The D-pad, shoulder buttons, and four standard buttons are pressure sensitive.
Only L3, R3 (the "screw up your direction" buttons), start, select, and the analog-enable switch are not encoded as 8-bit variable buttons.
It's the reason that, say, this pad claims 12 pressure-sensitive buttons and this write-up on wikipedia says that all of the buttons except the aforementioned buttons are pressure-sensitive. They're admittedly hard to press lightly, but they're pressure sensitive.
Clicking on the drop-down and going to "Find More Providers..." takes you to this page, loaded with six new search providers and sixteen topic-specific search providers (e.g. Wikipedia).
When you first install Firefox, Google comes up as the search-engine choice. How is this significantly different? Google is suggesting that Microsoft should unduly burden the user with making a one-time choice on first use in lieu of choosing a reasonable default. If Google were the default choice, no such complaint of unfairness would come from them. What likely bothers them more than anything is their alphabetic arrangement with AOL, Ask.com, Lycos, MSN, and Yahoo. Google ends up in the middle of peers, rather than being treated as an exalted ruler among search engines.
There is no unfair barrier to entry here, and to make a reference to antitrust litigation is childish, at best.
I've used quite a few options, including gear from Echo, MOTU, M-Audio, RME, and Digidesign.
Easily the most robust hardware for me has been the Presonus Firepod. 24/96 8-in/8-out with on my crappy Dell Inspiron 700m with a 4200 RPM hard drive in Vegas. Their drivers may not have a bunch of shiny bells and whistles, but, when it comes to the business of actually laying down audio to disk, they just work.
On top of that, the pre-amps are really good, leaving you with a device with good sound quality and robust operation at a low price. Pointing out that you can run three together for 24-channel goodness almost seems like rubbing it in.
If you're looking to record your audio without headaches, grab a Firepod and get to it.
I don't have a MacBook Pro (so I haven't given this a shot) but people wanting to wide-screen F.E.A.R. should look here. It's a pretty easy hack to get the game running properly on wide-screen displays.
Someone needs to have their name put on the interval between such occurences. These sorts of things are only for people who think that "Information Theory" might have been that group with Kurt Harland and James Cassidy.
It appears that you're the one asserting victory without proof.
He largely doesn't have to say anything because your point is completely, on its face, absurd.
It's not a matter of whether a law is good or bad. It's a matter of a law being unconstitutional, thus violating the protections that we put in place for the rights of entities in this nation. If those protections are provided only to those capable of funding a fight against the legislature, protection is only provided for the wealthy.
If the legislature is forced to pay for attempts at violating the rights of others, that legislature *should* be less likely to make such attempts.
But let's look at some of these arguments, just in case Godwin is on vacation:
"hyperbole"
You have a government body trying to remove content they don't like.
This isn't hyperbole at all. This is a government body trying to pressure local businesses into removing content from store shelves. I can think of very few ways in which this might be less hyperbolic.
"straw man" Are car manufacturers irresponsible for selling a product that some people use to kill others? Or is it the person driving the car thats (sic) responsible?
I'd have to say that this is an attempt at a straw man, but misses the mark by largely superceding the argument in question. Anyone who actually uses Bully to kill, or even harm, someone is laudably/laughably determined. The product just plainly isn't going to help you in the commission of a crime.
"ad hominem"
People like you really piss me off.
This is a common (possibly only common on the internet) misunderstanding of argumenta ad hominem. He didn't say "People like you really piss me off, therefore, you are wrong." He merely stated that he reacts a certain way to a group with which he associates the parent poster. He drew no logical conclusion from this.
I typically like to categorize arguments such as these, that falsely cite logical fallacies, as argumenta reproba rectum, which, for latin nerds, is hopefully funny at least once.
He didn't say that no Mac server admin knew what "headless" meant. He was talking about the majority that he knows. That said, I'd wager that the bulk of server admins out there don't know what headless means. The bulk of servers administered is likely a different story.
Who cares if it's a middle finger or an homage? Are we actually going to penalize artists for using other sources as inspiration, or even as the roots of ideas, when they don't actually violate copyright in the true sense of it? What if I thought that DVC did a crappy job on the topic? Do I have to go to Dan Brown for permission to talk about it? That's pretty absurd...
If I made an all powerful comic book character with one mineral-related (sure, radation-related, but, if you jumped out of your chair to argue, go cry yourself to sleep in a corner, lonely man) weakness, would I be under the thumb of DC?
If I played music constructed of only three chords and the endless whining brought on by a distaste for my middle-class parents, would I be sued by Green Day?
Vampire lore, talking about Mickey Mouse, ducks without clothes, ACME, sex in strange places (who came up with those web sites?), word processors, talking pigs, bullet time, Al Pacino as satan...
