The point, for me, is that he's created some usable demos that run from a web page but look and behave like real applications.
The notepad is nothing special, but a lot of his other applications would be cool if they were cross platform. Unfortunately, they're not. They're XUL applications designed to work in Mozilla-based environments. i.e. They're not webapps. They're Mozilla platform applications. Which means that he isn't doing all those cool widgets you see. That's Mozilla doing the grunt work, while he runs a bit of demo code on top.
There's a cool demo of a simple web-based word processor done in PHP, Javascript and XUL.
Which is to say, he figured out how to call "document.designMode = 'On';" and use execCommand to make his toolbar buttons work. (The font sizes listed in 1-7 are always a dead giveaway.)
This is technical nonsense. Just because you have been told that these are your only options does not mean it is true.
So answer the question people are putting in front of you. How do you plan to offer a rich text editor on the order of Microsoft Word without using JavaScript to manipulate the DOM? Keep in mind that the browser Rich Text Editing control is dependent on JavaScript for operation.
Go ahead, tell us. We're listening very closely at the moment. Your answer will mark you as either as an amazing genius or technologically ignorant. If you attempt to evade the issue (like you've been doing), the mods will simply assume you're troll. (As will everyone else.)
I doubt we will switch to dummy terminals but it would certainly lessen the requirement of any particular OS.
Personally, I see us switching to dummy terminals to interface with computers, but home computers will still exist. The idea would be that the "Desktop Computer" as we know it today would disappear and be replaced by a device that is capable of video/audio I/O through devices like your televsion and stereo system (thus allowing you to "watch TV/listen to the Radio" off the Internet, or record your favorite programs from the airwaves) as well as broadcasting desktops to dumb terminal type devices.
So my spouse and I might sit on the couch, each using an inexpensive wireless "laptop" device (that would be extremely thin and power efficient, as the processor is not required to do as much "stuff" as today's desktops) while listening to music in the background. The kids would be in the other room watching television directly streamed from the internet, but rebroadcast to the TV in their room. (Either through ethernet or wireless.)
Google founders, insiders, and employees all like to "raise capital", clearly evident by the torrent of sells.
Indeed. Sells that have already happened.
They've made their money. Now they're sitting down, all fat and happy. We'll see if the sells continue if Google's price drops too far.
Secondly, Google is almost certainly maturing, and that will mean mergers and acquisitions -- usually done through share equity -- COMPLETELY dependent upon the share price staying elevated.
Stock swaps are a way of using Monopoly(TM) money to purchase Monopoly(TM) goods. Google has made precious few aquisitions to date, and in those aquisitions they are believed to have paid cash.
You don't seem to be following the fact that Google isn't doing business the way that Wall Street expects. (Which is to say, reckless and fiscally irresponsible.) Google is performing the market version of putting its credit cards and loan applications away, and paying cash for its new car. If and when Google needs to purchase a new home (i.e. merge with a multi-billion dollar company), we'll see if they start worrying about their stock price.
Not if it's convertable preferred stock. The VCs are able to prevent their shares from being dilluted, then convert them to sellable shares. Depending on how things are setup, their stock may be split between different types of preferred shares.
Granted, I'm not an expert in the market, so you may know more about some of the dynamics. (Series 7, you say? I'm surprised you didn't get a 63 and break into the market.) But what I do know is that VCs invest money in companies that are bound to fail, because they fully expect to make a profit from them. One avenue that seems to be common in recent years is to sell shortly after IPO.
No, I understand the dynamics quite well. Legg Mason owns 4.3 million Class A shares, or about 2% of the company. Google insiders hold 271 million shares, of which 238 million are Class B "preferred". Class B shares get 10 votes to every 1 Class A share, making Legg's voting power 4.3 million votes to Google Insider's 2.4 billion votes.
Thus Google is in a perfect position to tell each and every shareholder in the market to, "buzz off." Even Fidelity and Legg Mason.
All of what you said has ZIP to do with Google. Whether Wall Street likes it or not, they can't do anything about Google's stance.
Shareholders can whine and complain if they want. They're still going to be presented with three options:
1. Sell 2. Don't sell 3. Buy more
(Of course, they could short/put it to offset their losses, but that's beside the point.)
