Also, does it have a rechargable battery? The article didn't mention whether it had been charging all of this time or if we'll just be doing it at the time the solar panels will get the most sunshine.
I never paid much attention to the Iridium company so I don't know if they fell out of the sky or not... but if they did and they want to put up a new, even more advanced generation of satellites then this isn't good for Radio Astronomers. If the original Iridium was interfering with their observations before, imagine how much trouble this new system will bring.
How else am I, as the operating system, supposed to know that this completely unknown executable you've just stuck on the drive handles foodlewidgets unless you tell me that it handles foodlewidgets?
So you are the voice of my operating system. Finally! I've been waiting to communicate with you for a long time. I've already emptied it, but would you now please let me delete the Outlook Express folder from C:\Program Files\?
Dude, you think too much about your video games. Just play them and have fun. If you're really bothered by cheezy stories, what are you doing playing video games in the first place?
You're assuming all games are "cheezy". I played Zelda for the adventure, intrigue and mystery. When I want to play a fun, comedic game I pull out Earthworm Jim or Super Mario 64. The Legend of Zelda doesn't fall into that category. I'm talking about a wonderful game series that got worse with every release. The first two Zelda games were wonderful adventures. Then the cheeze started to appear. If you never experienced the joy of originals first I suppose you might think the silly stuff was an essential element of the series.
This is just sad. I pity anyone who's developed a mindset that won't allow them to enjoy games like these. It's like saying that you don't/didn't like the muppets because they're all just stuffed animal puppets. It's *so* much more than that if you allow yourself to see it.
I actually like the Muppets. What I don't like is seeing a legend in gaming dragged through the mud. Here's an analogy: You're playing DOOM III, everything is dark and spooky and perfectly violent, and then you enter a room and are treated to a FMV sequence where a cheerful Barney the Dinosaur enters and hands you a vase full of yellow flowers, sings a song and then moves merrily on his way before you're allowed to play again. If this bothers you, would you consider yourself to have developed a mindset that doesn't allow you to enjoy the game? I think that any DOOM fan deserves pity if something like that wouldn't bother them.
Singing frogs just don't fit into the Legend of Zelda.
Doesn't the game summary for Zelda seem... well STUPID?
No surprize there. The summaries for the two N64 Zelda games were about as appealing.
I'm sorry.. but this just seems so lame.. weak story..:( I LOVED the zelda series.. I spent countless hours plaing the games.. Thats one reason why I loved the GB pokemon games... just like the first Zelda game... but this POS looks horrid.:(
They've been kidifying TLOZ since the SNES. Cute graphics, friendly witches, fat fairies, flying with roosters, talking animals, summoning scarecrows, singing frogs, sword-or-baseball-bat?, obligatory mini-games and races, fishing, silly masks and so on. Ech. How did they come up with this crap? "Heck, let's give link an uncle here and a sister there. And let's throw in Mario and Luigi, kids like them. We can't come up with decent plots anymore, so we'll add "dark worlds", time travel and morphing capabilities. We can't count, so let's give the Octorocks four legs." Ugh. The list goes on and on. And link just keeps getting younger. Call me crazy, but I can't picture a 5-year old hacking his way through legions of the undead. I haven't seen pictures of the newest one, but they might still be using the GameCube's "cartooning engine". Have mercy already! The few good elements that were added are massively outnumbered by the bad.
I still play and treasure the first two Zelda games. But for me, The Legend of Zelda began to die at the 3rd sequel. It was a hideous, bloated corpse by 5.
Lindows takes the weaknesses of both OS's in Windows lack of security and Linux's lack of wide commercial software support and emphasizes them.
If running an emulator of an insecure system on a more secure system makes the entire system less secure, you're at least half right. But Lindows is trying to sell itself on the idea that it will run both Windows and Linux applications. If the Lindows we've been promised ever becomes a reality, it will have a software Library the size of Win32 and Linux combined.
1. less valuable - the real clay tablets could probably fetch you a good deal, at least on the black market, the digital ones are probably already on freenet/gnutella...
