When in doubt, simply ask Wikipedia. They have all kinds of information on esoteric topics like baseball, football, the rainforest, lions, tigers, and bears, oh my.
So tell me, which one looks more like the real thing to you? The Atari version (shows some flickering garbage that looks nothing like a baseball game) or the Intellivision version (shows a pixelated game that looks something like baseball)? The choice is clear. The Intellivision lets you play games that look more like the real thing! </george-plimpton>
If you're really a novice programmer then anything you would be likely to save for later will be so simple that when you get to be an intermediate programmer you'll implement it from memory in a few lines (or be aware of library routines that do what you want).
Indeed. If he has a JavaScript library, it's probably something along the lines of the stupid "mm_OpenWindow" "API" that was so popular for a while. (Hello? window.open(), people?) Not to mention antique browser detection routines that just aren't worth the trouble anymore.
You haven't actually coded in JavaScript until you've built Object Oriented libraries, learned to cast everything (stupid loose typing, I want an INT, not a string!), and learned the voodoo of the DOM. (And how Microsoft doesn't support it. Boo! Hiss!)
Actually, it says that only 26% of that land was lost to urbanization. Which means that we drop about 46 million acres from our 232 million acre figure, giving us a total amount of land remaining at 186 million acres. And that doesn't include the land that farmers are leaving bare, as that's still considered farmland. Given that prime farmland areas only lost a small percentage to urbanization (4% in Ohio!), it's reasonable to assume that a good chunk of the poor farm area was urbanized. Also, if you take a tour of the less populated plains in the midwest, you'll find plenty of farms, but you'll still see a lot of good land in an unfarmed condition. (Heck, I used to own a large piece of prime farming property in never-farmed condition that I leased out to the farmer across the street for grazing.)
The conclusion of my reference is the correct one: "The most important factor determining how much cropland would be taken out of production were economic: farmers simply need less land to produce food than in previous periods."
The reduction in farmed land is pretty insignificant and takes place mostly on "highly erodable land" or in buffer zones around water. Neither of these are very appealing places to put back into rotation.
That's not entirely true. We've lost a lot of smaller farms as the farming industry has been consolidated into larger firms. As a result, we've dropped from 1.2 billion acres in the 1960's to ~968 million acres in 1997. That's over 200 million acres (or about 20% of previous capacity) to explain away as poor farmland!
The real answer is, of course, more complex. Farming technology has increased considerably, upping production across all farmland. Production is so high that it's been driving down prices and making it more profitable to convert the land to other uses. (Especially if it's not the creme de la creme of farmland to begin with.) Of the land that's left, the U.S. government actually pays farmers to leave some of it unfarmed. This helps prop up the market by artificially driving down supply to keep pace with the demand. If the demand were to suddenly rise, that farmland would become more profitable to use rather than leave empty.
The second point would be a good one except that replacing crude with corn would take a lot of land. Much more than we make up in increased yields.
That's my point, though. We can use the extra farmland we have lying around That 200 million acres could easily produce ~100 billion gallons of ethanol just from corn. Now if we factor in increases in Sugar Cane production (which is exceedingly poor in South America mostly due to farming through manual labor and wasteful burning of crop husks that could be recycled, and otherwise poor in the states due to overall low demand) we could easily produce enough Ethanol to offer E50 and E85 blends to all consumers. Futher increases in production plus the addition of Bio-diesel to power our trucking infrastructure could easily make up the difference to eliminate petroleum altogether.
In any case, there is a thread about algae elsewhere in this commentary that is worth thinking seriously about. There is also the possibility of using one of the microbes Venter found in his current voyage to extract hydrogen from water.
I'm definitely open to these sorts of concepts. However, in the short term Ethanol allows us to reuse our existing infrastructure and vehicles while new technologies mature and roll out to the market. Plus we have an existing supply to start from that can be ramped up with demand. For all we know, E85 blends with the petroleum coming from algea could be the way of the future.:-)
The reduction in farmed land is pretty insignificant and takes place mostly on "highly erodable land" or in buffer zones around water. Neither of these are very appealing places to put back into rotation.
That's not entirely true. We've lost a lot of smaller farms as the farming industry has been consolidated into larger firms. As a result, we've dropped from 1.2 billion acres in the 1960's to ~968 million acres in 1997. That's over 200 million acres (or about 20% of previous capacity) to explain away as poor farmland!