Traditionally, shareholders have weilded a lot of power over a company, because a drop in price significantly inhibits a company's ability to raise capital. The problem here is that Google doesn't need to raise capital. Let me repeat that, Google doesn't need to raise capital. Until a time arrives that they do need to raise capital, Google can continue to ignore the demands of analysts and shareholders alike. (Save for the preferred shareholders, that is, who are directing the company.)
Not to mention that since it has nothing to do with assets, a company can offer a bunch of stock, get real money in return, invest that money into assets held by another company they own, then declare bankruptcy and default on their stock, leaving them with profit (value holding assets) while their "investors" get nothing.
That's a good way to invite an SEC investigation into fraud.
The truth is that it is the investors who make the money. Just not like you'd expect. The process works like this:
Find a "buzzword compliant" venture. It doesn't matter how shakey the product is, it just has to sound good.
Invest a few million into the "buzzword compliant" venture in exchange for preferred stock in the new company.
Once the buzz from the new company reaches the ears of Wall Street, the company IPOs with non-sensical projections of profits.
The preferred stock holders begin to slowly sell off their shares, gaining massive profits from the initial price surge.
The company goes under, and the prefferred shareholders are able to write off their remaining stocks as "massive losses" for tax purposes, while holding huge sums of real cash in their hands. (Usually far more than the invested to begin with.)
High risk investors lose money, and employees are screwed on their stock options. (IIRC. it takes 6 months or so before options can be sold.)
Ultimately, the analysts are saying, "By not giving quarterly guidance you are not letting us do our jobs properly."
And Google is saying, "you're not the people who were supposed to buy our stock. Either learn to accept long term profits, or sell now and go away."
While the long term investors (the kind GOOG wanted in their prospectus) may not need quarterly statements (long term investors can look at annual statements and either dump or buy), however if Google needs to survive in Wall Street, they may need to do both, since not giving quarterly statement introduces a lot of uncertainty.
What does Google need to do to "survive Wall Street?" Unlike many companies, Google is highly profitable and has no need for Wall Street's money at this time. The original shareholders have already made their tidy profits, so now Google can sit and wait while the market fumes over their long term strategy. The market will adjust the price of GOOG if they feel it's too high, then they'll get used to the way Google does business and continue their long term holdings.
Wall Street only has power over a company if a company needs their money. For the first time in a very long time, Wall Street is suddenly finding itself powerless. All Google has to do is not blink, and keep the prefferred shareholders happy.
Two reasons: for the most part, a much of Google stock isn't owned by independent private investors, but by institutional investors like Legg Mason. So in this instance, Google needs to pony up and start talking or the ride might end early.
Might end early? What would Legg Mason do with their shares? Sell them? That doesn't concern Google. They already have the money from the first sale. According to the information on their IPO, they've also been profitable since 2001. So they have no real need to raise capital at the moment, unless they're planning a massive expansion.
Also, Google's reticense supports my assertion that the IPO was a a stock run-up.
A lot of founders got rich on the IPO, just like every other company that smashed into the stock market in recent years. Is it really all that surprising that their stocks were received at a high price?
As for this being a pump and dump scheme, there are a lot easier ways of doing this than setting up a multi-billion dollar company just to dump the stock. Hell, how do you think "financial analysts" make their money?
Step 1: "I believe that stock WXYZ is so great, that I've invested millions in it! You should too!" Step 2: The analyst sells all his shares at the peak price, or on the downturn. Step 3: "I used to believe in stock WXYZ, but now I believe that they have some rough times ahead. I'm selling all my stocks, and you should too!" Step 4: Profit from the poor saps who lost money on your advice! Step 5: Hype your abilities by getting testamonies from the few people who didn't lose money, rinse, and repeat.
Exactly! The shareholders bought what they bought. They were under no false pretenses, and Google doesn't have to do a damn thing to change their practices. If the shareholders don't like it, I'd like to see them sell. I seriously doubt that many of them will actually want to take losses in the hundreds of thousands range and higher, just to make a point to Google.
Actually von Braun thought the Saturn V was a mildly interesting side road - his real interest was in reuseable shuttlecraft.
People keep repeating this, but it just isn't true. The Space Shuttle concept was an offshoot of the Dynasoar which was an offshoot of the Silbervogel (Silverbird). The Sibervogel was Eugen Sänger's baby, not Von Braun's. Sanger died in Berlin, but his concepts were carried forward by the USAF (and later NASA) independent of Von Braun's work. Von Braun actually believed that the Saturn V was the future to space access, and became a big believer in a Saturn V launched Orion. His idea was that the SatV would get the craft up there, then the Orion would take us to other planets.
