Previously stated...where? Not playing encrypted content is not the same as useless. But in any case, what you said was not literally true--there is Silverlight for Linux.
Is the lag for this type of solution tolerable? I can see it going both ways and (shockingly) don't have the necessary hardware to test this combo out myself. I have no experience with OnLive either.
There is no Silverlight for Linux because Microsoft hates Linux and if they cannot control it (which they clearly cannot any time soon) then they want it to die. It's not emotionally-based, but it's true nonetheless.
There is a Sliverlight implementation for Linux--Moonlight. It can't play encrypted content, though Microsoft did release a media pack for licensed codecs.
I was wondering why they included the Farpoint episode on the preview set, since it was terrible. It moves so slowly, Picard's final line, "I'm sure most [of our future adventures] will be much more interesting," is literally true, and the special effects (notably Q's chain link space fence) were awful. Then it hit me: the special effects were awful. Maybe the episode would be more tolerable with better ones. Still, I kind of wish they had picked a more popular effects-heavy episode; maybe The Best of Both Worlds, or Timescape + Yesterday's Enterprise.
I should have made my point clearer. The person I was responding to implied the makers of The Hurt Locker were sore over making a bad movie, so were taking it out on people by suing them. With the kind of accolades I listed, it's preposterous to imply that. Who could possibly think they had made a bad movie with all those accolades, including Best Picture and rave reviews from tons of professional critics? At the very least, the person I was replying to needed to supply strong evidence for their extraordinary claim, even though they didn't. And somehow people thought the trolling they spewed was insightful--that's the most annoying thing.
Britney Spears *is* a good pop artist. I may hate pop music, but she's one of the best in that niche. Similarly The Hurt Locker is a terrible Sci-Fi film, but by almost all accounts is a fantastic drama.
I appealed mostly to professional opinions in the form of awards and professional film critics' opinions, though I also included the user rating from Rotten Tomatoes. Should I believe the random person on/. who called it a bad movie without providing any hint of evidence, or should I believe the pages of professional reviews I linked, or the vast majority of positive random people's reviews?
By all objective measures I can think of, this was a good movie. It got many awards, some of which are the highest honors in film; it is extraordinarily popular amongst critics and very popular amongst regular people; it was a box office success. I am not saying everyone agrees--the 3% of critics and 17% of users on Rotten Tomatoes who didn't give it a particularly high rating fall into that category. You can't please everyone, and that's fine. I'm sure some people have legitimate reasons for disliking the film.
The person I was replying to can have his opinion that the movie was bad. However, their main point was that the makers of the film were upset about making a bad movie, and so sued everyone over it. That's just preposterous--who could possibly be sore over making the Best Picture winner?--and somehow it got modded insightful.
Duh. You managed to completely ignore the high correlation between lots of accolades and "goodness" while coming up with an almost tautological and content-less one-liner. This is why I hate computer geek culture. There's always another smug idiot ready to bless the world with his unique insight, since he really does have insight in the computer world, and the real world is the same, right?
Of course objective measures of a subjective phenomenon are imperfect. That should be obvious to anyone. Unless you say why the measures I've provided are imperfect in this particular case, you've added nothing to the discussion but my raised hackles.
How could you possibly get +4 insightful? The Hurt Locker is one of the most awarded and acclaimed movies of the last decade. Its awards have their own (long) Wikipedia page. It has a 97% (!) amongst critics and 83% amongst users at Rotten Tomatoes, got a 4-star review from Roger Ebert, and it made something like triple its budget. The mods must be crazy. I guess I can hope they accidentally clicked "Insightful" instead of "Troll".
I was wondering if the extra complexity would generate more/more serious failures when wires get cut. A highly effective insulation mechanism might well result in a net energy gain, but if everything broke down a lot it might not be worthwhile.
Some countries have ~0% or even negative growth rates just because they just don't have many kids anymore. In industrialized, urban areas with plenty of access to contraceptives, population can naturally stabilize or even decline without increased death rates. While it's partly a matter of semantics, I wouldn't call the world's growth rate "pretty constant", since fractions of a percent really add up over time. It's also not clear to me that war necessarily results in a "sharply negative" growth rate. For instance, there's no downward spike at all during either World Wars in this graph or in similar ones I found.
Any *fixed* growth rate on a bounded earth is going to run into problems, but growth rates aren't fixed. So long as the annual growth rate decreases to 0 sufficiently quickly, the earth's population will be bounded. This is a somewhat unintuitive result of infinite series. You can keep adding to something, but so long as you add "slowly" enough you don't have to reach infinity.
Education is a big factor in industrialization and ultimately in population control. Those "sob-story" TV ads typically mention education as well as other basic necessities like food. Whether or not those programs are good in the long-term is at best debatable.
A similar argument to yours suggests that people deny themselves treatment for any heritable disease, or at least never procreate once they find out they have such a disease, since in the long term it will be harmful to the population to have bad genes floating around. That is, it's not just the 3rd world that's sub-optimal. If you want to let poor children die for their non-existent descendant's good, you might have to radically change your own life too. It's not a terribly large step from there to deny massively expensive treatment designed to prolong the life of the elderly. Whether or not these are good ideas is difficult to say, and requires quite a bit more analysis than you've discussed.