The list goes on and on, but very few ideas in media and art are completely original. If someone didn't actually copy (yes, word for word) your work, it doesn't seem that you should have any say in the matter.
Microsoft restricts unit for-sale prices on items (like everyone in this industry), keeping vendors from charging natural prices based on availability.
Microsoftlimits stock to create an artificial shortage.
Best Buy execs push $/sqft numbers as paramount, replacing underperforming managers.
What happens? The people at the end of this chain get cut off. Aren't we supposed to be hating on Microsoft here?
I didn't say that all problems are the customer's fault, and your attempt to lump personal responsibility with MPAA and RIAA positions is both childish and absurd.
I said that the customers "should, at least, bear some responsibility for their actions."
Customers who sign on for password-based services should be apprised of the risks involved in divulging information pertaining to their accounts. If that information is provided to others when they merely ask for it, how is the bank to keep the customer protected? Should they just eat the cost for some stupid customers? Should we?
I don't know about you, but I didn't sign on for an insurance-style amortization-of-transient-stupidity scheme when I put my money in my credit union. At least something along the lines of the $50 max for pre-report stolen-card use costs would put some responsibility on those closest to the source of the problem.
There could be meritous arguments to both of the sides here, but yours isn't one of them.
This is much closer to forcing Ford to give you a new car because you handed the keys to your car to someone with the promise of a better car in return. Absolutist inanity like "they should protect their customers" is absurd. The best way to protect customers from fraud involving online banking would be to stop online banking. This is clearly not acceptible, so a more reasonable solution must be found. Making banks responsible for the actions of their customers lifts the responsibility from those who should, at least, bear some responsibility for their actions.
He's right about this, and it's good to see that at least one person (and it just happens to be the man at the top) understands that UI simplicity to the point of feature removal is function following form.
It's also nice to see someone dogging the majority user argument. The only argument I regularly encounter that is more idiotic than the majority user argument is the 90% of users argument when discussing features (a factitious variant of the majority user argument). Unless that fabricated 10% is the same 10% every time the other 90% is made up, you'll end up with every user having a problem.
You can't copyright information. You can only copyright media presenting that information.
If google wants to look at the subway time-table and relay that information to someone else, NYC has no right to stop them. Merely taking the NYC subway maps and scaling them for distribution on an iPod does violate copyright.
The only reason that this posting is news is that, up to now, Java programs haven't been as fast as C++ programs in the general case. Given the overwhelming experiential evidence, it would seem that the Java bigots are the ones who need to make more of a case than "it is faster because I say so." Quake 2 running on Java is a start. Quake 4 having shipped as full Java would have been a big win. That this post isn't being brushed off as non-news bears out my point.
This is really the conflation of two orthogonal arguments, though, and we should take care to avoid treating languages and their compilation/execution mechanisms as locked behaviors.
When the Cell takes over, we'll all be stuck writing for SPEs in straight C.
I think the problem for racing games is that they aren't afforded the high motion-sensitivity of our peripheral vision. That's what makes those regions flying by feel so quick. Look at the trees with the center of your vision as they fly by and they don't feel quite as fast.
This doesn't excuse the "tunnel-vision" that they seem to be going for in racing games.
I'm okay with people staking claims on the moon provided that a few conditions are met:
Plots are assumed by flag-planting and are arranged by latitude and longitude. Polar plots are comprised of larger longitudinal sections to balance out the area covered by each plot. These plots are small (no larger than one square mile).
Claim-stakers must take a standard 20 kilogram flag and plant it on the center of each plot to acquire it. That flag must be brought from sea level on Earth to the moon entirely intact (no building the flag in space). The flag must be visible from Earth once planted, and it must bear the signature of the owner. It must also be brought in person. If a robot plants the flag, that robot owns the plot.
For claims to be complete, claim-stakers must return to Earth (sea level) 20 kilogram soil samples from the moon from the planting-places of their flags. This will allow indirect surveying of the moon's composition.
Plots may not be sold directly. Plot owners may grant permission to other parties to lay new claim to their plots, but new claim-stakers must follow the rules governing virgin claim-stakers.
That's a false dichotomy, and I sincerely hope that you know it.
To say that Slashdot carries disproportionate numbers of Apple and Google stories is not the same as saying that Slashdot should stop covering Apple and Google. Neither is desirable, but there exists a happy medium in this case that would better serve the Slashdot-reading public.
That your comment (at the time of this writing) has been modded up indicates to me that the Slashdot-reading public may be getting exactly what it deserves.
Instead of "how to balance the nationalistic pride of the inhabitants of Taiwan against the nationalistic pride of the inhabitants of mainland China" shouldn't we say "how to balance the nationalistic pride of the inhabitants of Taiwan against the imperialistic pride of the government of mainland China?"
