If everything is a cardboard cutout, it will all flow together and work OK. You did "cardboard cutout" well. The moment you start mingling real 3D objects in there, the brain starts seeing 3D objects and poorly rendered 3D objects (those aforementioned cutouts).
Dead on. Plus, and IMHO more importantly, doom isn't relying on its graphics terribly heavily to draw you in.
The thing that game designers need to realize is that immersion isn't just about realism: at the end of the day we all know that we are not running through a nuclear waste facility killing mutants, we are sitting in our mum's basement in front of a monitor. So (just like in movies) the player has to give a certain suspension of disbelief, and the game then has to provide sufficiently suspenseful and addictive play to do the rest.
You hardly need anything to get started, apart from web hosting, an FTP client and Notepad.
Compare that to say, perl where all you need is . . . perl, or c where all you need is gcc (or any other compiler).
The point being: web hosting is not something the average non-techie has sitting around for when he decides to give it a go, nor is it something he is going to be likely to get in a matter of minutes.
If you have a half-decent linux distro you have the tools to start writing c, c++, perl, or python on your computer right now, if you don't have a decent distro, those tools are a command away. If you are on windows, all bets are off, but none of it should be hard to install.
Even compare that to html/css/js where you can start making stuff that does stuff without installing anything that doesn't come standard on almost any operating system a non-techie could find, and without even being hooked up to the net.
Opera has always been pretty fast, but the fact that you lumped chrome and ff makes me suspicious of your testing methods. Every benchmark I've seen (including firefox's own) says that ff isn't even in the same league as chrome wrt js.
How is this modded troll? It is an absolutely legitimate point: If you upgrade often you will eventually get burnt. That's why people who run uber important systems only upgrade if there is a security fix.
Is it possible that they mean it doesn't make any sense, in the sense that, it looks fraudulent?
After reading through it I can't help but wonder about it. I mean for this guy to have signed a check for $1000 to a college kid, MZ must have been able to convince him there was substantial opportunity for profit. But (A) I thought FB was initially only supposed to be for Harvard? I can't imagine there would have been *too* much money to be made on something that limited. But more importantly, (B) for MZ to have made such a convincing pitch he must have already realized he was potentially sitting on a big idea. Was he really so cash strapped that he had to sell 50% of this big idea for a measly 1k? I mean it's not like FB needed a big capital to get off the ground. It probably could run on a 5 year old computer over his dorm network connection.
Further, (IANAL but) the contract looks like it was written by a lawyer. It doesn't look like some form contract that someone pasted into Word and changed the names. Who hires a lawyer to write a contract for a set of transactions totaling $2000?
Anyway, questions like that were popping into my head as I read it. (Obviously, I'm not alleging that it is a fraud, just noting that I'll be curious to see how this plays out if it goes to trial.)
Informative?
Attention slashdotters, There is at least one retard on the loose. He may be calling himself and playing tapes into the phone. If you encounter him do not engage him as he is armed with modpoints and may use them erratically.
Absolutely. I'm not sure how OP is modded to +5 insightful. If google blocked ad block there would be a public outcry (remember the hypothesis was that adblock became popular) and a large number of people would switch to another browser.
Google isn't new to this game, they know that crippling a popular extension to their browser--when there is lots of competition in the browser market--would be a fast track to (browser) irrelevance, and that it would accomplish next to nothing (insofar as all those users would still have adblock, just on a non-google browser).
I forgot to mention my strongest case: marriage. There is more than 1 US state where a person can be legally married at or before 12 (MA, WVA, MI, CA, AZ to name a few). If you look at 3rd world countries it can even be common.
if . . . if . . . if . . . if . . . given that . . . etc.
There is no necessary connection that anyone has yet shown between one's age and the legality of one's parenthood.
It is quite possible, maybe even probable, that some illegal act was committed by someone if a 12yo is a parent, but it doesn't result in:
Forevery(x): if (IsAParent(x) & IsUnderSomeAge(x)) then isIllegalParent(x)
Adding 'legal' was obviously meant to restrict being a parent, and to oppose it to something else. I have suggested it might be opposed to merely biological, you have taken it to be opposed to illegal (as I initially did).
