Perhaps you didn't read the entire sentence that you only quoted the question from. If money can buy permission to destroy an environment, then the environment isn't really that important in the first place.
... but I don't see anybody else saying that *they* actually thought of it before this guy did as a means of solving the problem of China's air pollution.
A lot of ideas are obvious once somebody announces what the idea actually is. Honestly, I think that people who would criticize the inventor simply because of the idea's apparent simplicity or obviousness are being rather snobbish, if you ask me.
But hey.... some might find it comforting to think that such values, which might otherwise seem outdated in today's word, are still alive and thriving in our society.
If there was really such a major conservationalist issue with them filming there at this time, how did they get the permits to film there in the first place?
If it was just as a result of miscommunication, then it would seem that the permits should probably be revoked (and fees for them refunded, obviously), unless those making the movie can show that film crew's activities will not introduce things to the environment there which may damage the ecosystem.
I'm as big a Star Wars fan as anybody else that I know, but it's still just a movie, for chissakes. It's not worth harming wildlife over, even if it's only accidentally.
You suggest that I don't understand how computers work because I call pointers an implementation detail, then you go and cite examples where pointers are supposed to be getting used under the hood, and yet those very examples only illustrate the point that it is an implementation detail, and not actually foundational to programming.
One of the definitive works with which I am familiar on the subject of computer science as it pertains to programming, by Knuth doesn't even dedicate a whole chapter to a concept that you seem to think is so fundamental to knowing how to program. Of course, I know that an argument from authority doesn't make one right.
So is time spent doing what you enjoy. And the only correlation between the two that can be made is by people who can't see past the notion that you need to have a lot of money to be happy.
Plus of course, if you excel at what you enjoy doing, you can probably find people that will pay you for it.
What I think is that people shouldn't be focussing on how much money they can make doing such and such. Do what you love... do it well, and you will almost invariably find that there are people who will pay you to do it.
Not that I'm knocking "earning big bucks", but it always kinda pisses me off that people talk about compuer programming or a certain type of programming as being especially lucrative, as if that should be some sort of aspiration in life. It certainly pays better than a lot of other jobs that I've had, but how much money you can earn is a pretty shallow metric for success, if you ask me.
That's what it would typically convert to, yes... my point was still that "Will" is not 1st edition attribute. Further, a "Will save" and a "Wisdom attribute save" are two entirely different things. The former adjusts your roll by a bonus or penality that is associated with your wisdom score (much like a save vs spell, with wisdom bonus applicable), while with the latter, you directly compare your raw ability score to the roll itself.
Personally, I prefer using percentile dice for stat checks... with a base of 5% per stat point, plus or minus any situational modifiers. Then the d20 is only used for rolling high, while percentile dice is ordinarily used for rolling low (such as thieving checks, et al). I find that doing this makes things much easier for people who are new to the game, because I used to always get asked "do I need to roll high or low?" by newer players. I still get that every once in a while, but a lot less often since running things this way.
Because they are only giving it away for free for a limited time.... it's a promotion for the software... they aren't actually making the software freely available in general.
The alternative would require that they prepare a special version of the software that doesn't come with the DRM solely for the promotional period... which because of how short it is, it probably wouldn't be worthwhile.
Not that I agree with bundling this software with their game... I remember having it on my system once with some EA software and it caused me a lot of grief (affected my DVD drive in unexpected ways). I haven't installed anything from EA on my computers since, and I doubt I ever will.
I think his point may be, perhaps, that he routinely sweeps his system to make sure infections don't occur, and can currently account for the source of every piece of software using resources on his system. The other poster was, after all, making the claim that if you have windows, then you have malware on your system... so asking him what that malware might be if one is confident that there is none is a perfectly fair question.
I agree with everything you've said above, but would like address your last question, which you may have intended to be rhetorical, but actually has a less obvious answer.
. Why add copy protection to free stuff anyway?
It's ordinarily a valid question, and honestly the very first thing I thought of as well, but the most obvious reason in this case is because this game isn't really free. It's being given away for free, and only for a limited time. When the promotion ends, people will have to pay for it again.
It's interesting to note that no other letter in the common pronunciation key rhymes with "zed", while "B", "C", "D", "E", "G", "P", "T", and "V" all rhyme with "zee".
"Z" (zed) has a half-rhyme (or vowel rhyme) with "M", which when recited using iambic heptameter, with a missed soft beat at the beginning so the letter A has the first heavy beat on it, and when pronouncing "W", no beat is allocated on the schwa in the middle, this half rhyme becomes evident, and may reminds one slightly of old english rhyming styles.