The real answer is, of course, more complex. Farming technology has increased considerably, upping production across all farmland. Production is so high that it's been driving down prices and making it more profitable to convert the land to other uses. (Especially if it's not the creme de la creme of farmland to begin with.) Of the land that's left, the U.S. government actually pays farmers to leave some of it unfarmed. This helps prop up the market by artificially driving down supply to keep pace with the demand. If the demand were to suddenly rise, that farmland would become more profitable to use rather than leave empty.
The second point would be a good one except that replacing crude with corn would take a lot of land. Much more than we make up in increased yields.
That's my point, though. We can use the extra farmland we have lying around That 200 million acres could easily produce ~100 billion gallons of ethanol just from corn. Now if we factor in increases in Sugar Cane production (which is exceedingly poor in South America mostly due to farming through manual labor and wasteful burning of crop husks that could be recycled, and otherwise poor in the states due to overall low demand) we could easily produce enough Ethanol to offer E50 and E85 blends to all consumers. Futher increases in production plus the addition of Bio-diesel to power our trucking infrastructure could easily make up the difference to eliminate petroleum altogether.
In any case, there is a thread about algae elsewhere in this commentary that is worth thinking seriously about. There is also the possibility of using one of the microbes Venter found in his current voyage to extract hydrogen from water.
I'm definitely open to these sorts of concepts. However, in the short term Ethanol allows us to reuse our existing infrastructure and vehicles while new technologies mature and roll out to the market. Plus we have an existing supply to start from that can be ramped up with demand. For all we know, E85 blends with the petroleum coming from algea could be the way of the future.:-)
The problem is that the used game market has existed for many, many years now, yet we're supposed to believe that it's just having an impact now? Watching my own buying habits as well as the habits of others, I have noticed that they tend to always buy the old stuff. Why?
Price - It's cheaper to purchase old stuff, and you aren't as disappointed if it sucks.
Nostalgia - Players just had more fun with older games. The new games don't seem to offer anything they must have, so they purchase the old game instead.
Poor Options - There are only a few new games I would even consider allowing in my house. The rest are of such a Mature focus that I feel more like it's (sexual/violence) porn than games. If *I* (and many other gamers I've observed) don't want to be exposed to it, why would I want to expose my kids to it? (They have more time to play than I do.)
Marketing - I hate to say it, but the Nintendo Powers and PC Gamers of days gone by just don't exist anymore. In theory, they've been replaced by websites like Gamespot. Unfortunately, sites like Gamespot just don't have the same advertising appeal as a magazine. Also, many magazines publish highly violent or sexual cover pages thinking that it will help the magazine move off the shelf. Instead, it detracts from its professionalism, and can make players embarassed to purchase it at the newsstand. If players never purchase the magazine at the newsstand, how are they ever going to decide on a subscription?
For the games I do buy, I probably would pay full price if I had to.
And that's exactly it. If there was a game that you REALLY wanted, you'd probably run out and buy it in a heartbeat. I know I would. But I haven't seen a SINGLE game like that in a long time. Even big name games like Quake 4 and Doom 3 just don't have that "I want it!" feel to them. I could now purchase both of them at highly discounted prices, but I don't feel the need to. I tried the Doom 3 demo, but I wasn't impressed at all. My wife (a big fan of Q3) shows no interest in Quake 4, either.
The last game I purchased new was Star Trek: Bridge Commander for the PC. Otherwise, older games and the less expensive "casual" gaming have shown to be far more appealing.
Let me explain this to you: Dvorak is what's known in the industry as a "Yellow Journalist". Which is to say that he publishes sensationalist articles designed to elicit a reaction in his readership, despite having little to no facts to support his position. These authors are usually frowned upon by any publication with journalistic integrity. Since PC Magazine has none (and needs the readership), they continue to post his foaming-at-the-mouth drivel.
Every once in awhile, Dvorak manages to hit upon a sensationalist story that's true by pure accident. This then convinces his "fans" that he knows what he's talking about. People then latch onto that single instance of "being right" to accept his pathetically low rate of correct predictions.
Stop listening to this guy. Stop posting his articles. Ban PC Magazine for publishing this nonsense. Otherwise Slashdot becomes just as bad as Dvorak himself.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that an overwhelming majority of those Internet users are part of the so-called Casual Gaming Market. Which means that hardcore games just won't appeal to them. (Never have, never will.) Many of them may not even have a console system, either.
Nintendo is betting a lot of money on the idea that their DS and Revolution systems will reach that market. Given how busy the current adult generation is (not much time for consoles and hardcore computer games), Nintendo may just hit paydirt.
What isn't being talked about is the fact that consumers are buying more games than they ever have. They are just spreading the money out a bit more, putting dollars into the used market, into handheld devices, into services like Live Arcade, and into direct downloads.