If a large company enters a market and "takes over" thus preventing other companies from entering a market -- then the market is no longer free. If the market remains free after the 800 lb gorilla enters,
That is like saying "If the forest remains standing after the fleet of bulldozers goes through"...
Government should not be in the job of protecting small companies from competition by large companies
I believe this should be one of the primary functions of the government.
I know I'd feel dirty if Linux had to start tricking people into using it.
Me: "Here you go. That'll be $1,500."
Customer: "Wow. That's a lot of money, but at least I now have the fastest computer on the block! Thanks for putting it together for me. Now you did put Microsoft Windows XP on it like I asked, right?
Me: "Uh, yeah. Just click on that little penguin in the lower left-hand corner to start using it. Gotta run."
Wouldn't it be great if when demand went up for an item you could jump into a market and make a bunch of money and then pull out when demand went down without losing money. There tends to be a lot more competition in a market when there are few barriers to entry and exit of a market.
No. If that was the case, large corporations could manipulate the product market exactly the same way they do the stock market. I'm not entirely sure that it isn't the case right now. Heck, what does Microsoft do when I see someone else doing well in any particular software market? It introduces it's own product, and usually succeeds in squeezing out all the smaller competitors who before were merely competing amongst themselves. Now instead of prices being driven down by competition between small companies (some of which might have actually cared about providing a good product for the customer), the market has to shoulder a single 800-lb gorilla.
The larger a company, the tighter the collar the government needs to keep on it. Open markets to small companies are good. Unregulated, completely open markets to large companies are not. This is also why multinational companies should not be allowed -- how do you get a collar around an 80,000 lb gorilla that freely roams the entire world?
A monopolized market is not a free market. A truely free market has few (if any) barriers to entry
Forgive my ignorance, but could you name a few established markets here in the U.S. that don't require a silo full of money or backing by a person or company of high prestige? You know, so the common person such as you or I have a reasonable chance of creating new companies that won't burst like the dot com bubble.
I doubt that Linux developers have the time to write "Let's get Microsoft!", though. They seem too busy developing the OS to participate in the "We have an inferior product, let's squash the competition" insanity that goes on behind the doors of some other developers. =]
I've always thought that it would be better to have the close button up in the right hand side of the screen, like Windows does instead of how Apple does. After all, it's easier for someone to accidentally hit it when they're going for the "file" button, right? But come to think of it, left may be better after all. I can't count how many times a pop up window has come up with the close button out of reach on my Windows box. Deliberately, no doubt. But I've come to believe the whole one-click close idea needs some rethinking. Why not a button that you click and several other buttons come up to the left below it? A double click could minimize, a click and a click slightly to the right would maximize, a click and a click slightly down would close. You could even hold the button down for half a second and then release it over the correct buttons for the same actions. And a "down" arrow would make sense, you click it once and it "brings down" new options, clicking it twice brings it "down" to the taskbar.
Okay, my chest feels lighter now.:) Does anybody know if I can do this in KDE 3?
It seems that this could make for a real headache, splitting the workload up onto all of these different computers. It's not data like Seti@home where you can distribute out data pieces, is it? All of the information needs to be there to simulate the planet. It sounds like it would be more effective to just get the fastest supercomputer they can get their hands on and start work on a more thorough level, like Japan is doing. Otherwise...
"How's the global climate simulation going?"
"We're still waiting on the data from Australia. We sent it out to 5 people but we haven't gotten anything back yet."
In the meantime, the Earth's atmosphere bursts into flames and makes the whole point moot.;)
Slashdot Mirror
I'd much rather see something fresh and new, with its own identity. A whole new game with its own units, storyline, game world, and so forth.
Sounds good. What have you come up with?
When I first read the headline, I read it as "Baby Bells Viscious Over Sharing Rules" and thought, "Isn't that the truth!"
Red Hat is the Microsoft of Linux... Ironically, this makes it the best weapon Linux has against Microsoft.
How long can electronics last in space?
Also, does it have a rechargable battery? The article didn't mention whether it had been charging all of this time or if we'll just be doing it at the time the solar panels will get the most sunshine.