If the Space Shuttle had been Von Braun's baby, then he wouldn't have resigned in protest when the government cancelled the Saturn V program.
In fact, NASA has (by-and-large) been following von Braun's Shuttle-> Station-> Moon-> Mars plan since the day it changed it's name from NACA.
This has always been NASA's vision as a whole, and has not had all that much to do with Von Braun himself. Von Braun was working to make good on that vision, but he had his own ideas about how it should be accomplished. Most of them featured the Saturn V prominently.
To be fair, the article wasn't clear on whether this was a matter of generating websites or personal portals. The latter is a lot less fluffy, and could be a useful way to organize the information you want to absorb every day.
So the question is, has anyone tried Boxxet? If so, can you provide more details?
If you actually got to the point of needing short-range guns, it would be a massive tactical failure by both parties. Most of the time, space combat would be over before you had ever even figured out where the enemy was. It would be vast stretches of boredom interspersed with short periods of absolute terror.
That's pretty similar to the state of Battleships before Carriers made them obsolete. Battles (what few of them there were) were fought over the horizon, using what little intelligence they had to try to hit the precise point of the enemy vessel. Exercises developed to simulate these conditions were the origins of the "battleship" paper/boardgame.
Unfortunately, this would make _very_ boring games, I think.
It would make a very boring action game. As a strategy game, there are a lot of elements there that can be quite enjoyable. Starfire is an example of a strategic board game based on massive expanses of space and proper weapons ranges. You'll note that kinetic weapons are extremely powerful and difficult to counter, but they also require close quarters. Long range weapons are less powerful and easier to intercept, but can be launched as soon as the opposing force is detected.
I assume I don't need to mention David Weber's books as an example of semi-realistic space combat? Unfortunately, I don't know of any examples of books that cover such combat with a bit more near-future tech. The Harrington and Starfire series do a reasonable job on weaponry, but they absolutely suck when it comes to propulsion. The wedges and impeller drives used by these series are pure science fiction, and significantly change the dynamics of any battle. (Which would otherwise involve complex orbits around nearby bodies.)
You do realize that Ventis have 3 shots in them already, right? A Grande is double shot, and a Tall is one shot. So if you hear someone order a "single shot Grande latte", it means they like warm milk with a bit o' coffee.
Now if you want crazy, consider that I've heard people order Ventis with 6-8 shots in them! I have to wonder how close they are to getting a lethal dose of caffeine*?:-P
* Actually, I checked. Expresso has approximately 100 mg of caffeine, so 8 shots would be 800 mg. You'd need to drink 4 of those Ventis to get close to the lowest recorded fatality from caffeine. More reasonably, you need about 16 or so 8-shot Ventis to hit the LD50 of caffeine.
Here's the source code to it. It's still possible to finish if you can generate enough interest in the idea.
Unfortunately, Crack dot Com was a victim of poor project planning, and Golgatha showed it. It was always one of those "cool ideas" that was never quite fleshed out into something playable. While larger companies can manage to survive such poor planning through deep pockets, it's the kiss of death for smaller ventures like Crack dot Com.
It's too bad that companies always feel such pressure to follow up one success with others even when they're not ready. Had CdC taken more time to develop the technology and concepts they wanted before plunging into a 30K/mo burn rate, they might have become a big player in the industry.:-(
Other than the fact that some of them have big names attached (Bab5, X-Com, Dikantana*cough*), the article doesn't give us a good reason to have wanted these games over the hundreds of others that have never made it out the door. Experience with games that have made it out the door, has shown that that only a small number of them are ever actually worth investing time and money into. Those that are blockbusters or cult favorites usually have something exceptional about them, such as powerful storylines, intense gameplay, or amazing engines.
So quite seriously, what is it that makes these games special?