You could become a parent by having sex with another 12 year old. Or by somehow impregnating yourself with semen legally obtained outside of sex (unlikely, but possible). The point is, as far as I know there is no law against becoming a parent (in itself) at any age in the vast majority of jurisdictions (I do recall that one African country outlawed sex for people up to some point in adulthood for a number of years, but this is certainly not a universal or common practice). Nor is there a logically necessary connection between becoming a parent at a particular age and some offense.
No it shouldn't, but the ggp was distinguishing 'worthy' from 'bad' patents (it was given that some patents shouldn't have been granted). I was just saying that his criterion for distinguishing them isn't correct: Just because there isn't an easy work around doesn't by any means imply that it is a worthy patent.
Assuming you are addressing the second and third sentences of my post: I don't know what 'legal parent' means. I also just don't see how this is a particularly relevant comparison of time.
BTW, what is the offense that is committed if a 12 year old becomes a parent? (I'm not arguing the law, I'm just curious.)
Actually on second thought, I wonder whether he meant by 'legal parent' a parent recognized as a parent under law (with, for example, full custody rights) rather than saying 'a parent who hasn't violated the law'.
Either way, this doesn't seem to be what GP was saying.
born at the time of patent filing to [legally] be a parent at its expiry.
I don't know how to parse this except as a direct refutation of your post.
As with GP, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Nor do I understand its relevance.
Not necessarily. What if there is one obvious way to solve a problem and it gets a patent? Ridiculous example: If someone had gotten a patent for "circular apparatus that facilitates low friction locomotion" there might not have been much to do but wait out the 20 years.
Just stick it on bittorrent, if there is a big demand.
Realistically, though, I doubt the database is very large (moreover, I doubt there are all that many people who would want this data). I mean, if you are indexing 50 magazines, over 100 years, with an average of 10 articles in each one, that's 50k articles. Let's say each article has 200B of data, thats, what? ~2 meg uncompressed?
There is a big difference between a personal check from a legend and a check from a foundation or company. I would frame a check from Knuth; I would cash a check from Mozilla.
I was pointing out that he seems to think that the Firefox devs should be able to somehow magically make JavaScript code not freeze up when run.
Well, you are of course right about the js, but you misunderstood post. He is clearly talking about FF itself freezing, not about FF not somehow magically correcting crap js.
In fact that is what he has been talking about for this entire thread.
I think you are missing the point. Sure the JS may run forever, but firefox should be structured so the ui is able to continue running (by which I mean, "remain responsive") while the js is looping. In other words the halting problem isn't the issue.
There are two issues: 1) whether tabs are a good idea 2) whether any sort of screen multiplexing (whether implemented as tabs or window in window or something else) within the app itself is a good idea.
As to one, I'm not sure, but I don't think that the argument that "it's just like papers on a real desk" is a good argument. Windows are not pieces of paper. Unfortunately we seem to have an idea that if we make computer UI ellements more like physical things we will have a better interface. I don't think this is a valid assumption on a number of grounds. The most I will admit on a general level is that *if* it is well implemented it might be easier to learn, but it probably won't be faster to use one it has been learned (after all you are introducing all sorts of physical limitations on digital things to make them mimic their physical models).
But to step back I think tabs make sense when you are pretty sure the user will never want to see two of the stack (usually the case in web browsers, also taken care of in tabbed window managers by letting the user controle what windows get grouped). So I do think tabs can be used effectively.
My real point, however, is in (2), should windows be having to implement their own ideosyncratic multiplexing. And I think not. That they need to is a sign that in some way the Window manager has failed to effectively manage windows (we can argue about what the window managers should have been doing, but the point is that effectively the apps have started being their own WMs within the WM because the real WM can't effectively manage them in a usable way). And it creates UI consistency problems (even if most people have just learned to deal with the inconsistency): I've caught myself more than once trying to use alt + tab to change tabs.
Slashdot Mirror
If everything is a cardboard cutout, it will all flow together and work OK. You did "cardboard cutout" well. The moment you start mingling real 3D objects in there, the brain starts seeing 3D objects and poorly rendered 3D objects (those aforementioned cutouts).
