi-process.
I think people get caught up in stuff like this without realising that all we really need is a fast, stable browser. I personally think we have a more stable browser in firefox than either chrome or IE, already. Sure multi-process will help when used with a multi-core processor for browsing processor-intensive websites...but how often do you do that?
I had this conversation with an IE user who was promoting the use of multi-process.
Me: Why do you need multi-process? IEU: Because if one tab crashes, the other tabs will keep running. Firefox doesn't have this feature. Me: So...when you've used firefox, did it ever crash? IEU: No. Me: and...when you're using IE, does it crash? IEU: yes, but because its multi-process, it doesn't crash the other tabs... Me: what?!
seriously, how can a God split into 3 parts and send 1 part down to earth, only to later die and be reunited with the original part? I'm referring to the trinity, which is a doctrine that surfaced well after the bible was written. The theory that God is actually 3 persons or that jesus was actually God - was invented by people, not God. you wont find the trinity in the bible.
read what the bible actually says - Jesus was born to a human mother - through divine intervention (God created the first human, no reason why he cant create another without a man's involvement). Jesus was the son of God (again, divine intervention - if God created Jesus's embryo as it were, could he not create a likeness to himself?).
Thats what the Bible says. Jesus was human (ie. he was come in the flesh - see 1 John 2 etc). Why do we have to make theories about it?
He said "I and my father are one" - why cant this mean they were united? He never said "I am my father" - that would just be weird. "If you have seen me you have seen the father" - so there was a likeness. I could say the same about me and my father - it just means they were alike. its just a figure of speech.
it can be easy to understand if you just read what it says. dont ask someone else to explain it unless you absolutely must. also dont try to understand revelation until you have read a lot of history and read the rest of the bible. revelation refers to both. a lot.
C'mon. Why is it that people who are otherwise intelligent, rational thinkers suddenly turn that part of their brains off when it is time to attack Christianity?
because its convenient. or rather, that the bible is inconvenient. it teaches that man is not the highest power in existence and that we have a moral obligation to a higher being. that goes head to head against humanism. Why do you think people get so fired up against bible believers?
its true that christians are stereotypically hot-headed as well, but i believe that behaviour is more a sign of immaturity. we believers need to learn that it is not in our interests to force people to believe the bible - thats is a worthless goal. the bible offers hope - if people dont want to listen, that is their choice.
God offers people that they can live out ~70 years pleasing themselves, or take up the offer of everlasting life serving Him. He is not a cruel, heartless being, much the opposite. but this is a life choice. The majority of people would rather 70 years of self-service. I prefer the latter option.
I see - so how then did he preach Jesus to the world before Jesus was born?
or how did he reference the gospels in his writings if they had not yet been written?
I think you should recheck your claim. Paul's writings are among the oldest in the new testament. The first we read of Paul is in Acts 9, which is after the death of Christ. Given that Acts must have been written AFTER the apostles, (refer Acts 1:1 compared with Luke 1:1 - Luke in Acts refers to his former letter - the gosple of Luke), we conclude that Paul's writings must have been written after the gospels.
The oldest in the NT would be Revelation, written by the apostle John in around AD96.
I would suggest you are actually 100% correct. Rather than it being a joke at all.
For a recursive acronym, the first letter could be anything they wanted. BUT if it is before G in the alphabet, then their search engine would show up before google in any alphabetically sorted list. The only other options they had would've been: aing (hard to say) cing (ambigious - is it sing or king?) ding (hmmm) eing (silly) or fing (sounds like "thing").
I'd have to argue that Microsoft did actually name it BING after the recursive acronym mentioned above (Bing Is Not Google).
yet don't work 100% in real world webpages. Standards compliant be damned if you can't render real pages.
What?
If the browser follows web standards 100% and yet some webpages render incorrectly - doesn't this mean the issue is with the web page and not with the browser?
Web standards exist so that we shouldn't have to answer the question of whether the web browser is designed for the web pages or whether the web pages are designed for the browser.
I dont even think it would go that far. Mono is just an API isn't it? its just wrapping the.NET API so that apps written for.NET can compile and run natively on Linux. So Mono isn't even remotely controlled by Microsoft. Microsoft controls.NET, and Mono follows behind of its own accord, implementing the changes to match.NET.
If.NET disappeared, Mono would still work and so would all apps written for it.
The worst that could happen is Microsoft could intentionally change.NET to break compatibility with Mono, but even so, that wouldn't break anything in gnome or even give MS any control over gnome. It would just make Mono a bit worthless until it caught up with.NET again.
Is wine in the main repository? its a similar scenario.
Why does evolution have to achieve any particular purpose?
If you're looking for a reason for any part of the human body, then you're looking for an intelligent creator. Its as simple as that.