The trouble with thinking too far into the future is that we don't know what the future really holds. Hard and fast conclusions are nice to state and make for convenient beliefs, but reality (as always) is more complicated.
That's what weasel words are for: "Very few patents are for actual original innovations that warrant an up to 21 year monopoly." Experts can (hopefully) use them to prevent either the truth or their point from being obscured. The OP's technically flawed writing on such an emotionally charged issue that also revolves around a byzantine bureaucracy makes me not want to take their word as gospel truth.
To be clear, by "technically flawed writing" I meant the following little grammatical and general writing issues that individually aren't very important but which add up to a picture of sloppiness about detail: it's "21-year", not "21 year"; ellipses have three dots and not two; ellipses should not be used as a general replacement for commas, colons, semi-colons, and dashes; parenthetical asides should really be optional reading and they should be rare, rather than used at least once each paragraph, sometimes containing vital information; capitalization on "bubble sort" is inconsistent;... I could go on.
Isn't disliking someone for their stupidity or sloppiness personal by definition? I suppose "nothing personal" was just meant as code for "I don't wish he were dead", "I acknowledge he may have good traits", "I don't wish to be confrontational", or something similar.
You're equating "bloated" software with software that takes up a lot of hard disk space. The two are correlated, but not equivalent. For instance, I'd gladly accept a 100 GB Visual Studio if it meant every action was instantaneous. I'd be hard-pressed to call this hypothetical software "bloated," since that implies slowness/unresponsiveness. The person I was responding to specifically criticized Visual Studio's size (instead of, say, memory footprint or feature set).
I don't know what you're talking about by your last sentence, which discusses 'taking the pain away.'
At first I thought it had finished loading (the status bar must have gone away, I suppose). So, I opened one of the links in a new tab. That may or may not have done something to make the original tab finish loading....
You might have picked a better criticism of Visual Studio than "it takes up too much hard disk space." That's a pretty weak criticism in today's world of very cheap, very large drives.[on this scale].
Slashdot Mirror
Previously stated...where? Not playing encrypted content is not the same as useless. But in any case, what you said was not literally true--there is Silverlight for Linux.
Is the lag for this type of solution tolerable? I can see it going both ways and (shockingly) don't have the necessary hardware to test this combo out myself. I have no experience with OnLive either.
There is no Silverlight for Linux because Microsoft hates Linux and if they cannot control it (which they clearly cannot any time soon) then they want it to die. It's not emotionally-based, but it's true nonetheless.
There is a Sliverlight implementation for Linux--Moonlight. It can't play encrypted content, though Microsoft did release a media pack for licensed codecs.
Being gay, Troi in a "skant" doesn't quite do it for me. Come to think of it though, there was a random background guy in one of those in Farpoint....
I was wondering why they included the Farpoint episode on the preview set, since it was terrible. It moves so slowly, Picard's final line, "I'm sure most [of our future adventures] will be much more interesting," is literally true, and the special effects (notably Q's chain link space fence) were awful. Then it hit me: the special effects were awful. Maybe the episode would be more tolerable with better ones. Still, I kind of wish they had picked a more popular effects-heavy episode; maybe The Best of Both Worlds, or Timescape + Yesterday's Enterprise.
I should have made my point clearer. The person I was responding to implied the makers of The Hurt Locker were sore over making a bad movie, so were taking it out on people by suing them. With the kind of accolades I listed, it's preposterous to imply that. Who could possibly think they had made a bad movie with all those accolades, including Best Picture and rave reviews from tons of professional critics? At the very least, the person I was replying to needed to supply strong evidence for their extraordinary claim, even though they didn't. And somehow people thought the trolling they spewed was insightful--that's the most annoying thing.
Britney Spears *is* a good pop artist. I may hate pop music, but she's one of the best in that niche. Similarly The Hurt Locker is a terrible Sci-Fi film, but by almost all accounts is a fantastic drama.
That was the GP's point....
I appealed mostly to professional opinions in the form of awards and professional film critics' opinions, though I also included the user rating from Rotten Tomatoes. Should I believe the random person on /. who called it a bad movie without providing any hint of evidence, or should I believe the pages of professional reviews I linked, or the vast majority of positive random people's reviews?
By all objective measures I can think of, this was a good movie. It got many awards, some of which are the highest honors in film; it is extraordinarily popular amongst critics and very popular amongst regular people; it was a box office success. I am not saying everyone agrees--the 3% of critics and 17% of users on Rotten Tomatoes who didn't give it a particularly high rating fall into that category. You can't please everyone, and that's fine. I'm sure some people have legitimate reasons for disliking the film.
The person I was replying to can have his opinion that the movie was bad. However, their main point was that the makers of the film were upset about making a bad movie, and so sued everyone over it. That's just preposterous--who could possibly be sore over making the Best Picture winner?--and somehow it got modded insightful.
