How much more effort would it be to have someone give out numbers to each person standing in line, then tell them to go away until their number is called? No one gets served without a number. Problem solved.
Er, right, until people trample each other to get to the number dispenser first.
I think it'd be cool if people who duped such items through bugs suffered the consequences through in-game punnishments -- perhaps denizens from some other dimension who want their stolen items back.
Give items a UUID. Keep some kind of loose in-game map of items by UUID. If more than one item with the same UUID appears in the map, and can be verified as being in the game simultaneously, drop the objects from the game.
I've spent the last few days doing some very important searching - we're thinking about launching a new product in a rather arcane field, and I wanted to be absolutely certain who the potential competition might be - hence I decided to search both Google & Yahoo!.
Guess what? Yahoo! search beats Google search, hands down. Not even close.
I had done some vanity searching for a cousin last night using Google and only got results from a handful of sites. I just repeated the same search on Yahoo and got radically more results, all very relevant.
Clearly this is just another data point, but it's clear at the very least that Google has some competition.
I wish the president would have had the gumption to just extend Daylight Savings Time to all year long and ditch the date changes entirely. Nearly every device can be configured to ignore DST changes and it would have saved the world a lot of confusion each year.
First there simply is no "most common action". For example in the control center I prefer to use "apply" and then close while I've seen others use "OK".
In a control panel, Apply typically means to accept the changes and begin using them without leaving the control dialog, while OK typically means to accept the settings and leave. Apply followed by Close is the long form of OK. Multiple clicks instead of one for no reason seems pointless.
There are actual problems to deal with (i.e. lousy parents who don't know what their kids are doing), but there's a problem with this new crop of games. When I was a kid, a video game was having a little round guy eat dots and avoid ghosts. Most of the games I see advertised today have a bunch of guys driving around stealing cars and shooting people.
"Why, when I was young, we had NICE music about falling in love and going for moonlit walks. Today's music is about taking drugs, having casual sex, and banging your head! It's wrong, I tell you!"
I've noticed if one posts anything on Slashdot going "against the grain" of popularity (differing views on War in Iraq, Linux or Apple for example) The mods immediately presume your post is either a "Troll" or "Flamebait".
In this case, it's been generally accepted for decades on Usenet and other discussion venues that bringing up abortion, gun control, etc. in places that aren't devoted to those topics is trolling and/or flamebaiting, mostly due to the massive arguments that result.
I tried to explain, briefly, why I was happy it was all working, but it sounded so trivial in 25 words or less and the reaction was... three hours to cut up a bunch of pics?
Geeks like us appreciate not having to do the same thing multiple times, particularly if it's mindless work. You avoided mindless work by creating something which you can reuse later to continue avoiding mindless work. Sounds fine to me!
Since a person is usually thicker than the shield, the probability of hitting an atom in the person's body is much higher than hitting an atom in the lead shield.
This ignores the differences in atomic mass and matter density between the shield and a person. A dense lattice of highly-massive atoms would be much more likely for an inbound particle to interact with than the person behind it.
No kidding. I was once forced to learn and use the OO C++ API created for it. It *looked* nice and OO, but all manner of terrible beasties hid behind it. I suspect someone specified the interface but didn't sufficiently specify its implementation semantics for the developers who fleshed it out. It was a great example of an OO interface not properly encapsulating complexity of the underlying functionality.
IIRC, Lotus Notes acts like a giant mapped file. Nodes are allocation blocks within that file and act as a linked list within the file. It provides data storage along with metadata. Everything is poorly layered on top of this.
One of the biggest gotchas I remember in the C++ API was that it tried to present a hierarchical, path-based system like a filesystem, but to find all nodes in some/path/string you had to scan the entire database. The API did not document this and the interface layout actually suggested that this was not necessary.
I don't understand how this is any more different then accessing a web server.
This is precisely why I was using web server analogies, which you keep ignoring.
In this regard, I think an unlocked car is a good analogy. There is no implicit permission to use it simply because it's unsecured. The courts and the vast majority of people agree on this.
Pulling the handle on a car door is essentially asking the door for permission to enter. By unlatching the door and allowing it to open, it is accepting your request. I know of no one who legitimately thinks that this means you can enter and use the car.
Slashdot Mirror
How much more effort would it be to have someone give out numbers to each person standing in line, then tell them to go away until their number is called? No one gets served without a number. Problem solved.
Er, right, until people trample each other to get to the number dispenser first.
Citizens of Virginia? Well, I have a globe of United States that you might be intested in buying!
Perhaps it would surprise you that "citizen" can refer to the resident of a city, state, province, nation, etc.
I think it'd be cool if people who duped such items through bugs suffered the consequences through in-game punnishments -- perhaps denizens from some other dimension who want their stolen items back.
Give items a UUID. Keep some kind of loose in-game map of items by UUID. If more than one item with the same UUID appears in the map, and can be verified as being in the game simultaneously, drop the objects from the game.
P2P is to the RIAA what FOSS is to Microsoft: a possible monopoly breaker. You can see why they hate it.