If we evolved then the only thing you can deduce about mutations is that they mustn't be deadly (ie. because otherwise the person with that mutation would not have survived to pass it on). Other than that the mutations themselves are completely random and are caused by a FAULT in a cell reproducing itself. Its the exception, not the norm.
Sure you can use "survival of the fittest" to explain why all OTHER mutations haven't worked out...but it doesn't explain why it occurred in the first place.
It occurred in the first place because one or more cells failed to copy themselves correctly. Most mutations are bad. Actually, I've heard it said that so few are good that you may as well consider them all bad.
If you think that fingerprints must have a purpose in order for us to have them, then I agree with you. All parts of the human body have been shown to serve an important purpose, and one that is not always necessary for our survival. If you're thinking it odd that evolution seems to be doing remarkably well getting it right, given the odds stacked against it (remember all mutations are literally MISTAKES and rare at that) then you're not alone. Even the best efforts of mankind cannot create something nearly as efficient and as well-designed as the human body. Actually, make that the human cell, or even a part of a human cell. And yet people believe that it happened by chance? We cant even replicate it ON PURPOSE.
So help me understand why there must be logic behind things like fingerprints if we evolved? Evolution happens by chance, and chance does not follow intelligent reason. Therefore if we evolved then its merely coincidence that we have fingerprints, nothing else. I think its clear which side of the fence I'm on. I cant get my head around evolution. It just doesn't make sense.
You don't need to sit around and cower in fear or start wearing face masks that likely do nothing.
This is something I have wondered about. What do those face masks actually achieve?
You're still breathing air, and the air you're breathing is still coming from around your face. Sure, it has to come from the gaps near your nose and possibly the gaps around your chin and cheeks, but its still more or less the SAME air you'd have otherwise breathed in if you didn't have the mask on.
On top of this, we all need to touch things that others have touched (door handles, etc) and we all need to eat. The mask will do nothing about protecting us from contracting germs via our hands...
But they do have the ability to make the wearer look like an idiot. So there is that.:-)
If heaven is basically space (everything thats not "earth"), then how/where does an angel fall?
Where is hell then? the centre of the earth? does every planet have a "hell"?
(As an aside, the "lucifer" referred to in Isaiah has nothing to do with angels, and bears no connection to Revelation (which also, is not talking about literal angels falling out of heaven) - the word translated "angel" simply means "messenger" - it CAN mean angel, but it can also mean a person - however I digress - this is not the point here...)
I just dont get the whole concept of heaven vs hell. I understand the heaven bit - thats easy...but if you "fell" out of heaven, which direction would you fall in? towards the nearest largest object that has the most gravitational pull? if this were the case, who knows where this satan is hiding? who ever said it had to be earth?
I often will play a game up until the point where I realise I'm getting stressed. I may continue to try to finish the level for longer than I should, but eventually the game is tossed, never to be played again.
There are gamers who like a game to get progressively harder with each new level, but I'm not one of them. The thrill of the game is not so much the challenge, but the experience.
I draw the line between improving ones skill at a game, and fighting against the game. When I find that I'm struggling against the game itself, thats when its time to walk away. For example, my favourite games are car racing games, and with many games I have struggled against the physics model. I dont mind arcade-like games either, but there are some games where the physics model really detracts from the experience.
Wasn't sure whether to mod parent funny or insightful...
however I do agree with the 1st point. Games & DVD's dont make you fat. Games/DVD's and a healthy lifestyle are not mutually exclusive.
The stereotype of a nerd is generally of a very skinny young male. If anything, these people need to get FATTER.
While they're at it, think of all the other things they could put this "fat tax" on. Driving, sitting on park benches, sitting at cafe's, sitting at work, sleeping, reading slashd- INSUFFICIENT FUNDS.
1. User blocks ads by installing adblock. 2. Site adds a flag so now adblock asks user whether to block ads. 3. User says "duh" and clicks "Yes, block ads". 4. Go back to step 2 and repeat.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is the point here. A "certain level" of graphics is required, but after that its gameplay all the way. storyline, plot, immersion. all of these things are far more important, but will not be fully realised without appropriate graphics.
personally i prefer an arcade feel rather than full realism, because my theory is that if i wanted realism, i wouldn't be sitting at a computer. My taste in computer games does vary from day-to-day however...
its a choice we have to make: 20" and suffer eye strain, or 30" and suffer neck pain.
There is a happy medium, but the OP specifically didn't want this.
this isn't going to stop flash locking up your browser. it also wont stop any calls from blocking while you're trying to load a web page.
All it does it stop these things affecting OTHER web pages (except that IO tends to freeze everything in windows - but thats another story).
If all you're ever looking at are these OTHER web pages, then dont load the one with flash at all, and then you wont need multi-process.