I just want a medium cup of coffee-flavoured coffee
One Grande coffee (selected from the beans-of-the-day), coming right up! Would you like room in that? (i.e. space for milk and sugar);-)
FYI, most of the terminology stems from specialty drinks that are more than just coffee. Plenty of people get "just coffee" at Starbucks (obstensibly because it "tastes better"), but quite a few want something other than "just coffee". For those people, they can order it just how they like it. They can chose the number of expresso shots, substitute coffee for expresso, add milk in whole or skim forms (latte), ask for flavorings both sugary and sugar free, replace milk with half-and-half (i.e. a "breve"), mix expresso with water (i.e. Americano - Though I personally find this slightly insulting to Americans; many of whom are quite well addicted to strong coffee), add "foam" to the top from steam heating, whip cream on top*, and about a bajillion other little modifications.
Starbucks' entire business is to deliver exactly what people want, even if some of it seems a bit silly or over the top.
* Did you know that whip cream on top of a drink will help seal the cup so that it doesn't spatter while you walk down the street or juggle various items?
Captain Jonas Hanson - The former fiance to Samatha Carter. (Season 1 Ep. 6) Fifth - The Replicator Dude that Sam gets to betray the replicators due to his infatuation with her. He later creates a RepliCarter who becomes a villian.
On the off chance you're not only trying to being funny (hey, Starbucks speak is hard to decode!), he means 4 shots of expresso in a 20 oz cup, mixed with heated, skim milk. Unfortunately, his order is incomplete. How is the Barrista supposed to know if he wants foam or no foam?:-P
I understand that. However, since it is impossible to know your gene type without doing a genetic workup (when was the last time the average person did that?), it makes more sense to just keep the amount of coffee down without necessarily eliminating it.
According to the article, a cup a day is not a major risk. Two to three cups regularly, however, is. From the article:
Slow metabolizers who drank two to three 250-millilitre cups of coffee each day were 36% more likely to have suffered a heart attack than single-cup drinkers.
So if you're a Venti (20 oz/2.5 cups) Starbucks drinker, maybe you should consider cutting back to a tall (12 oz/1.5 cups). And avoid regularly making multiple trips to Starbucks. Once your doctor is able to start testing for this gene, then he can provide more precise recommendations for your genetic type.
In other words, keep it to a cup or two a day and you'll be fine. You may even reap the benefits of Coffee's antioxidants.
If anyone ever tells you to do a lot of anything, run the other way. People have died from everything from eating too much salt to drinking too much carrot juice. Keep your diet balanced and your intakes in moderation, and you'll do far better than chasing around massive doses of things that are "good" for you.
You forgot the Tolan guy. Plus the government ambassador guy who she meets in 2001 and marries in 2010. Not to mention the current head of the NID. There are probably a few more I'm forgetting. That makes 7 right off the bat.
Slashdot Mirror
I find that hard to believe, given that it was invented for Internet Explorer. (That's why the link I posted was to Microsoft.com)
Perhaps you meant that he's figured out how to do essentially the same thing on Mozilla, in which case you may be right (IANAP).
From the source code: Here's the Mozilla doc on the same technology. This page explains the origins of the feature.
The point, for me, is that he's created some usable demos that run from a web page but look and behave like real applications.
The notepad is nothing special, but a lot of his other applications would be cool if they were cross platform. Unfortunately, they're not. They're XUL applications designed to work in Mozilla-based environments. i.e. They're not webapps. They're Mozilla platform applications. Which means that he isn't doing all those cool widgets you see. That's Mozilla doing the grunt work, while he runs a bit of demo code on top.
The apps look really nice, though.
P.S. The clock is Flash.
There's a cool demo of a simple web-based word processor done in PHP, Javascript and XUL.
Which is to say, he figured out how to call "document.designMode = 'On';" and use execCommand to make his toolbar buttons work. (The font sizes listed in 1-7 are always a dead giveaway.)
I'm not impressed.
And again, you've avoided the question. You sir, are a troll. (Mods, please mod accordingly.)
Unless you can do better than "use forms", I think this topic is pretty much closed.
This is technical nonsense. Just because you have been told that these are your only options does not mean it is true.
So answer the question people are putting in front of you. How do you plan to offer a rich text editor on the order of Microsoft Word without using JavaScript to manipulate the DOM? Keep in mind that the browser Rich Text Editing control is dependent on JavaScript for operation.
Go ahead, tell us. We're listening very closely at the moment. Your answer will mark you as either as an amazing genius or technologically ignorant. If you attempt to evade the issue (like you've been doing), the mods will simply assume you're troll. (As will everyone else.)
I doubt we will switch to dummy terminals but it would certainly lessen the requirement of any particular OS.
