The gaming market today is much bigger than when the SNES ruled so while mot old time gamers already have played the original SNES games there are still plenty of new gamers that haven't and since they are still good games and the most expensive part of developing them is done it is only natural to have so many ports.
I agree with you in general but I realise that only "old timers" have enough perspective to view it that way and I don't think they are the majority of gamers today.
I disagree with you in particular (for my situation) because when the SNES was out I was a kid and my parents wouldn't buy a game-only machine (had an Atari ST) and today, when I have more disposable income, it is much harder to find old SNES games so G ports can be a welcome alternative.
The real problem is not so much their existance but their price which makes them look like rip-off when you know how old they are.
If they are Europeans tell them that without fags* they would** live in the Third Reich.
An yes, I am European.
* sorry to homosexual to use this particular word but in this context I feel it has more impact and more power to convey the message than a more politically correct one.
** it would be more exact to say probably but, again, it dilutes the impact of the message.
And if you go to my profile you will notice that I had another account before that one with an even lower UID (24646) before I found a nick I really liked but that doesn't mean anything meaningful anyway (just that I have been wasting my time here longer than most people;)).
Anyway, as you guess it was just a joke, and an obvious one at that, I just couldn't resist it.
But it is not a power of 60, which is the important part of the metric system (because a kilometer is not 410 meters which is a multiple but not a power of 10 and if it was it would be about as difficult as the imperial system).
A kilometer is not only a multiple of 10 but a power of 10. If a kilometer was 600 meters and a meter was 170 centimeter (ignoring that centi means a hundred here) then both 600 and 170 would be multiple of 10 but they would not be power of 10.
The imperial system would be better than the metric system if it was regular like the metric system but using a base 12 or 60 instead of a base 10.
And if such a superior (for divisions) system was to get widespread use around the globe (except the US of course;)) I probably wouldn't use it myself but I would recognise that it is because the bother of learning a new system is not worth the advantage and probably because of emotional attachment, not because I believe that a base 10 system is superior to a base 12 one or a base 60 one (although I believe it would be simpler but some people believe the imperial system to be simpler than the metric one so I might be similarly mistaken).
"How hard would it be to implement a "fraction" type with the numerator and denominator stored as integers?"
Not very hard. In Scheme numerical operations operate on abstract numbers and the types of numbers are divided in different subsets number > complex > real > rational > integer so while not all implementations have all types some have support for exact rational numbers.
For example on my machine if I type:
(define a (/ 1 3)) a
I get:
0.333333333333333 in Guile because it doesn't seem to support rational numbers
But I get:
1/3 in umb-scheme because it supports rational numbers.
Generally, given that Lisp is list centric and implements lists with cons cells* you would generally implement it by having the numerator in the car (or a pointer to the numerator if it is too big to fit in it**) of the cons cell and the denominator in the cdr of the cons cell (or a pointer...).
I was asking because a lot of people*** use excuses to justify emotional choices but if they really prefered their choice because of that excuse and sticked with it they probably would have to change other similar choices to be consistant with that excuse, like preferring the imperial system supposedly because it makes it easier to use fractions but if they were to choose a programming language the fraction excuse gets out of the window without being considered (note that saying "fractions would be good but the performance penalty they incur is not worth it" is different given that you have then at least considered it for choosing a programming language like you did for choosing a measurement system but rejected it for other reasons.).
* a structure having two values, the first (the car) containing a pointer to the head of the list and the second (the cdr) containing a pointer to the rest.
** because Scheme implementations may also support bignum, that is mathematical operations on values not limited to the physical size of the register although they will probably have some other limitations. For example, under Guile I can calculate the factorial of 38061 in 57 seconds but when calculating the factorial of 38062 it fails after 59 seconds (not enough memory).
*** including me I guess, though I probably don't realize it until somebody points it out to me.
If you earn 20k/year and spend 21k/year your _deficit_ is 1k/year.
If you do that 5 years in a row without changing your yearly deficit and starting with no debt the after the 5 years your _debt_ will be 5k.
The US had a _deficit_ of $500 Billions.
France has a _debt_ of $1,190 Billions.
Another way to look at it is that with a deficit of 4.1% in 2003 if France had a _deficit_ of $1,190 Billions instead of a _debt_ of that amount then France would have a GDP of:
whereas the US had a GDP of $10.45 Trillions in 2002.
France having almost three time as much GDP as the US? Yeah, right. And I'm French so you can't accuse me of downplaying France's size because I don't like the frogs;)
If F's are just over half the size nothing prevents you to think it terms of 31 or 31.5 degrees C instead of 31 or 32 if you feel a Celsius degree is too big.