So there's no downturn because consumers aren't really abandoning games, they're turning to older , more nastolgic games and don't buy the new stuff? Hmm... I think there's a flaw in the logic there.
In my mind, if gamers aren't paying for new games to be developed, that means the industry is experiencing a downturn. The fact that gamers are buying older and used games only signifies that they don't want the new stuff that's being produced.
Do You think Oracle's lawyer want to tango with RMS and the FSF as an expert witness on the GPL's intentions?
The real question is: Will RMS and the FSF argue against or for Oracle's policies? Remember, RMS wants all software to be free, and MySQL claims that their interpretations of the GPL come from the FSF's FAQ. Considering that you have to link against GPLed drivers to access MySQL, you may find no support from those avenues.
Street Fighter Street Fighter 2010: The Final Fight
Street Fighter 2 - The World Warrior Street Fighter II - Champion Edition Street Fighter II Turbo - Hyper Fighting Street Fighter II - Special Champion Edition Super Street Fighter II - The New Challengers
Street Fighter Alpha - Warriors' Dreams Street Fighter Zero Street Fighter Alpha 2 Street Fighter Zero 2 Street Fighter Alpha 3 Street Fighter Zero 3 Street Fighter Alpha 3 Double Upper Street Fighter Zero Double Upper Street Fighter Alpha 3 Max
Street Fighter III: New Generation Street Fighter III: 2nd Impact - Giant Attack Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike - Fight for the Future
Street Fighter EX Street Fighter EX 2 Street Fighter EX 2 Plus Street Fighter EX 3
X-Men vs. Street Fighter Marvel Super Heroes vs. Street Fighter Marvel vs. Capcom - Clash of Super Heroes Marvel vs. Capcom 2 - New Age of Heroes Capcom vs. SNK: Millennium Fight 2000 Capcom vs. SNK 2: Mark of the Millennium 2001 SNK vs. Capcom: Match of the Millennium SVC Chaos: SNK vs. Capcom
You get all that? Somewhere in Japan there's got to be an entire company held by Capcom producing nothing more than more Street Fighter versions.:-P
What if tillable land became in demand for non-food crops to generate fuel?
We've still got more than enough. Some analysts are put off by the idea of massive increases in farm land, but they tend to ignore the fact that the US farms less land than ever before to produce more crops than ever before. Going back to an increase in farmland would not be difficult, and South America is full of untapped potential through both technological improvements to their farming processes and large amounts of land that can be reassigned to farming duties.
Technology-wise we could also reclaim desert and other hostile areas for farming. However, we're a long way away from even considering such an idea. (With population growth on the decline, we're actually farther than ever.)
He's talking about repeating parts of the movie by using the "Rewind Button" which simulates a tape rewind. That would artifically extend the length of the movie, thus using more battery power.
I think he gets the point that DVDs/UMDs are not VHS tapes.
That's not entirely true. Microsoft will sell you an entire army of tech support drones and Microsoft Certified Support Providers. That way your boss can go back to his boss and say, "Microsoft is working on it." To which your boss's boss will say, "I'm glad we paid for Microsoft! Just imagine how difficult it would be to get support if we paid for Linux!" Thus your boss's neck is saved from the chopping block by simply passing the buck.
If your boss decided to keep things internal, he'd have to tell his boss, "We're working on the problem right now and hope to have it fixed soon. We could purchase support from company XYZ to speed up the process." To which your boss's boss will say, "If we're supporting it internally, why did it break in the first place and when is it going to be fixed? Is that third party the vendor? Then how do they know anything about anything?" If he gives the answer, "See, this open source stuff...," he'll hear the words, "You're fired!" before he finishes the sentence.
Of course, your boss's boss may be smarter than that. But many managers won't take the that risk with their own necks.
That is a little tricky, but i'm sure it wouldn't take long to for someone to write a library so that nobody ever has to use MYSQL's library.
Oracle could merely do with that project what MySQL did to the LGPLed JDBC driver: Buy them out and relicense before the project is fully compatible. RMS would then hail them as true heros for relicensing under the GPL rather than the LGPL.
Why? You could take a public defender and beat Oracle every single time.
Public Defenders are for criminal cases. AFAIK, the court will not appoint one for a civil disagreement. There is also the massive expense for a company to find and prepare evidence for their defense. Since the GPL is hinged on very technical matters, Oracle could easy keep the case in the court for a LONG time and bleed a company dry trying to defend themselves. Worse yet, a judge may actually agree with Oracle due to difficulty in understanding the technical issues at hand. Which means that the case would be held up even more by appeals.
