Or farmers can call a couple of different markets to see what price their crops will fetch instead of just picking one and hope it works out...
There was a post here in a similar discussion a few months back, some guy who had lived in the 3rd world in the Peace Corps gave a few reasons he'd rather have a cell phone than running water.
I wouldn't worry so much about the quests as the skills/spells/gear etc.
If you think people obsessively spreadsheet their min/max now, just wait 'till the code is out there.
But maybe it wouldn't make much difference, on a popular game people are willing to spend hours and hours experimenting with min/max theories, and come up with pretty overpowered stuff.
The biggest problem I've read with more insulation is that you never get fresh air. Old houses would leak enough air that you would constantly get fresh air through some leak. People in newer houses would get sick because they were constantly breathing stale air.
So you add an air exchanger to force fresh air in/out.
Very common in cold climates, well insulated houses are not controversial in Canada.
There's no reason why different window managers shouldn't call the same routine for creating a thumbnail image, for example, and the user can choose the library that does that best, without changing the WM.
No reason at all, unless you count 1) getting everyone in the world to agree to do it in the first place 2) getting everyone in the world to agree on the mechanism.
Even a half-assed spec would be miles ahead of today's mess. If anyone comes out with a rational, well-thought out spec that isn't welded to a particular vendor, the market will be all over it like rabid piranhas.
Wouldn't it be nice if your rack had 1 big power supply with standardized plugs, that every vendor's kit would plug into, instead of individual power supplies (and tiny screeching fans) for every box in the rack?
Since the industry has completely failed on this front, maybe it's time for an "EnergyStar Rack Certification" with compliance specs and a cute logo.
I'm no AC engineer, but maybe it makes sense to have 1 big fan at the top and a standardized duct fitting on every racked unit, helping to pull hot air right out of the rack.
My point is that when you start packing that much stuff into a small space there's got to be a better way to share power/heat/whatever than what we're doing now, and if the gov't has to be the one to set the spec, it's only because the industry couldn't get their head out of their collective ass and set one themselves.
At this point I think we're just trying to prevent the other fella getting the last word...
re: research the Brits would have let you build all the Spitfires etc. you wanted in 1939. Admittedly the brits didn't have any tanks worth building at the time (or maybe ever, but that's a flamewar for another day).
re: air superiority if you'd started earlier just think how much quicker you'd have achieved it:)
If the US had joined at the beginning of WW2 and scratched together some troops in France a la the BEF they would have gotten pwned just as badly as the French and Brits, fer sure.
I believe the US could have made a valuable contribution to the defence of Britain in 1939/40 with airpower, AA, logistical support and even troops had the Battle of Britain been lost. I also believe the US Navy could have played a meaningful role during that time.
But the US didn't jump in, at least in part because they thought the UK was doomed and didn't want to back a loser.
I agree that the US couldn't have snapped their fingers in Sept 1939 and had the 82nd airborne spring fully formed from the forehead of Zeus... but there's a lot of difference between 'I don't have the perfect thing to help you out' and 'I cannot help you at all'.
'The perfect is the enemy of the good.' - Voltaire
Actually, we gave a lot of our WW1 junk to the UK. Destroyers for bases comes to mind.
A shrewd business deal that cost no american lives and benefited the US.
Your calling 80 Canadian pilots a "real contribution" but not giving the United States any credit for the destroyers agreement, lend-lease or actively engaging in hostilities against the Kriegsmarine while still neutral? That doesn't make much sense to me.
The battle of britain was won by the narrowest of margins. wikipedia says the RAF only had ~1100 pilots, without pilots from third-rate powers like CA AU NZ etc they may well have lost. A few hundred US pilots would have been very welcome.
The allies would not have won without lend-lease, but it cost no american lives and they only got around to it 18 months into the war.
I don't know much about the US navy vs kriegsmarine but wikipedia says they only lost 1 US ship...
I'm not saying the US didn't do anything, I'm saying they did comparatively little considering their size, wealth, and industrial capacity.
You might want to consider reading some history before you bemoan how the United States "sat out" the first half of WW2. Even if the American people were inclined to get involved (they weren't) the United States didn't really have much of a military to speak of in those years. The only branch of the American armed forces that was remotely ready for war was the US Navy. The US Army and Army Air Corps were a joke and meaningful American intervention simply wasn't possible until late 1942/early 1943. As opposed to the massive Canadian military juggernaut of 1939 that was straining at the leash, ready for action?
Slashdot Mirror
Toronto weather is tropical compared to the rest of Canada. Go get a job for a law firm in Winnipeg for a couple of years.
6 pleasant months in Edmonton? Must have been May - Oct.
Many problems don't benefit from parallelism.
"The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned." - Fred Brooks, The Mythical Man Month
Or farmers can call a couple of different markets to see what price their crops will fetch instead of just picking one and hope it works out...
There was a post here in a similar discussion a few months back, some guy who had lived in the 3rd world in the Peace Corps gave a few reasons he'd rather have a cell phone than running water.
I wouldn't worry so much about the quests as the skills/spells/gear etc.
If you think people obsessively spreadsheet their min/max now, just wait 'till the code is out there.
But maybe it wouldn't make much difference, on a popular game people are willing to spend hours and hours experimenting with min/max theories, and come up with pretty overpowered stuff.
Wild Ass Guess - you might be able to count a bunch of Alaska as technically desert, i.e. really low snowfalls 'coz it's too cold.