I never paid much attention to the Iridium company so I don't know if they fell out of the sky or not... but if they did and they want to put up a new, even more advanced generation of satellites then this isn't good for Radio Astronomers. If the original Iridium was interfering with their observations before, imagine how much trouble this new system will bring.
How else am I, as the operating system, supposed to know that this completely unknown executable you've just stuck on the drive handles foodlewidgets unless you tell me that it handles foodlewidgets?
So you are the voice of my operating system. Finally! I've been waiting to communicate with you for a long time. I've already emptied it, but would you now please let me delete the Outlook Express folder from C:\Program Files\?
It sounds worse. If the service pack "hides" certain components, they will be harder to find and rip out won't they?
So you're saying that build 2600 can't be upgraded?
Thank you!
Dude, you think too much about your video games. Just play them and have fun. If you're really bothered by cheezy stories, what are you doing playing video games in the first place?
You're assuming all games are "cheezy". I played Zelda for the adventure, intrigue and mystery. When I want to play a fun, comedic game I pull out Earthworm Jim or Super Mario 64. The Legend of Zelda doesn't fall into that category. I'm talking about a wonderful game series that got worse with every release. The first two Zelda games were wonderful adventures. Then the cheeze started to appear. If you never experienced the joy of originals first I suppose you might think the silly stuff was an essential element of the series.
This is just sad. I pity anyone who's developed a mindset that won't allow them to enjoy games like these. It's like saying that you don't/didn't like the muppets because they're all just stuffed animal puppets. It's *so* much more than that if you allow yourself to see it.
I actually like the Muppets. What I don't like is seeing a legend in gaming dragged through the mud. Here's an analogy: You're playing DOOM III, everything is dark and spooky and perfectly violent, and then you enter a room and are treated to a FMV sequence where a cheerful Barney the Dinosaur enters and hands you a vase full of yellow flowers, sings a song and then moves merrily on his way before you're allowed to play again. If this bothers you, would you consider yourself to have developed a mindset that doesn't allow you to enjoy the game? I think that any DOOM fan deserves pity if something like that wouldn't bother them.
Singing frogs just don't fit into the Legend of Zelda.
Doesn't the game summary for Zelda seem... well STUPID?
:( I LOVED the zelda series.. I spent countless hours plaing the games.. Thats one reason why I loved the GB pokemon games... just like the first Zelda game... but this POS looks horrid. :(
No surprize there. The summaries for the two N64 Zelda games were about as appealing.
I'm sorry.. but this just seems so lame.. weak story..
They've been kidifying TLOZ since the SNES. Cute graphics, friendly witches, fat fairies, flying with roosters, talking animals, summoning scarecrows, singing frogs, sword-or-baseball-bat?, obligatory mini-games and races, fishing, silly masks and so on. Ech. How did they come up with this crap? "Heck, let's give link an uncle here and a sister there. And let's throw in Mario and Luigi, kids like them. We can't come up with decent plots anymore, so we'll add "dark worlds", time travel and morphing capabilities. We can't count, so let's give the Octorocks four legs." Ugh. The list goes on and on. And link just keeps getting younger. Call me crazy, but I can't picture a 5-year old hacking his way through legions of the undead. I haven't seen pictures of the newest one, but they might still be using the GameCube's "cartooning engine". Have mercy already! The few good elements that were added are massively outnumbered by the bad.
I still play and treasure the first two Zelda games. But for me, The Legend of Zelda began to die at the 3rd sequel. It was a hideous, bloated corpse by 5.
Thanks a lot Nintendo.
Lindows takes the weaknesses of both OS's in Windows lack of security and Linux's lack of wide commercial software support and emphasizes them.
If running an emulator of an insecure system on a more secure system makes the entire system less secure, you're at least half right. But Lindows is trying to sell itself on the idea that it will run both Windows and Linux applications. If the Lindows we've been promised ever becomes a reality, it will have a software Library the size of Win32 and Linux combined.
No monks and centuries of transcription required there.
:)
I just got this picture of monks in brown robes sorting through punch cards.
1. less valuable - the real clay tablets could probably fetch you a good deal, at least on the black market, the digital ones are probably already on freenet/gnutella...