Slashdot Mirror
The D-pad, shoulder buttons, and four standard buttons are pressure sensitive.
Only L3, R3 (the "screw up your direction" buttons), start, select, and the analog-enable switch are not encoded as 8-bit variable buttons.
It's the reason that, say, this pad claims 12 pressure-sensitive buttons and this write-up on wikipedia says that all of the buttons except the aforementioned buttons are pressure-sensitive. They're admittedly hard to press lightly, but they're pressure sensitive.
Clicking on the drop-down and going to "Find More Providers..." takes you to this page, loaded with six new search providers and sixteen topic-specific search providers (e.g. Wikipedia).
When you first install Firefox, Google comes up as the search-engine choice. How is this significantly different? Google is suggesting that Microsoft should unduly burden the user with making a one-time choice on first use in lieu of choosing a reasonable default. If Google were the default choice, no such complaint of unfairness would come from them. What likely bothers them more than anything is their alphabetic arrangement with AOL, Ask.com, Lycos, MSN, and Yahoo. Google ends up in the middle of peers, rather than being treated as an exalted ruler among search engines.
There is no unfair barrier to entry here, and to make a reference to antitrust litigation is childish, at best.
I've used quite a few options, including gear from Echo, MOTU, M-Audio, RME, and Digidesign.
Easily the most robust hardware for me has been the Presonus Firepod. 24/96 8-in/8-out with on my crappy Dell Inspiron 700m with a 4200 RPM hard drive in Vegas. Their drivers may not have a bunch of shiny bells and whistles, but, when it comes to the business of actually laying down audio to disk, they just work.
On top of that, the pre-amps are really good, leaving you with a device with good sound quality and robust operation at a low price. Pointing out that you can run three together for 24-channel goodness almost seems like rubbing it in.
If you're looking to record your audio without headaches, grab a Firepod and get to it.
I don't have a MacBook Pro (so I haven't given this a shot) but people wanting to wide-screen F.E.A.R. should look here. It's a pretty easy hack to get the game running properly on wide-screen displays.
The Wide-screen gaming forum has tons of simple fixes for quite a few games.
Yes. Didn't BYTE jump on that one and report it?
That was legendary.
Someone needs to have their name put on the interval between such occurences. These sorts of things are only for people who think that "Information Theory" might have been that group with Kurt Harland and James Cassidy.
I write high-definition video editing software, and I'll be running Vista Ultimate.
I would have expected you to have known this from here, here, or here.
It appears that you're the one asserting victory without proof.
He largely doesn't have to say anything because your point is completely, on its face, absurd.
It's not a matter of whether a law is good or bad. It's a matter of a law being unconstitutional, thus violating the protections that we put in place for the rights of entities in this nation. If those protections are provided only to those capable of funding a fight against the legislature, protection is only provided for the wealthy.
If the legislature is forced to pay for attempts at violating the rights of others, that legislature *should* be less likely to make such attempts.
Godwin trumps all.
But let's look at some of these arguments, just in case Godwin is on vacation:
"hyperbole"
You have a government body trying to remove content they don't like.
This isn't hyperbole at all. This is a government body trying to pressure local businesses into removing content from store shelves. I can think of very few ways in which this might be less hyperbolic.
"straw man"
Are car manufacturers irresponsible for selling a product that some people use to kill others? Or is it the person driving the car thats (sic) responsible?
I'd have to say that this is an attempt at a straw man, but misses the mark by largely superceding the argument in question. Anyone who actually uses Bully to kill, or even harm, someone is laudably/laughably determined. The product just plainly isn't going to help you in the commission of a crime.
"ad hominem"
People like you really piss me off.
This is a common (possibly only common on the internet) misunderstanding of argumenta ad hominem. He didn't say "People like you really piss me off, therefore, you are wrong." He merely stated that he reacts a certain way to a group with which he associates the parent poster. He drew no logical conclusion from this.
I typically like to categorize arguments such as these, that falsely cite logical fallacies, as argumenta reproba rectum , which, for latin nerds, is hopefully funny at least once.
He didn't say that no Mac server admin knew what "headless" meant. He was talking about the majority that he knows. That said, I'd wager that the bulk of server admins out there don't know what headless means. The bulk of servers administered is likely a different story.
One server is a cakewalk. 100?
Who cares if it's a middle finger or an homage? Are we actually going to penalize artists for using other sources as inspiration, or even as the roots of ideas, when they don't actually violate copyright in the true sense of it? What if I thought that DVC did a crappy job on the topic? Do I have to go to Dan Brown for permission to talk about it? That's pretty absurd...