The biggest problem I've read with more insulation is that you never get fresh air. Old houses would leak enough air that you would constantly get fresh air through some leak. People in newer houses would get sick because they were constantly breathing stale air.
So you add an air exchanger to force fresh air in/out.
Very common in cold climates, well insulated houses are not controversial in Canada.
Yes, let's please open up the market so I can be sodomized by the Yank cable companies and telcos instead of Rogers/Bell.
Most of the posts on this thread are Americans complaining about their ISPs doing the same thing.
He was basically saying "All this effort and you suck so completely it is incredible".
In Slashdot's defense I haven't yet seen a web-based forum that achieves the functionality and usability of 30-year usenet software.
I'm pissing on web forums in general, here's someone's chance to jump in and show me one that doesn't suck.
That would definitely add insight and value to the discussion.
WOULD NOT!!!!
WOULD TOO!!!!
WOULD NOT!!!!
WOULD TOO!!!!
Soon you'll have recreated the functionality of a late 80's usenet client.
There's no reason why different window managers shouldn't call the same routine for creating a thumbnail image, for example, and the user can choose the library that does that best, without changing the WM.
No reason at all, unless you count
1) getting everyone in the world to agree to do it in the first place
2) getting everyone in the world to agree on the mechanism.
How hard could that be?
You enjoyed the Diablo plot? Seriously?
They might be dumb instead of slimy...
Even a half-assed spec would be miles ahead of today's mess. If anyone comes out with a rational, well-thought out spec that isn't welded to a particular vendor, the market will be all over it like rabid piranhas.
Wouldn't it be nice if your rack had 1 big power supply with standardized plugs, that every vendor's kit would plug into, instead of individual power supplies (and tiny screeching fans) for every box in the rack?
Since the industry has completely failed on this front, maybe it's time for an "EnergyStar Rack Certification" with compliance specs and a cute logo.
I'm no AC engineer, but maybe it makes sense to have 1 big fan at the top and a standardized duct fitting on every racked unit, helping to pull hot air right out of the rack.
My point is that when you start packing that much stuff into a small space there's got to be a better way to share power/heat/whatever than what we're doing now, and if the gov't has to be the one to set the spec, it's only because the industry couldn't get their head out of their collective ass and set one themselves.
At this point I think we're just trying to prevent the other fella getting the last word...
re: research the Brits would have let you build all the Spitfires etc. you wanted in 1939. Admittedly the brits didn't have any tanks worth building at the time (or maybe ever, but that's a flamewar for another day).
re: air superiority if you'd started earlier just think how much quicker you'd have achieved it :)
If the US had joined at the beginning of WW2 and scratched together some troops in France a la the BEF they would have gotten pwned just as badly as the French and Brits, fer sure.
I believe the US could have made a valuable contribution to the defence of Britain in 1939/40 with airpower, AA, logistical support and even troops had the Battle of Britain been lost. I also believe the US Navy could have played a meaningful role during that time.
But the US didn't jump in, at least in part because they thought the UK was doomed and didn't want to back a loser.
I agree that the US couldn't have snapped their fingers in Sept 1939 and had the 82nd airborne spring fully formed from the forehead of Zeus... but there's a lot of difference between 'I don't have the perfect thing to help you out' and 'I cannot help you at all'.
'The perfect is the enemy of the good.' - Voltaire
Your turn :)
'coz you know that some random guy on the internet always takes a nuanced view of another country's conduct during the second world war...
Seriously, we could go back and forth on principled vs. chicken but I think a fellow's opinion really comes down to which country you're from :)
Actually, we gave a lot of our WW1 junk to the UK. Destroyers for bases comes to mind.
A shrewd business deal that cost no american lives and benefited the US.Your calling 80 Canadian pilots a "real contribution" but not giving the United States any credit for the destroyers agreement, lend-lease or actively engaging in hostilities against the Kriegsmarine while still neutral? That doesn't make much sense to me.
The battle of britain was won by the narrowest of margins. wikipedia says the RAF only had ~1100 pilots, without pilots from third-rate powers like CA AU NZ etc they may well have lost. A few hundred US pilots would have been very welcome.The allies would not have won without lend-lease, but it cost no american lives and they only got around to it 18 months into the war.
I don't know much about the US navy vs kriegsmarine but wikipedia says they only lost 1 US ship...
I'm not saying the US didn't do anything, I'm saying they did comparatively little considering their size, wealth, and industrial capacity.
The same thing Canada did, throw out the leftover WW1 junk and build everything from scratch.
On the 1st of September 1939, the Royal Canadian Air Force strength was 4,061 officers and airmen. They were scattered throughout eight regular squadrons flying a total of 270 aircraft of twenty different types. 146 of these machines were designated as training or transport aircraft and only 19 Hurricanes and 10 Battles could be called first line service types.
By the summer of 1940 Canada was able to make a real contribution to the battle of Britain:
By far the largest number of defenders were British, but fighter pilots of many other nations flew with them, including some 80 Canadians. Of these, 26 were in the RCAF's No. 1 Squadron, which arrived soon after Dunkirk; 16 flew as a team in the RAF's 242 "Canadian" Squadron; the rest were scattered among a dozen other RAF squadrons.
Britain wasn't exactly loaded for bear, either.
Do you suppose he's bombarded with high quality pitches on a regular day?
It'll just be a different flavor of suck.
carb? Just how old will the junker be?
Isn't the US supposed to be the good guy?
I'm pretty sure someone has RAIDed every storage device in the world by now, if only to see if it can be done.
http://ohlssonvox.8k.com/fdd_raid.htm