So instead of Napster, we'll have Tabletster?
If a large company enters a market and "takes over" thus preventing other companies from entering a market -- then the market is no longer free. If the market remains free after the 800 lb gorilla enters,
That is like saying "If the forest remains standing after the fleet of bulldozers goes through"...
Government should not be in the job of protecting small companies from competition by large companies
I believe this should be one of the primary functions of the government.
this will only hurt the economy in the long run.
Explain why.
I know I'd feel dirty if Linux had to start tricking people into using it.
Me: "Here you go. That'll be $1,500."
Customer: "Wow. That's a lot of money, but at least I now have the fastest computer on the block! Thanks for putting it together for me. Now you did put Microsoft Windows XP on it like I asked, right?
Me: "Uh, yeah. Just click on that little penguin in the lower left-hand corner to start using it. Gotta run."
Wouldn't it be great if when demand went up for an item you could jump into a market and make a bunch of money and then pull out when demand went down without losing money. There tends to be a lot more competition in a market when there are few barriers to entry and exit of a market.
No. If that was the case, large corporations could manipulate the product market exactly the same way they do the stock market. I'm not entirely sure that it isn't the case right now. Heck, what does Microsoft do when I see someone else doing well in any particular software market? It introduces it's own product, and usually succeeds in squeezing out all the smaller competitors who before were merely competing amongst themselves. Now instead of prices being driven down by competition between small companies (some of which might have actually cared about providing a good product for the customer), the market has to shoulder a single 800-lb gorilla.
The larger a company, the tighter the collar the government needs to keep on it. Open markets to small companies are good. Unregulated, completely open markets to large companies are not. This is also why multinational companies should not be allowed -- how do you get a collar around an 80,000 lb gorilla that freely roams the entire world?
Er... how could there be a barrier to *exit*?
A monopolized market is not a free market. A truely free market has few (if any) barriers to entry
Forgive my ignorance, but could you name a few established markets here in the U.S. that don't require a silo full of money or backing by a person or company of high prestige? You know, so the common person such as you or I have a reasonable chance of creating new companies that won't burst like the dot com bubble.
I doubt that Linux developers have the time to write "Let's get Microsoft!", though. They seem too busy developing the OS to participate in the "We have an inferior product, let's squash the competition" insanity that goes on behind the doors of some other developers. =]
You don't visit Slashdot very often, do you?
Blindsided as in "What? We thought you were on OUR side, Judge! We were supposed to be able to weasel our way out of this one, too!"
:p
So naturally, they have yet to prepare a defense.
Sure, that works well for well educated Windows users, but what's intuitive about that?
I've always thought that it would be better to have the close button up in the right hand side of the screen, like Windows does instead of how Apple does. After all, it's easier for someone to accidentally hit it when they're going for the "file" button, right? But come to think of it, left may be better after all. I can't count how many times a pop up window has come up with the close button out of reach on my Windows box. Deliberately, no doubt. But I've come to believe the whole one-click close idea needs some rethinking. Why not a button that you click and several other buttons come up to the left below it? A double click could minimize, a click and a click slightly to the right would maximize, a click and a click slightly down would close. You could even hold the button down for half a second and then release it over the correct buttons for the same actions. And a "down" arrow would make sense, you click it once and it "brings down" new options, clicking it twice brings it "down" to the taskbar.
:) Does anybody know if I can do this in KDE 3?
Okay, my chest feels lighter now.
I think people will see this as a real promising advance...
:(
...Until patent laws get in the way.
It seems that this could make for a real headache, splitting the workload up onto all of these different computers. It's not data like Seti@home where you can distribute out data pieces, is it? All of the information needs to be there to simulate the planet. It sounds like it would be more effective to just get the fastest supercomputer they can get their hands on and start work on a more thorough level, like Japan is doing. Otherwise...
;)
"How's the global climate simulation going?"
"We're still waiting on the data from Australia. We sent it out to 5 people but we haven't gotten anything back yet."
In the meantime, the Earth's atmosphere bursts into flames and makes the whole point moot.