I think people get caught up in stuff like this without realising that all we really need is a fast, stable browser. I personally think we have a more stable browser in firefox than either chrome or IE, already. Sure multi-process will help when used with a multi-core processor for browsing processor-intensive websites...but how often do you do that?
I had this conversation with an IE user who was promoting the use of multi-process.
Me: Why do you need multi-process?
IEU: Because if one tab crashes, the other tabs will keep running. Firefox doesn't have this feature.
Me: So...when you've used firefox, did it ever crash?
IEU: No.
Me: and...when you're using IE, does it crash?
IEU: yes, but because its multi-process, it doesn't crash the other tabs...
Me: what?!
He's the guy that reads the summary.
I've heard he reads the articles too.
and people wonder why the bible is confusing?!
seriously, how can a God split into 3 parts and send 1 part down to earth, only to later die and be reunited with the original part? I'm referring to the trinity, which is a doctrine that surfaced well after the bible was written. The theory that God is actually 3 persons or that jesus was actually God - was invented by people, not God. you wont find the trinity in the bible.
read what the bible actually says - Jesus was born to a human mother - through divine intervention (God created the first human, no reason why he cant create another without a man's involvement). Jesus was the son of God (again, divine intervention - if God created Jesus's embryo as it were, could he not create a likeness to himself?).
Thats what the Bible says. Jesus was human (ie. he was come in the flesh - see 1 John 2 etc).
Why do we have to make theories about it?
He said "I and my father are one" - why cant this mean they were united? He never said "I am my father" - that would just be weird.
"If you have seen me you have seen the father" - so there was a likeness. I could say the same about me and my father - it just means they were alike. its just a figure of speech.
it can be easy to understand if you just read what it says. dont ask someone else to explain it unless you absolutely must. also dont try to understand revelation until you have read a lot of history and read the rest of the bible. revelation refers to both. a lot.
C'mon. Why is it that people who are otherwise intelligent, rational thinkers suddenly turn that part of their brains off when it is time to attack Christianity?
because its convenient. or rather, that the bible is inconvenient. it teaches that man is not the highest power in existence and that we have a moral obligation to a higher being. that goes head to head against humanism. Why do you think people get so fired up against bible believers?
its true that christians are stereotypically hot-headed as well, but i believe that behaviour is more a sign of immaturity. we believers need to learn that it is not in our interests to force people to believe the bible - thats is a worthless goal. the bible offers hope - if people dont want to listen, that is their choice.
God offers people that they can live out ~70 years pleasing themselves, or take up the offer of everlasting life serving Him. He is not a cruel, heartless being, much the opposite. but this is a life choice. The majority of people would rather 70 years of self-service. I prefer the latter option.
If you knock my beliefs, I'll knock yours...
I see - so how then did he preach Jesus to the world before Jesus was born?
or how did he reference the gospels in his writings if they had not yet been written?
I think you should recheck your claim. Paul's writings are among the oldest in the new testament. The first we read of Paul is in Acts 9, which is after the death of Christ. Given that Acts must have been written AFTER the apostles, (refer Acts 1:1 compared with Luke 1:1 - Luke in Acts refers to his former letter - the gosple of Luke), we conclude that Paul's writings must have been written after the gospels.
The oldest in the NT would be Revelation, written by the apostle John in around AD96.
Ouch... there appears to be prior art.
Like that ever stopped anyone before.
Assuming you've got money and lawyers, press on...
My doctor says I'm paranoid.
Well he didn't actually say it, but I'm sure he's thinking it...
Bing Is Not Google
recursive
I would suggest you are actually 100% correct. Rather than it being a joke at all.
For a recursive acronym, the first letter could be anything they wanted. BUT if it is before G in the alphabet, then their search engine would show up before google in any alphabetically sorted list. The only other options they had would've been:
aing (hard to say)
cing (ambigious - is it sing or king?)
ding (hmmm)
eing (silly)
or
fing (sounds like "thing").
I'd have to argue that Microsoft did actually name it BING after the recursive acronym mentioned above (Bing Is Not Google).
yet don't work 100% in real world webpages. Standards compliant be damned if you can't render real pages.
What?
If the browser follows web standards 100% and yet some webpages render incorrectly - doesn't this mean the issue is with the web page and not with the browser?
Web standards exist so that we shouldn't have to answer the question of whether the web browser is designed for the web pages or whether the web pages are designed for the browser.
I dont even think it would go that far. Mono is just an API isn't it? its just wrapping the .NET API so that apps written for .NET can compile and run natively on Linux. So Mono isn't even remotely controlled by Microsoft. Microsoft controls .NET, and Mono follows behind of its own accord, implementing the changes to match .NET.
If .NET disappeared, Mono would still work and so would all apps written for it.