:-)
Personally, I see us switching to dummy terminals to interface with computers, but home computers will still exist. The idea would be that the "Desktop Computer" as we know it today would disappear and be replaced by a device that is capable of video/audio I/O through devices like your televsion and stereo system (thus allowing you to "watch TV/listen to the Radio" off the Internet, or record your favorite programs from the airwaves) as well as broadcasting desktops to dumb terminal type devices.
So my spouse and I might sit on the couch, each using an inexpensive wireless "laptop" device (that would be extremely thin and power efficient, as the processor is not required to do as much "stuff" as today's desktops) while listening to music in the background. The kids would be in the other room watching television directly streamed from the internet, but rebroadcast to the TV in their room. (Either through ethernet or wireless.)
So goes my vision, anyway.
Google founders, insiders, and employees all like to "raise capital", clearly evident by the torrent of sells.
Indeed. Sells that have already happened.
They've made their money. Now they're sitting down, all fat and happy. We'll see if the sells continue if Google's price drops too far.
Secondly, Google is almost certainly maturing, and that will mean mergers and acquisitions -- usually done through share equity -- COMPLETELY dependent upon the share price staying elevated.
Stock swaps are a way of using Monopoly(TM) money to purchase Monopoly(TM) goods. Google has made precious few aquisitions to date, and in those aquisitions they are believed to have paid cash.
You don't seem to be following the fact that Google isn't doing business the way that Wall Street expects. (Which is to say, reckless and fiscally irresponsible.) Google is performing the market version of putting its credit cards and loan applications away, and paying cash for its new car. If and when Google needs to purchase a new home (i.e. merge with a multi-billion dollar company), we'll see if they start worrying about their stock price.
Not if it's convertable preferred stock. The VCs are able to prevent their shares from being dilluted, then convert them to sellable shares. Depending on how things are setup, their stock may be split between different types of preferred shares.
Granted, I'm not an expert in the market, so you may know more about some of the dynamics. (Series 7, you say? I'm surprised you didn't get a 63 and break into the market.) But what I do know is that VCs invest money in companies that are bound to fail, because they fully expect to make a profit from them. One avenue that seems to be common in recent years is to sell shortly after IPO.
No, I understand the dynamics quite well. Legg Mason owns 4.3 million Class A shares, or about 2% of the company. Google insiders hold 271 million shares, of which 238 million are Class B "preferred". Class B shares get 10 votes to every 1 Class A share, making Legg's voting power 4.3 million votes to Google Insider's 2.4 billion votes.
Thus Google is in a perfect position to tell each and every shareholder in the market to, "buzz off." Even Fidelity and Legg Mason.
All of what you said has ZIP to do with Google. Whether Wall Street likes it or not, they can't do anything about Google's stance.
Shareholders can whine and complain if they want. They're still going to be presented with three options:
1. Sell
2. Don't sell
3. Buy more
(Of course, they could short/put it to offset their losses, but that's beside the point.)
Traditionally, shareholders have weilded a lot of power over a company, because a drop in price significantly inhibits a company's ability to raise capital. The problem here is that Google doesn't need to raise capital. Let me repeat that, Google doesn't need to raise capital. Until a time arrives that they do need to raise capital, Google can continue to ignore the demands of analysts and shareholders alike. (Save for the preferred shareholders, that is, who are directing the company.)
That's a good way to invite an SEC investigation into fraud.
The truth is that it is the investors who make the money. Just not like you'd expect. The process works like this:
Ultimately, the analysts are saying, "By not giving quarterly guidance you are not letting us do our jobs properly."
And Google is saying, "you're not the people who were supposed to buy our stock. Either learn to accept long term profits, or sell now and go away."
While the long term investors (the kind GOOG wanted in their prospectus) may not need quarterly statements (long term investors can look at annual statements and either dump or buy), however if Google needs to survive in Wall Street, they may need to do both, since not giving quarterly statement introduces a lot of uncertainty.
What does Google need to do to "survive Wall Street?" Unlike many companies, Google is highly profitable and has no need for Wall Street's money at this time. The original shareholders have already made their tidy profits, so now Google can sit and wait while the market fumes over their long term strategy. The market will adjust the price of GOOG if they feel it's too high, then they'll get used to the way Google does business and continue their long term holdings.