This seems plausible, since Microsoft seems to support SCO's noises about FOSS (Linux in particular) stealing IP from closed-source projects.
If that were the case, they'd flood P2P with their own music. They're not.
Why join 'em when you can beat 'em?
It is an old problem with gods - you don't know what they want..
s/gods/women/
And change the combination on my luggage!
1 2 3 4 5? That's amazing! I've got the same combination on my luggage!
Could it be that the bogon is the negative information mediator particle?
I've spent the last few days doing some very important searching - we're thinking about launching a new product in a rather arcane field, and I wanted to be absolutely certain who the potential competition might be - hence I decided to search both Google & Yahoo!.
Guess what? Yahoo! search beats Google search, hands down. Not even close.
I had done some vanity searching for a cousin last night using Google and only got results from a handful of sites. I just repeated the same search on Yahoo and got radically more results, all very relevant.
Clearly this is just another data point, but it's clear at the very least that Google has some competition.
I wish the president would have had the gumption to just extend Daylight Savings Time to all year long and ditch the date changes entirely. Nearly every device can be configured to ignore DST changes and it would have saved the world a lot of confusion each year.
Until the next time someone decided to change it.
First there simply is no "most common action". For example in the control center I prefer to use "apply" and then close while I've seen others use "OK".
In a control panel, Apply typically means to accept the changes and begin using them without leaving the control dialog, while OK typically means to accept the settings and leave. Apply followed by Close is the long form of OK. Multiple clicks instead of one for no reason seems pointless.
There are actual problems to deal with (i.e. lousy parents who don't know what their kids are doing), but there's a problem with this new crop of games. When I was a kid, a video game was having a little round guy eat dots and avoid ghosts. Most of the games I see advertised today have a bunch of guys driving around stealing cars and shooting people.
"Why, when I was young, we had NICE music about falling in love and going for moonlit walks. Today's music is about taking drugs, having casual sex, and banging your head! It's wrong, I tell you!"
I read the GP's text as meaning they were "extremely good" at making money.
Well, if a newspaper reports something that you don't like, then I do not consider breaking ties with that newspaper as ethical.
Unwise, maybe. Unethical? How does Google doing this harm anyone but themselves?
Oh, first post!
Not only does this look childish and detract from an otherwise-insightful post, but you didn't even get FP.
At the onset of conscious awareness? That happens after birth.
Er, how do you know this, then?
I've noticed if one posts anything on Slashdot going "against the grain" of popularity (differing views on War in Iraq, Linux or Apple for example) The mods immediately presume your post is either a "Troll" or "Flamebait".
In this case, it's been generally accepted for decades on Usenet and other discussion venues that bringing up abortion, gun control, etc. in places that aren't devoted to those topics is trolling and/or flamebaiting, mostly due to the massive arguments that result.
You can't examine gravity-less growth of plants, formation of crystals, diffusion of liquids and all kinds of processes that simply take time.
"Gravity-less" is not correct. Even "microgravity" is a misnomer. "Micro-acceleration" would be a better term.
So, I release early, I release often, and I listen closely to the feedback. Users get what they want, and I get what I want.
http://agilemanifesto.org/
I tried to explain, briefly, why I was happy it was all working, but it sounded so trivial in 25 words or less and the reaction was... three hours to cut up a bunch of pics?
Geeks like us appreciate not having to do the same thing multiple times, particularly if it's mindless work. You avoided mindless work by creating something which you can reuse later to continue avoiding mindless work. Sounds fine to me!
Since a person is usually thicker than the shield, the probability of hitting an atom in the person's body is much higher than hitting an atom in the lead shield.
This ignores the differences in atomic mass and matter density between the shield and a person. A dense lattice of highly-massive atoms would be much more likely for an inbound particle to interact with than the person behind it.
That appears to use a different definition of the word "geek" than typically used on Slashdot.
And the API is no great shakes, either.
No kidding. I was once forced to learn and use the OO C++ API created for it. It *looked* nice and OO, but all manner of terrible beasties hid behind it. I suspect someone specified the interface but didn't sufficiently specify its implementation semantics for the developers who fleshed it out. It was a great example of an OO interface not properly encapsulating complexity of the underlying functionality.
IIRC, Lotus Notes acts like a giant mapped file. Nodes are allocation blocks within that file and act as a linked list within the file. It provides data storage along with metadata. Everything is poorly layered on top of this.
One of the biggest gotchas I remember in the C++ API was that it tried to present a hierarchical, path-based system like a filesystem, but to find all nodes in some/path/string you had to scan the entire database. The API did not document this and the interface layout actually suggested that this was not necessary.
I don't understand how this is any more different then accessing a web server.
This is precisely why I was using web server analogies, which you keep ignoring.
In this regard, I think an unlocked car is a good analogy. There is no implicit permission to use it simply because it's unsecured. The courts and the vast majority of people agree on this.
Pulling the handle on a car door is essentially asking the door for permission to enter. By unlatching the door and allowing it to open, it is accepting your request. I know of no one who legitimately thinks that this means you can enter and use the car.