It's not a _lame_ excuse because it is useful but it still is an excuse because it is not the reason to use the imperial system, or you would be using a sexagesimal system (even more divisors).
"Yes but 1 mile is 5280 feet this number is dividable by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 12."
So by the same logic why not use a sexagesimal system (base 60) given that it has a large number of convenient divisors (2,3,4,5,6,10,12,15,20,30) and is a tried and true system (by the sumerians some 4000-5000 years ago)?
And it's got to be exact because if we are allowed approximations then we can also approximate 1/3 to 0.33333... with as many 3's as precision required.
Also, if you are a programmer, do you use a language that encourages you to use real numbers or a language that allows you to use fractions seamlessly?
Does that mean that if I propose a new system whereas water freezes at 0 and boils at 1000 degrees S that the US will adopt it for the added usefulness of the more precise temperature measurement?
How can I and Microsoft help the Mozilla foundation write a patent unencumbered cross platform XAML implementation so the goodness of XAML is available to Firefox users no matter what their platform.
They should do like what "Le Canard Enchaine" did during WWII.
What they did was whenever the Nazis wanted an article censored (which, given the nature of the newspaper was very often) instead of replacing it with another article they simply cut it out and left the space blank (except for a character with a huge pair of scissors representing the censors). The blanks in it were more telling than the remaining articles in that you knew how much the Nazis didn't want you to know (but not what of course).
Instead of putting the DMCA link at the end Google should put the search result where it would normally have been except replaced with:
"Due to a complaint(link to complaint containing the censored link) from $company citing the DMCA(link to more info) we cannot show you this result"
Or: "$company doesn't want you to know about that link so they invoked the DMCA(link) to silence us. Here is the complaint(link) where the tell us which links they don't want you to know about"
But but but, wouldn't they need to have people copy and distribute this essay in order to spread the word? Wouldn't their essays be copyrighted and wouldn't it be entertainment (when you know the law it would certainly be laughably entertaining)?
So will they charge for their essays in order to stay legal and ethical?
MySQL succeded because it took an 80% approach (a.k.a. "worse is better") whereas PostGres took a 100% approach (a.k.a "the right thing").
If you don't know what these mean read: http://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html and http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html
a relevant quote: "The lesson to be learned from this is that it is often undesirable to go for the right thing first. It is better to get half of the right thing available so that it spreads like a virus. Once people are hooked on it, take the time to improve it to 90% of the right thing."
I view things the opposite way than you WRT security fixes.
Each time there is a security fix they issue a new kernel version 2.4.x -> 2.4.(x+1) but I think that there should be an additional number to represent security fixes so that you can have a new version without the security flaw but with the same functionality (hence, less chances to have things break).
Ideally we should have the feature set and the implementation numbers be different.
The feature set would evolve with a new minor number for each feature set change and a new major number for each incompatible change (remove functionality). The middle version number would still denote unstable feature sets vs stable feature sets (unstable ones changing much more) but would not denote the stability of the code.
The implementation number would target a feature set version and reflect the degree of completed implementation and code stability of the implementation vis-a-vis that feature set.
For example when they release Linux 2.6.6 instead of just having that number you would have:.The feature set number: Linux 2.6.6.The actual implementation for that feature set: Linux RI for 2.6.6 - v1.0.0 (RI being Reference Implementation).
And if there is a security flaw you release Linux RI for 2.6.6 - v1.0.1 Instead of Linux 2.6.7.
If the only way to correct the flaw is by changing some interface then you have to issue Linux 2.6.7 with Linux RI for 2.6.7 - v1.0.0 and deprecate Linux 2.6.6.
That way you can update your system while changing the minimum and not adding new code unnecessarily (after all isn't that one of the problems with Windows Service Packs?).
I'm sure this scheme can be tweaked or has already been proposed (libtool version numbers???) but what good is it if it is not used?
Slashdot Mirror
The gaming market today is much bigger than when the SNES ruled so while mot old time gamers already have played the original SNES games there are still plenty of new gamers that haven't and since they are still good games and the most expensive part of developing them is done it is only natural to have so many ports.
I agree with you in general but I realise that only "old timers" have enough perspective to view it that way and I don't think they are the majority of gamers today.
I disagree with you in particular (for my situation) because when the SNES was out I was a kid and my parents wouldn't buy a game-only machine (had an Atari ST) and today, when I have more disposable income, it is much harder to find old SNES games so G ports can be a welcome alternative.