Wall Street only has power over a company if a company needs their money. For the first time in a very long time, Wall Street is suddenly finding itself powerless. All Google has to do is not blink, and keep the prefferred shareholders happy.
Two reasons: for the most part, a much of Google stock isn't owned by independent private investors, but by institutional investors like Legg Mason. So in this instance, Google needs to pony up and start talking or the ride might end early.
Might end early? What would Legg Mason do with their shares? Sell them? That doesn't concern Google. They already have the money from the first sale. According to the information on their IPO, they've also been profitable since 2001. So they have no real need to raise capital at the moment, unless they're planning a massive expansion.
Also, Google's reticense supports my assertion that the IPO was a a stock run-up.
A lot of founders got rich on the IPO, just like every other company that smashed into the stock market in recent years. Is it really all that surprising that their stocks were received at a high price?
As for this being a pump and dump scheme, there are a lot easier ways of doing this than setting up a multi-billion dollar company just to dump the stock. Hell, how do you think "financial analysts" make their money?
Step 1: "I believe that stock WXYZ is so great, that I've invested millions in it! You should too!"
Step 2: The analyst sells all his shares at the peak price, or on the downturn.
Step 3: "I used to believe in stock WXYZ, but now I believe that they have some rough times ahead. I'm selling all my stocks, and you should too!"
Step 4: Profit from the poor saps who lost money on your advice!
Step 5: Hype your abilities by getting testamonies from the few people who didn't lose money, rinse, and repeat.
Exactly! The shareholders bought what they bought. They were under no false pretenses, and Google doesn't have to do a damn thing to change their practices. If the shareholders don't like it, I'd like to see them sell. I seriously doubt that many of them will actually want to take losses in the hundreds of thousands range and higher, just to make a point to Google.
Actually von Braun thought the Saturn V was a mildly interesting side road - his real interest was in reuseable shuttlecraft.
People keep repeating this, but it just isn't true. The Space Shuttle concept was an offshoot of the Dynasoar which was an offshoot of the Silbervogel (Silverbird). The Sibervogel was Eugen Sänger's baby, not Von Braun's. Sanger died in Berlin, but his concepts were carried forward by the USAF (and later NASA) independent of Von Braun's work. Von Braun actually believed that the Saturn V was the future to space access, and became a big believer in a Saturn V launched Orion. His idea was that the SatV would get the craft up there, then the Orion would take us to other planets.
If the Space Shuttle had been Von Braun's baby, then he wouldn't have resigned in protest when the government cancelled the Saturn V program.
In fact, NASA has (by-and-large) been following von Braun's Shuttle-> Station-> Moon-> Mars plan since the day it changed it's name from NACA.
This has always been NASA's vision as a whole, and has not had all that much to do with Von Braun himself. Von Braun was working to make good on that vision, but he had his own ideas about how it should be accomplished. Most of them featured the Saturn V prominently.
To be fair, the article wasn't clear on whether this was a matter of generating websites or personal portals. The latter is a lot less fluffy, and could be a useful way to organize the information you want to absorb every day.
So the question is, has anyone tried Boxxet? If so, can you provide more details?
If you actually got to the point of needing short-range guns, it would be a massive tactical failure by both parties. Most of the time, space combat would be over before you had ever even figured out where the enemy was. It would be vast stretches of boredom interspersed with short periods of absolute terror.
That's pretty similar to the state of Battleships before Carriers made them obsolete. Battles (what few of them there were) were fought over the horizon, using what little intelligence they had to try to hit the precise point of the enemy vessel. Exercises developed to simulate these conditions were the origins of the "battleship" paper/boardgame.
Unfortunately, this would make _very_ boring games, I think.
It would make a very boring action game. As a strategy game, there are a lot of elements there that can be quite enjoyable. Starfire is an example of a strategic board game based on massive expanses of space and proper weapons ranges. You'll note that kinetic weapons are extremely powerful and difficult to counter, but they also require close quarters. Long range weapons are less powerful and easier to intercept, but can be launched as soon as the opposing force is detected.
I assume I don't need to mention David Weber's books as an example of semi-realistic space combat? Unfortunately, I don't know of any examples of books that cover such combat with a bit more near-future tech. The Harrington and Starfire series do a reasonable job on weaponry, but they absolutely suck when it comes to propulsion. The wedges and impeller drives used by these series are pure science fiction, and significantly change the dynamics of any battle. (Which would otherwise involve complex orbits around nearby bodies.)