If I made an all powerful comic book character with one mineral-related (sure, radation-related, but, if you jumped out of your chair to argue, go cry yourself to sleep in a corner, lonely man) weakness, would I be under the thumb of DC?
If I played music constructed of only three chords and the endless whining brought on by a distaste for my middle-class parents, would I be sued by Green Day?
Vampire lore, talking about Mickey Mouse, ducks without clothes, ACME, sex in strange places (who came up with those web sites?), word processors, talking pigs, bullet time, Al Pacino as satan...
The list goes on and on, but very few ideas in media and art are completely original. If someone didn't actually copy (yes, word for word) your work, it doesn't seem that you should have any say in the matter.
Not that the law is reasonable...
Let's look at why this happened:
What happens? The people at the end of this chain get cut off. Aren't we supposed to be hating on Microsoft here?
David Pogue is one of the biggest tech-idiots I've ever read.
He's been technically wrong about the Prius, iPod, HDV cameras, the software that I personally work on, and likely a raft of other things...
A prediction from him isn't worth as much as the (digital) paper it's printed (read: displayed) on.
I didn't say that all problems are the customer's fault, and your attempt to lump personal responsibility with MPAA and RIAA positions is both childish and absurd.
I said that the customers "should, at least, bear some responsibility for their actions."
Customers who sign on for password-based services should be apprised of the risks involved in divulging information pertaining to their accounts. If that information is provided to others when they merely ask for it, how is the bank to keep the customer protected? Should they just eat the cost for some stupid customers? Should we?
I don't know about you, but I didn't sign on for an insurance-style amortization-of-transient-stupidity scheme when I put my money in my credit union. At least something along the lines of the $50 max for pre-report stolen-card use costs would put some responsibility on those closest to the source of the problem.
And I've been reading postings on Fark.
There could be meritous arguments to both of the sides here, but yours isn't one of them.
This is much closer to forcing Ford to give you a new car because you handed the keys to your car to someone with the promise of a better car in return. Absolutist inanity like "they should protect their customers" is absurd. The best way to protect customers from fraud involving online banking would be to stop online banking. This is clearly not acceptible, so a more reasonable solution must be found. Making banks responsible for the actions of their customers lifts the responsibility from those who should, at least, bear some responsibility for their actions.
My respect for Linus just went up significantly.
He's right about this, and it's good to see that at least one person (and it just happens to be the man at the top) understands that UI simplicity to the point of feature removal is function following form.
It's also nice to see someone dogging the majority user argument. The only argument I regularly encounter that is more idiotic than the majority user argument is the 90% of users argument when discussing features (a factitious variant of the majority user argument). Unless that fabricated 10% is the same 10% every time the other 90% is made up, you'll end up with every user having a problem.
I tried it with FF on Windows and IE. In IE, it feels great. With FF, it just sticks and sticks and sticks.
You can't copyright information. You can only copyright media presenting that information.
If google wants to look at the subway time-table and relay that information to someone else, NYC has no right to stop them. Merely taking the NYC subway maps and scaling them for distribution on an iPod does violate copyright.
That's it. These people are idiots.
It's time to sell Alaska back...
The only reason that this posting is news is that, up to now, Java programs haven't been as fast as C++ programs in the general case. Given the overwhelming experiential evidence, it would seem that the Java bigots are the ones who need to make more of a case than "it is faster because I say so." Quake 2 running on Java is a start. Quake 4 having shipped as full Java would have been a big win. That this post isn't being brushed off as non-news bears out my point.
This is really the conflation of two orthogonal arguments, though, and we should take care to avoid treating languages and their compilation/execution mechanisms as locked behaviors.
When the Cell takes over, we'll all be stuck writing for SPEs in straight C.
I think the problem for racing games is that they aren't afforded the high motion-sensitivity of our peripheral vision. That's what makes those regions flying by feel so quick. Look at the trees with the center of your vision as they fly by and they don't feel quite as fast.
This doesn't excuse the "tunnel-vision" that they seem to be going for in racing games.
That was the part that I was hoping to sneak in, 'cause that side is for "science."
Touché...
That's a false dichotomy, and I sincerely hope that you know it.
To say that Slashdot carries disproportionate numbers of Apple and Google stories is not the same as saying that Slashdot should stop covering Apple and Google. Neither is desirable, but there exists a happy medium in this case that would better serve the Slashdot-reading public.
That your comment (at the time of this writing) has been modded up indicates to me that the Slashdot-reading public may be getting exactly what it deserves.
Instead of "how to balance the nationalistic pride of the inhabitants of Taiwan against the nationalistic pride of the inhabitants of mainland China" shouldn't we say "how to balance the nationalistic pride of the inhabitants of Taiwan against the imperialistic pride of the government of mainland China?"