The real problem is not so much their existance but their price which makes them look like rip-off when you know how old they are.
If they are Europeans tell them that without fags* they would** live in the Third Reich.
An yes, I am European.
* sorry to homosexual to use this particular word but in this context I feel it has more impact and more power to convey the message than a more politically correct one.
** it would be more exact to say probably but, again, it dilutes the impact of the message.
And if you go to my profile you will notice that I had another account before that one with an even lower UID (24646) before I found a nick I really liked but that doesn't mean anything meaningful anyway (just that I have been wasting my time here longer than most people
Anyway, as you guess it was just a joke, and an obvious one at that, I just couldn't resist it.
"5280 is a multiple of 60."
;)) I probably wouldn't use it myself but I would recognise that it is because the bother of learning a new system is not worth the advantage and probably because of emotional attachment, not because I believe that a base 10 system is superior to a base 12 one or a base 60 one (although I believe it would be simpler but some people believe the imperial system to be simpler than the metric one so I might be similarly mistaken).
But it is not a power of 60, which is the important part of the metric system (because a kilometer is not 410 meters which is a multiple but not a power of 10 and if it was it would be about as difficult as the imperial system).
A kilometer is not only a multiple of 10 but a power of 10. If a kilometer was 600 meters and a meter was 170 centimeter (ignoring that centi means a hundred here) then both 600 and 170 would be multiple of 10 but they would not be power of 10.
The imperial system would be better than the metric system if it was regular like the metric system but using a base 12 or 60 instead of a base 10.
And if such a superior (for divisions) system was to get widespread use around the globe (except the US of course
"How hard would it be to implement a "fraction" type with the numerator and denominator stored as integers?"
Not very hard. In Scheme numerical operations operate on abstract numbers and the types of numbers are divided in different subsets number > complex > real > rational > integer so while not all implementations have all types some have support for exact rational numbers.
For example on my machine if I type:
(define a (/ 1 3))
a
I get:
0.333333333333333 in Guile because it doesn't seem to support rational numbers
But I get:
1/3 in umb-scheme because it supports rational numbers.
Generally, given that Lisp is list centric and implements lists with cons cells* you would generally implement it by having the numerator in the car (or a pointer to the numerator if it is too big to fit in it**) of the cons cell and the denominator in the cdr of the cons cell (or a pointer...).
I was asking because a lot of people*** use excuses to justify emotional choices but if they really prefered their choice because of that excuse and sticked with it they probably would have to change other similar choices to be consistant with that excuse, like preferring the imperial system supposedly because it makes it easier to use fractions but if they were to choose a programming language the fraction excuse gets out of the window without being considered (note that saying "fractions would be good but the performance penalty they incur is not worth it" is different given that you have then at least considered it for choosing a programming language like you did for choosing a measurement system but rejected it for other reasons.).
* a structure having two values, the first (the car) containing a pointer to the head of the list and the second (the cdr) containing a pointer to the rest.
** because Scheme implementations may also support bignum, that is mathematical operations on values not limited to the physical size of the register although they will probably have some other limitations. For example, under Guile I can calculate the factorial of 38061 in 57 seconds but when calculating the factorial of 38062 it fails after 59 seconds (not enough memory).
*** including me I guess, though I probably don't realize it until somebody points it out to me.
"I don't see the NSA, either
Don't worry, THEY see YOU
But it would be more accurate to say that the rebels and the French ganged up to kick the English out.
Are you ignorant or are you a troll?
You seem to be mixing deficit and debt.
If you earn 20k/year and spend 21k/year your _deficit_ is 1k/year.
If you do that 5 years in a row without changing your yearly deficit and starting with no debt the after the 5 years your _debt_ will be 5k.
The US had a _deficit_ of $500 Billions.
France has a _debt_ of $1,190 Billions.
Another way to look at it is that with a deficit of 4.1% in 2003 if France had a _deficit_ of $1,190 Billions instead of a _debt_ of that amount then France would have a GDP of:
1,190 billions * 100 / 4.1 = 29,024.39 billions = 29 Trillions
whereas the US had a GDP of $10.45 Trillions in 2002.
France having almost three time as much GDP as the US? Yeah, right. And I'm French so you can't accuse me of downplaying France's size because I don't like the frogs
Well, I guess IHBT so I Will HAND.
If F's are just over half the size nothing prevents you to think it terms of 31 or 31.5 degrees C instead of 31 or 32 if you feel a Celsius degree is too big.
It's not a _lame_ excuse because it is useful but it still is an excuse because it is not the reason to use the imperial system, or you would be using a sexagesimal system (even more divisors).