I wonder how common [a quadruple venti latte] is?
:-P
You do realize that Ventis have 3 shots in them already, right? A Grande is double shot, and a Tall is one shot. So if you hear someone order a "single shot Grande latte", it means they like warm milk with a bit o' coffee.
Now if you want crazy, consider that I've heard people order Ventis with 6-8 shots in them! I have to wonder how close they are to getting a lethal dose of caffeine*?
* Actually, I checked. Expresso has approximately 100 mg of caffeine, so 8 shots would be 800 mg. You'd need to drink 4 of those Ventis to get close to the lowest recorded fatality from caffeine. More reasonably, you need about 16 or so 8-shot Ventis to hit the LD50 of caffeine.
Here's the source code to it. It's still possible to finish if you can generate enough interest in the idea.
:-(
Unfortunately, Crack dot Com was a victim of poor project planning, and Golgatha showed it. It was always one of those "cool ideas" that was never quite fleshed out into something playable. While larger companies can manage to survive such poor planning through deep pockets, it's the kiss of death for smaller ventures like Crack dot Com.
It's too bad that companies always feel such pressure to follow up one success with others even when they're not ready. Had CdC taken more time to develop the technology and concepts they wanted before plunging into a 30K/mo burn rate, they might have become a big player in the industry.
Other than the fact that some of them have big names attached (Bab5, X-Com, Dikantana*cough*), the article doesn't give us a good reason to have wanted these games over the hundreds of others that have never made it out the door. Experience with games that have made it out the door, has shown that that only a small number of them are ever actually worth investing time and money into. Those that are blockbusters or cult favorites usually have something exceptional about them, such as powerful storylines, intense gameplay, or amazing engines.
So quite seriously, what is it that makes these games special?
I just want a medium cup of coffee-flavoured coffee
;-)
One Grande coffee (selected from the beans-of-the-day), coming right up! Would you like room in that? (i.e. space for milk and sugar)
FYI, most of the terminology stems from specialty drinks that are more than just coffee. Plenty of people get "just coffee" at Starbucks (obstensibly because it "tastes better"), but quite a few want something other than "just coffee". For those people, they can order it just how they like it. They can chose the number of expresso shots, substitute coffee for expresso, add milk in whole or skim forms (latte), ask for flavorings both sugary and sugar free, replace milk with half-and-half (i.e. a "breve"), mix expresso with water (i.e. Americano - Though I personally find this slightly insulting to Americans; many of whom are quite well addicted to strong coffee), add "foam" to the top from steam heating, whip cream on top*, and about a bajillion other little modifications.
Starbucks' entire business is to deliver exactly what people want, even if some of it seems a bit silly or over the top.
* Did you know that whip cream on top of a drink will help seal the cup so that it doesn't spatter while you walk down the street or juggle various items?
A few others:
Captain Jonas Hanson - The former fiance to Samatha Carter. (Season 1 Ep. 6)
Fifth - The Replicator Dude that Sam gets to betray the replicators due to his infatuation with her. He later creates a RepliCarter who becomes a villian.
That makes 9.
On the off chance you're not only trying to being funny (hey, Starbucks speak is hard to decode!), he means 4 shots of expresso in a 20 oz cup, mixed with heated, skim milk. Unfortunately, his order is incomplete. How is the Barrista supposed to know if he wants foam or no foam? :-P
According to the article, a cup a day is not a major risk. Two to three cups regularly, however, is. From the article:
So if you're a Venti (20 oz/2.5 cups) Starbucks drinker, maybe you should consider cutting back to a tall (12 oz/1.5 cups). And avoid regularly making multiple trips to Starbucks. Once your doctor is able to start testing for this gene, then he can provide more precise recommendations for your genetic type.
In other words, keep it to a cup or two a day and you'll be fine. You may even reap the benefits of Coffee's antioxidants.
If anyone ever tells you to do a lot of anything, run the other way. People have died from everything from eating too much salt to drinking too much carrot juice. Keep your diet balanced and your intakes in moderation, and you'll do far better than chasing around massive doses of things that are "good" for you.
You forgot the Tolan guy. Plus the government ambassador guy who she meets in 2001 and marries in 2010. Not to mention the current head of the NID. There are probably a few more I'm forgetting. That makes 7 right off the bat.