Duh. You managed to completely ignore the high correlation between lots of accolades and "goodness" while coming up with an almost tautological and content-less one-liner. This is why I hate computer geek culture. There's always another smug idiot ready to bless the world with his unique insight, since he really does have insight in the computer world, and the real world is the same, right?
Of course objective measures of a subjective phenomenon are imperfect. That should be obvious to anyone. Unless you say why the measures I've provided are imperfect in this particular case, you've added nothing to the discussion but my raised hackles.
How could you possibly get +4 insightful? The Hurt Locker is one of the most awarded and acclaimed movies of the last decade. Its awards have their own (long) Wikipedia page. It has a 97% (!) amongst critics and 83% amongst users at Rotten Tomatoes, got a 4-star review from Roger Ebert, and it made something like triple its budget. The mods must be crazy. I guess I can hope they accidentally clicked "Insightful" instead of "Troll".
I read "Amazon folds" and thought Amazon was going bankrupt. Anybody else misread it similarly?
1. Find a program that interests you. 2. Find something you want to change about it. 3. Hack away. 4. Goto 1.
Sorry, your code was inefficient. I had to fix it for you.
The compiler would have optimized it anyway.
I was wondering if the extra complexity would generate more/more serious failures when wires get cut. A highly effective insulation mechanism might well result in a net energy gain, but if everything broke down a lot it might not be worthwhile.
Some countries have ~0% or even negative growth rates just because they just don't have many kids anymore. In industrialized, urban areas with plenty of access to contraceptives, population can naturally stabilize or even decline without increased death rates. While it's partly a matter of semantics, I wouldn't call the world's growth rate "pretty constant", since fractions of a percent really add up over time. It's also not clear to me that war necessarily results in a "sharply negative" growth rate. For instance, there's no downward spike at all during either World Wars in this graph or in similar ones I found.
Any *fixed* growth rate on a bounded earth is going to run into problems, but growth rates aren't fixed. So long as the annual growth rate decreases to 0 sufficiently quickly, the earth's population will be bounded. This is a somewhat unintuitive result of infinite series. You can keep adding to something, but so long as you add "slowly" enough you don't have to reach infinity.
Education is a big factor in industrialization and ultimately in population control. Those "sob-story" TV ads typically mention education as well as other basic necessities like food. Whether or not those programs are good in the long-term is at best debatable.
A similar argument to yours suggests that people deny themselves treatment for any heritable disease, or at least never procreate once they find out they have such a disease, since in the long term it will be harmful to the population to have bad genes floating around. That is, it's not just the 3rd world that's sub-optimal. If you want to let poor children die for their non-existent descendant's good, you might have to radically change your own life too. It's not a terribly large step from there to deny massively expensive treatment designed to prolong the life of the elderly. Whether or not these are good ideas is difficult to say, and requires quite a bit more analysis than you've discussed.
The trouble with thinking too far into the future is that we don't know what the future really holds. Hard and fast conclusions are nice to state and make for convenient beliefs, but reality (as always) is more complicated.
Nope, that's a common misconception. The real number is something like 6% of all people who have ever been alive are alive right now.
That's what weasel words are for: "Very few patents are for actual original innovations that warrant an up to 21 year monopoly." Experts can (hopefully) use them to prevent either the truth or their point from being obscured. The OP's technically flawed writing on such an emotionally charged issue that also revolves around a byzantine bureaucracy makes me not want to take their word as gospel truth.
To be clear, by "technically flawed writing" I meant the following little grammatical and general writing issues that individually aren't very important but which add up to a picture of sloppiness about detail: it's "21-year", not "21 year"; ellipses have three dots and not two; ellipses should not be used as a general replacement for commas, colons, semi-colons, and dashes; parenthetical asides should really be optional reading and they should be rare, rather than used at least once each paragraph, sometimes containing vital information; capitalization on "bubble sort" is inconsistent; ... I could go on.
I'm being very superficial, but the LOL and ellipses (...) don't help your case.
Isn't disliking someone for their stupidity or sloppiness personal by definition? I suppose "nothing personal" was just meant as code for "I don't wish he were dead", "I acknowledge he may have good traits", "I don't wish to be confrontational", or something similar.
Or, they typed "3" instead of "2", and "0" instead of "1". I have to admit this is unlikely.
You're equating "bloated" software with software that takes up a lot of hard disk space. The two are correlated, but not equivalent. For instance, I'd gladly accept a 100 GB Visual Studio if it meant every action was instantaneous. I'd be hard-pressed to call this hypothetical software "bloated," since that implies slowness/unresponsiveness. The person I was responding to specifically criticized Visual Studio's size (instead of, say, memory footprint or feature set).
I don't know what you're talking about by your last sentence, which discusses 'taking the pain away.'
At first I thought it had finished loading (the status bar must have gone away, I suppose). So, I opened one of the links in a new tab. That may or may not have done something to make the original tab finish loading....
You might have picked a better criticism of Visual Studio than "it takes up too much hard disk space." That's a pretty weak criticism in today's world of very cheap, very large drives.[on this scale].
At first I thought the interface was awful, but apparently it just takes a while to load.