"Yes but 1 mile is 5280 feet this number is dividable by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 12."
So by the same logic why not use a sexagesimal system (base 60) given that it has a large number of convenient divisors (2,3,4,5,6,10,12,15,20,30) and is a tried and true system (by the sumerians some 4000-5000 years ago)?
What's the _exact_ fraction for Pi?
And it's got to be exact because if we are allowed approximations then we can also approximate 1/3 to 0.33333... with as many 3's as precision required.
Also, if you are a programmer, do you use a language that encourages you to use real numbers or a language that allows you to use fractions seamlessly?
Does that mean that if I propose a new system whereas water freezes at 0 and boils at 1000 degrees S that the US will adopt it for the added usefulness of the more precise temperature measurement?
Caller: My computer doesn't work, I can't find my files.
BOFH: Humn, yes, the problem is that your hard drive needs cleaning. So here is what you are gonna do: Take some green tea...
They are doctors so they already are licensed and registered.
It's still unauthorised. It just happens that you don't need their authorisation anyway to do the Google ad bit legally.
So what they say is legally true, scary sounding and totally misleading.
"thoughts, anyone?"
Well, my first thought would be to invoke Godwin's law on Einstein's comment.
"I'm sure it [Emacs] can do desktop publishing too some way or another..."
If it doesn't nothing prevents you from writing one in elisp.
They should do like what "Le Canard Enchaine" did during WWII.
What they did was whenever the Nazis wanted an article censored (which, given the nature of the newspaper was very often) instead of replacing it with another article they simply cut it out and left the space blank (except for a character with a huge pair of scissors representing the censors). The blanks in it were more telling than the remaining articles in that you knew how much the Nazis didn't want you to know (but not what of course).
Instead of putting the DMCA link at the end Google should put the search result where it would normally have been except replaced with:
"Due to a complaint(link to complaint containing the censored link) from $company citing the DMCA(link to more info) we cannot show you this result"
Or: "$company doesn't want you to know about that link so they invoked the DMCA(link) to silence us. Here is the complaint(link) where the tell us which links they don't want you to know about"
Or similar.
Still, what they do already is cool.
But but but, wouldn't they need to have people copy and distribute this essay in order to spread the word? Wouldn't their essays be copyrighted and wouldn't it be entertainment (when you know the law it would certainly be laughably entertaining)?
So will they charge for their essays in order to stay legal and ethical?
Except if you minivan is full of DVDs (and soon, Blu-Rays).
Iread it seriously (although I thought there were many fields of dubious use)until:
"So the new simplified version number would become
00:00:0C:02:12:00:04:00
00:FF:00:FF:00:FF:00:F
53:58:41:00:00:44:55:48
00:00:00:FF:00:FF:FF:F
Then I looked further and:
"Remember, this is all effective immediately, April 1, 2004."
Thanks for the laugh.
MySQL succeded because it took an 80% approach (a.k.a. "worse is better") whereas PostGres took a 100% approach (a.k.a "the right thing").
If you don't know what these mean read: http://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html and http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html
a relevant quote: "The lesson to be learned from this is that it is often undesirable to go for the right thing first. It is better to get half of the right thing available so that it spreads like a virus. Once people are hooked on it, take the time to improve it to 90% of the right thing."
I view things the opposite way than you WRT security fixes.
Each time there is a security fix they issue a new kernel version 2.4.x -> 2.4.(x+1) but I think that there should be an additional number to represent security fixes so that you can have a new version without the security flaw but with the same functionality (hence, less chances to have things break).
Ideally we should have the feature set and the implementation numbers be different.
The feature set would evolve with a new minor number for each feature set change and a new major number for each incompatible change (remove functionality). The middle version number would still denote unstable feature sets vs stable feature sets (unstable ones changing much more) but would not denote the stability of the code.
The implementation number would target a feature set version and reflect the degree of completed implementation and code stability of the implementation vis-a-vis that feature set.
For example when they release Linux 2.6.6 instead of just having that number you would have:
And if there is a security flaw you release Linux RI for 2.6.6 - v1.0.1 Instead of Linux 2.6.7.
If the only way to correct the flaw is by changing some interface then you have to issue Linux 2.6.7 with Linux RI for 2.6.7 - v1.0.0 and deprecate Linux 2.6.6.
That way you can update your system while changing the minimum and not adding new code unnecessarily (after all isn't that one of the problems with Windows Service Packs?).
I'm sure this scheme can be tweaked or has already been proposed (libtool version numbers???) but what good is it if it is not used?