Dead on. Plus, and IMHO more importantly, doom isn't relying on its graphics terribly heavily to draw you in.
The thing that game designers need to realize is that immersion isn't just about realism: at the end of the day we all know that we are not running through a nuclear waste facility killing mutants, we are sitting in our mum's basement in front of a monitor. So (just like in movies) the player has to give a certain suspension of disbelief, and the game then has to provide sufficiently suspenseful and addictive play to do the rest.
You hardly need anything to get started, apart from web hosting, an FTP client and Notepad.
Compare that to say, perl where all you need is . . . perl, or c where all you need is gcc (or any other compiler).
The point being: web hosting is not something the average non-techie has sitting around for when he decides to give it a go, nor is it something he is going to be likely to get in a matter of minutes.
If you have a half-decent linux distro you have the tools to start writing c, c++, perl, or python on your computer right now, if you don't have a decent distro, those tools are a command away. If you are on windows, all bets are off, but none of it should be hard to install.
Even compare that to html/css/js where you can start making stuff that does stuff without installing anything that doesn't come standard on almost any operating system a non-techie could find, and without even being hooked up to the net.
Opera has always been pretty fast, but the fact that you lumped chrome and ff makes me suspicious of your testing methods. Every benchmark I've seen (including firefox's own) says that ff isn't even in the same league as chrome wrt js.
How is this modded troll? It is an absolutely legitimate point: If you upgrade often you will eventually get burnt. That's why people who run uber important systems only upgrade if there is a security fix.
Well, it's not just big corps; slackware did the same thing.
Is it possible that they mean it doesn't make any sense, in the sense that, it looks fraudulent?
After reading through it I can't help but wonder about it. I mean for this guy to have signed a check for $1000 to a college kid, MZ must have been able to convince him there was substantial opportunity for profit. But (A) I thought FB was initially only supposed to be for Harvard? I can't imagine there would have been *too* much money to be made on something that limited. But more importantly, (B) for MZ to have made such a convincing pitch he must have already realized he was potentially sitting on a big idea. Was he really so cash strapped that he had to sell 50% of this big idea for a measly 1k? I mean it's not like FB needed a big capital to get off the ground. It probably could run on a 5 year old computer over his dorm network connection.
Further, (IANAL but) the contract looks like it was written by a lawyer. It doesn't look like some form contract that someone pasted into Word and changed the names. Who hires a lawyer to write a contract for a set of transactions totaling $2000?
Anyway, questions like that were popping into my head as I read it. (Obviously, I'm not alleging that it is a fraud, just noting that I'll be curious to see how this plays out if it goes to trial.)
Informative?
Attention slashdotters, There is at least one retard on the loose. He may be calling himself and playing tapes into the phone. If you encounter him do not engage him as he is armed with modpoints and may use them erratically.
Absolutely. I'm not sure how OP is modded to +5 insightful. If google blocked ad block there would be a public outcry (remember the hypothesis was that adblock became popular) and a large number of people would switch to another browser.
Google isn't new to this game, they know that crippling a popular extension to their browser--when there is lots of competition in the browser market--would be a fast track to (browser) irrelevance, and that it would accomplish next to nothing (insofar as all those users would still have adblock, just on a non-google browser).
I forgot to mention my strongest case: marriage. There is more than 1 US state where a person can be legally married at or before 12 (MA, WVA, MI, CA, AZ to name a few). If you look at 3rd world countries it can even be common.
if . . . if . . . if . . . if . . . given that . . . etc.
There is no necessary connection that anyone has yet shown between one's age and the legality of one's parenthood.
It is quite possible, maybe even probable, that some illegal act was committed by someone if a 12yo is a parent, but it doesn't result in:
Forevery(x): if (IsAParent(x) & IsUnderSomeAge(x)) then isIllegalParent(x)
Go back and read the original post, it's there. I didn't add it, I just put it in bold.
Adding 'legal' was obviously meant to restrict being a parent, and to oppose it to something else. I have suggested it might be opposed to merely biological, you have taken it to be opposed to illegal (as I initially did).