The worst that could happen is Microsoft could intentionally change .NET to break compatibility with Mono, but even so, that wouldn't break anything in gnome or even give MS any control over gnome. It would just make Mono a bit worthless until it caught up with .NET again.
Is wine in the main repository? its a similar scenario.
Why does evolution have to achieve any particular purpose?
If you're looking for a reason for any part of the human body, then you're looking for an intelligent creator. Its as simple as that.
If we evolved then the only thing you can deduce about mutations is that they mustn't be deadly (ie. because otherwise the person with that mutation would not have survived to pass it on). Other than that the mutations themselves are completely random and are caused by a FAULT in a cell reproducing itself. Its the exception, not the norm.
Sure you can use "survival of the fittest" to explain why all OTHER mutations haven't worked out...but it doesn't explain why it occurred in the first place.
It occurred in the first place because one or more cells failed to copy themselves correctly. Most mutations are bad. Actually, I've heard it said that so few are good that you may as well consider them all bad.
If you think that fingerprints must have a purpose in order for us to have them, then I agree with you. All parts of the human body have been shown to serve an important purpose, and one that is not always necessary for our survival. If you're thinking it odd that evolution seems to be doing remarkably well getting it right, given the odds stacked against it (remember all mutations are literally MISTAKES and rare at that) then you're not alone. Even the best efforts of mankind cannot create something nearly as efficient and as well-designed as the human body. Actually, make that the human cell, or even a part of a human cell. And yet people believe that it happened by chance? We cant even replicate it ON PURPOSE.
So help me understand why there must be logic behind things like fingerprints if we evolved? Evolution happens by chance, and chance does not follow intelligent reason. Therefore if we evolved then its merely coincidence that we have fingerprints, nothing else. I think its clear which side of the fence I'm on. I cant get my head around evolution. It just doesn't make sense.
You don't need to sit around and cower in fear or start wearing face masks that likely do nothing.
This is something I have wondered about. What do those face masks actually achieve?
You're still breathing air, and the air you're breathing is still coming from around your face. Sure, it has to come from the gaps near your nose and possibly the gaps around your chin and cheeks, but its still more or less the SAME air you'd have otherwise breathed in if you didn't have the mask on.
On top of this, we all need to touch things that others have touched (door handles, etc) and we all need to eat. The mask will do nothing about protecting us from contracting germs via our hands...
But they do have the ability to make the wearer look like an idiot. So there is that. :-)
and then everyone can have a piece of the linux pi
I've got it!! Just install radar devices on all birds...
This is what worries me - How many things in nature have been IMPROVED through human involvement?
Go on, count them...I'll wait.
But what if I'm Joe User and all I want to do is watch TV?
see this is where it gets confusing.
If heaven is basically space (everything thats not "earth"), then how/where does an angel fall?
Where is hell then? the centre of the earth? does every planet have a "hell"?
(As an aside, the "lucifer" referred to in Isaiah has nothing to do with angels, and bears no connection to Revelation (which also, is not talking about literal angels falling out of heaven) - the word translated "angel" simply means "messenger" - it CAN mean angel, but it can also mean a person - however I digress - this is not the point here...)
I just dont get the whole concept of heaven vs hell. I understand the heaven bit - thats easy...but if you "fell" out of heaven, which direction would you fall in? towards the nearest largest object that has the most gravitational pull? if this were the case, who knows where this satan is hiding? who ever said it had to be earth?
I often will play a game up until the point where I realise I'm getting stressed. I may continue to try to finish the level for longer than I should, but eventually the game is tossed, never to be played again.
There are gamers who like a game to get progressively harder with each new level, but I'm not one of them. The thrill of the game is not so much the challenge, but the experience.
I draw the line between improving ones skill at a game, and fighting against the game. When I find that I'm struggling against the game itself, thats when its time to walk away. For example, my favourite games are car racing games, and with many games I have struggled against the physics model. I dont mind arcade-like games either, but there are some games where the physics model really detracts from the experience.
Wasn't sure whether to mod parent funny or insightful...
however I do agree with the 1st point. Games & DVD's dont make you fat. Games/DVD's and a healthy lifestyle are not mutually exclusive.
The stereotype of a nerd is generally of a very skinny young male. If anything, these people need to get FATTER.
While they're at it, think of all the other things they could put this "fat tax" on. Driving, sitting on park benches, sitting at cafe's, sitting at work, sleeping, reading slashd- INSUFFICIENT FUNDS.
Yes it does sound silly.
1. User blocks ads by installing adblock.
2. Site adds a flag so now adblock asks user whether to block ads.
3. User says "duh" and clicks "Yes, block ads".
4. Go back to step 2 and repeat.
Where will this end? its completely redundant.
There is no air under water.
really?
This entire discussion is about Qt4. Qt3 was under a different license (GPL) and is not in the aforementioned repositories.
we are tackling the big issues here today aren't we?