Of course, in actuality, there is no real need for how one pronounces "Z" to rhyme with anything. Take the "Ring around the rosie" poem, for example... the final word in its first verse, "down", doesn't rhyme with any previous word. Rhyming may sometimes be an aid to memorization for small children, but it's clearly by no means essential.
It's absolutely a waste of space. The * character uses considerably more real-estate than the letter i, which if drawn without serifs, is possibly the tiniest letter in the alphabet.
My implication is that "unlimited" means it is ultimately limited only by available technology, which has no set limit in how good it can get, and so is still really unlimited.
I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me or to somebody else, because what you are saying is pretty much what I had said... that any so-called limits that might exist arise as a consequence of a limitation of the technology, and since there is no pre-defined notion of just how fast that technology can become, it can still be considered unlimited in that sense.
If the idea of "unlimited" bothers you, then think of an unlimited plan as being capped at whatever the technology currently being used would allow you to download 24/7 at whatever speed the network can support, for the entire billing cycle. As technology improves, that limit goes up... without any predefined limit.
Which is, of course, what "unlimited" means. So in reality, the term is quite accurate. The fact that a person can't physically download an infinite amount of content in a finite period because network speeds are finite is entirely irrelevant.
Neither is downloading an unlimited amount in a finite period at any finite speed, no matter how fast. The point of an unlimited bandwidth plan is so that one does not experience any unexpected fees for excessive usage, regardless of how much they actually end up using the service. If Verizon doesn't have the infratstructure to support its subscribers having such plans, then they shouldn't be offering them.
The fact that they literally can't download an infinite quantity of content in a month is irrelevant.
If you're just adverse to the notion of "unlimited bandwidth" you can think of unlimited bandwidth plan, as actually a cap at whatever the theoretical maximum could be if they were downloading 24/7 at full speed for the entire billing cycle, the maximums of which are dictated by the physical hardware and technology... which is only limited by what we can do today, but if the technology improves, the cap goes up with it, with no defined upper bound. And that's the "unlimited" that is being referred to.
Its my understandin that Asia has been mostly spinning clockwise as a result of plate tectonics, and the region that is Siberia is actually slightly further south today than it used to be.
The exact position of the Arctic circle varies from year to year slightly, oscilating across a lattitude difference of about 2 degrees in a cycle that is roughly 40,000 years long. So... how do you figure it wasn't above the arctic circle?
Slashdot Mirror
That you know how it works doesn't change the fact that you didn't actually implement it as a solution for China's air pollution before he did.
Perhaps you didn't read the entire sentence that you only quoted the question from. If money can buy permission to destroy an environment, then the environment isn't really that important in the first place.
A lot of ideas are obvious once somebody announces what the idea actually is. Honestly, I think that people who would criticize the inventor simply because of the idea's apparent simplicity or obviousness are being rather snobbish, if you ask me.
But hey.... some might find it comforting to think that such values, which might otherwise seem outdated in today's word, are still alive and thriving in our society.
If there was really such a major conservationalist issue with them filming there at this time, how did they get the permits to film there in the first place?
If it was just as a result of miscommunication, then it would seem that the permits should probably be revoked (and fees for them refunded, obviously), unless those making the movie can show that film crew's activities will not introduce things to the environment there which may damage the ecosystem.
I'm as big a Star Wars fan as anybody else that I know, but it's still just a movie, for chissakes. It's not worth harming wildlife over, even if it's only accidentally.
You suggest that I don't understand how computers work because I call pointers an implementation detail, then you go and cite examples where pointers are supposed to be getting used under the hood, and yet those very examples only illustrate the point that it is an implementation detail, and not actually foundational to programming.
One of the definitive works with which I am familiar on the subject of computer science as it pertains to programming, by Knuth doesn't even dedicate a whole chapter to a concept that you seem to think is so fundamental to knowing how to program. Of course, I know that an argument from authority doesn't make one right.
But then neither does an argument from ignorance.
So is time spent doing what you enjoy. And the only correlation between the two that can be made is by people who can't see past the notion that you need to have a lot of money to be happy.
Plus of course, if you excel at what you enjoy doing, you can probably find people that will pay you for it.
What I think is that people shouldn't be focussing on how much money they can make doing such and such. Do what you love... do it well, and you will almost invariably find that there are people who will pay you to do it.
Just a minor nitpick. Pointers are an implementation detail, not a computer science fundamental prinicple.
Not that I'm knocking "earning big bucks", but it always kinda pisses me off that people talk about compuer programming or a certain type of programming as being especially lucrative, as if that should be some sort of aspiration in life. It certainly pays better than a lot of other jobs that I've had, but how much money you can earn is a pretty shallow metric for success, if you ask me.