You could become a parent by having sex with another 12 year old. Or by somehow impregnating yourself with semen legally obtained outside of sex (unlikely, but possible). The point is, as far as I know there is no law against becoming a parent (in itself) at any age in the vast majority of jurisdictions (I do recall that one African country outlawed sex for people up to some point in adulthood for a number of years, but this is certainly not a universal or common practice). Nor is there a logically necessary connection between becoming a parent at a particular age and some offense.
No it shouldn't, but the ggp was distinguishing 'worthy' from 'bad' patents (it was given that some patents shouldn't have been granted). I was just saying that his criterion for distinguishing them isn't correct: Just because there isn't an easy work around doesn't by any means imply that it is a worthy patent.
Assuming you are addressing the second and third sentences of my post: I don't know what 'legal parent' means. I also just don't see how this is a particularly relevant comparison of time.
BTW, what is the offense that is committed if a 12 year old becomes a parent? (I'm not arguing the law, I'm just curious.)
Actually on second thought, I wonder whether he meant by 'legal parent' a parent recognized as a parent under law (with, for example, full custody rights) rather than saying 'a parent who hasn't violated the law'.
Either way, this doesn't seem to be what GP was saying.
born at the time of patent filing to [legally] be a parent at its expiry.
I don't know how to parse this except as a direct refutation of your post.
As with GP, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Nor do I understand its relevance.
Not necessarily. What if there is one obvious way to solve a problem and it gets a patent? Ridiculous example: If someone had gotten a patent for "circular apparatus that facilitates low friction locomotion" there might not have been much to do but wait out the 20 years.
Just stick it on bittorrent, if there is a big demand.
Realistically, though, I doubt the database is very large (moreover, I doubt there are all that many people who would want this data). I mean, if you are indexing 50 magazines, over 100 years, with an average of 10 articles in each one, that's 50k articles. Let's say each article has 200B of data, thats, what? ~2 meg uncompressed?
You are truly a dumbass.
oh what the hell.google cache
I was going to paste the content, since it seems to be /.ed. Then I realized it was just a string of buzzwords.
There is a big difference between a personal check from a legend and a check from a foundation or company. I would frame a check from Knuth; I would cash a check from Mozilla.
I was pointing out that he seems to think that the Firefox devs should be able to somehow magically make JavaScript code not freeze up when run.
Well, you are of course right about the js, but you misunderstood post. He is clearly talking about FF itself freezing, not about FF not somehow magically correcting crap js.
In fact that is what he has been talking about for this entire thread.
I think you are missing the point. Sure the JS may run forever, but firefox should be structured so the ui is able to continue running (by which I mean, "remain responsive") while the js is looping. In other words the halting problem isn't the issue.
There are two issues: 1) whether tabs are a good idea 2) whether any sort of screen multiplexing (whether implemented as tabs or window in window or something else) within the app itself is a good idea.
As to one, I'm not sure, but I don't think that the argument that "it's just like papers on a real desk" is a good argument. Windows are not pieces of paper. Unfortunately we seem to have an idea that if we make computer UI ellements more like physical things we will have a better interface. I don't think this is a valid assumption on a number of grounds. The most I will admit on a general level is that *if* it is well implemented it might be easier to learn, but it probably won't be faster to use one it has been learned (after all you are introducing all sorts of physical limitations on digital things to make them mimic their physical models).
But to step back I think tabs make sense when you are pretty sure the user will never want to see two of the stack (usually the case in web browsers, also taken care of in tabbed window managers by letting the user controle what windows get grouped). So I do think tabs can be used effectively.
My real point, however, is in (2), should windows be having to implement their own ideosyncratic multiplexing. And I think not. That they need to is a sign that in some way the Window manager has failed to effectively manage windows (we can argue about what the window managers should have been doing, but the point is that effectively the apps have started being their own WMs within the WM because the real WM can't effectively manage them in a usable way). And it creates UI consistency problems (even if most people have just learned to deal with the inconsistency): I've caught myself more than once trying to use alt + tab to change tabs.