That's what it would typically convert to, yes... my point was still that "Will" is not 1st edition attribute. Further, a "Will save" and a "Wisdom attribute save" are two entirely different things. The former adjusts your roll by a bonus or penality that is associated with your wisdom score (much like a save vs spell, with wisdom bonus applicable), while with the latter, you directly compare your raw ability score to the roll itself.
Personally, I prefer using percentile dice for stat checks... with a base of 5% per stat point, plus or minus any situational modifiers. Then the d20 is only used for rolling high, while percentile dice is ordinarily used for rolling low (such as thieving checks, et al). I find that doing this makes things much easier for people who are new to the game, because I used to always get asked "do I need to roll high or low?" by newer players. I still get that every once in a while, but a lot less often since running things this way.
Because they are only giving it away for free for a limited time.... it's a promotion for the software... they aren't actually making the software freely available in general.
The alternative would require that they prepare a special version of the software that doesn't come with the DRM solely for the promotional period... which because of how short it is, it probably wouldn't be worthwhile.
Not that I agree with bundling this software with their game... I remember having it on my system once with some EA software and it caused me a lot of grief (affected my DVD drive in unexpected ways). I haven't installed anything from EA on my computers since, and I doubt I ever will.
I think his point may be, perhaps, that he routinely sweeps his system to make sure infections don't occur, and can currently account for the source of every piece of software using resources on his system. The other poster was, after all, making the claim that if you have windows, then you have malware on your system... so asking him what that malware might be if one is confident that there is none is a perfectly fair question.
It's ordinarily a valid question, and honestly the very first thing I thought of as well, but the most obvious reason in this case is because this game isn't really free. It's being given away for free, and only for a limited time. When the promotion ends, people will have to pay for it again.
"Z" (zed) has a half-rhyme (or vowel rhyme) with "M", which when recited using iambic heptameter, with a missed soft beat at the beginning so the letter A has the first heavy beat on it, and when pronouncing "W", no beat is allocated on the schwa in the middle, this half rhyme becomes evident, and may reminds one slightly of old english rhyming styles.
Of course, in actuality, there is no real need for how one pronounces "Z" to rhyme with anything. Take the "Ring around the rosie" poem, for example... the final word in its first verse, "down", doesn't rhyme with any previous word. Rhyming may sometimes be an aid to memorization for small children, but it's clearly by no means essential.
But "will" is not a 1st edition attribute.
What you probably mean is that without Linux, gcc wouldn't have mattered to anyone that matters to *YOU*.
If he hadn't pinpointed the problem, how would he know that gcc was to blame in the first place?
It's absolutely a waste of space. The * character uses considerably more real-estate than the letter i, which if drawn without serifs, is possibly the tiniest letter in the alphabet.
My implication is that "unlimited" means it is ultimately limited only by available technology, which has no set limit in how good it can get, and so is still really unlimited.
I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me or to somebody else, because what you are saying is pretty much what I had said... that any so-called limits that might exist arise as a consequence of a limitation of the technology, and since there is no pre-defined notion of just how fast that technology can become, it can still be considered unlimited in that sense.
Which is, of course, what "unlimited" means. So in reality, the term is quite accurate. The fact that a person can't physically download an infinite amount of content in a finite period because network speeds are finite is entirely irrelevant.
Neither is downloading an unlimited amount in a finite period at any finite speed, no matter how fast. The point of an unlimited bandwidth plan is so that one does not experience any unexpected fees for excessive usage, regardless of how much they actually end up using the service. If Verizon doesn't have the infratstructure to support its subscribers having such plans, then they shouldn't be offering them.
The fact that they literally can't download an infinite quantity of content in a month is irrelevant.
If you're just adverse to the notion of "unlimited bandwidth" you can think of unlimited bandwidth plan, as actually a cap at whatever the theoretical maximum could be if they were downloading 24/7 at full speed for the entire billing cycle, the maximums of which are dictated by the physical hardware and technology... which is only limited by what we can do today, but if the technology improves, the cap goes up with it, with no defined upper bound. And that's the "unlimited" that is being referred to.
Its my understandin that Asia has been mostly spinning clockwise as a result of plate tectonics, and the region that is Siberia is actually slightly further south today than it used to be.
The exact position of the Arctic circle varies from year to year slightly, oscilating across a lattitude difference of about 2 degrees in a cycle that is roughly 40,000 years long. So... how do you figure it wasn't above the arctic circle?