Ammonia can be produced without oil and farm equipment can be run on other technologies (such as hydrogen, batteries, or synthetic fuels) that are entirely grid powered. Our dependence on oil for farming is not fixed. It's based entirely on the fact that oil is cheap.
As long as there's a semi-official version of MySQL that's kept up to date (just without the Real Database(TM) features), any fork would have a difficult time surviving. Plus they couldn't call it "MySQL" or Oracle would come down on them like wrath from heaven.
1. MySQL's interpretation is that by accessing MySQL over the network, you're "linking" against it.
2. MySQL has further enforced this by GPLing all of the drivers, which you MUST link against in order to access MySQL.
3. Did I mention that Oracle could take them to court regardless of whether or not they're actually in violation? Did I also mention that most companies would pay up rather than go to court? Why yes, I do believe I mentioned that.
In their simplest form, the following are general licensing guidelines:
* If your software is licensed under either the GPL-compatible Free Software License as defined by the Free Software Foundation or approved by OSI, then use our GPL licensed version.
* If you distribute a proprietary application in any way, and you are not licensing and distributing your source code under GPL, you need to purchase a commercial license of MySQL
* If you are unsure, we recommend that you buy our cost effective commercial licenses. That is the safest solution. Licensing questions can submitted online for our advice, and we encourage you to refer to the Free Software Foundation or a lawyer as appropriate.
If your application is not licensed under GPL or compatible OSI license approved by MySQL AB and you intend to distribute MySQL software (be that internally or externally), you must first obtain a commercial license to the MySQL software in question.
More specifically:
a) If you include the MySQL server in your non Open Source application, you need a commercial licence for the MySQL server
b) If you include one of the MySQL drivers in your non Open Source application (so that your application can run with MySQL), you need a commercial licence for the driver(s) in question. The MySQL drivers currently include an ODBC driver, a JDBC driver and the C language library.
c) If you use MySQL Software within your organisation and you don't want to risk it falling under the GPL license, you are welcome to purchase a commercial license.
d) Many users opt for the commercial licence simply because under it MySQL AB takes responsibility for its products. Under the GPL licence, there are no warranties or representations from the developer (i.e. from MySQL AB).
So in short, Oracle would have broad powers under which to enforce the GPL, and they could easily extend them (whether correct or not) to bring a court case against companies whether or not the case has any validity. Understand now?
Slashdot Mirror
When in doubt, simply ask Wikipedia. They have all kinds of information on esoteric topics like baseball, football, the rainforest, lions, tigers, and bears, oh my.
After I read this story, I couldn't get a line from Blade Runner out of my head: "A candle that burns twice as bright, burns half as long."
/somber
I guess there was more truth there than the authors realized.
So tell me, which one looks more like the real thing to you? The Atari version (shows some flickering garbage that looks nothing like a baseball game) or the Intellivision version (shows a pixelated game that looks something like baseball)? The choice is clear. The Intellivision lets you play games that look more like the real thing!
</george-plimpton>
Sorry, couldn't resist.
If you're really a novice programmer then anything you would be likely to save for later will be so simple that when you get to be an intermediate programmer you'll implement it from memory in a few lines (or be aware of library routines that do what you want).
Indeed. If he has a JavaScript library, it's probably something along the lines of the stupid "mm_OpenWindow" "API" that was so popular for a while. (Hello? window.open(), people?) Not to mention antique browser detection routines that just aren't worth the trouble anymore.
You haven't actually coded in JavaScript until you've built Object Oriented libraries, learned to cast everything (stupid loose typing, I want an INT, not a string!), and learned the voodoo of the DOM. (And how Microsoft doesn't support it. Boo! Hiss!)
Actually, it says that only 26% of that land was lost to urbanization. Which means that we drop about 46 million acres from our 232 million acre figure, giving us a total amount of land remaining at 186 million acres. And that doesn't include the land that farmers are leaving bare, as that's still considered farmland. Given that prime farmland areas only lost a small percentage to urbanization (4% in Ohio!), it's reasonable to assume that a good chunk of the poor farm area was urbanized. Also, if you take a tour of the less populated plains in the midwest, you'll find plenty of farms, but you'll still see a lot of good land in an unfarmed condition. (Heck, I used to own a large piece of prime farming property in never-farmed condition that I leased out to the farmer across the street for grazing.)
The conclusion of my reference is the correct one: "The most important factor determining how much cropland would be taken out of production were economic: farmers simply need less land to produce food than in previous periods."
The reduction in farmed land is pretty insignificant and takes place mostly on "highly erodable land" or in buffer zones around water. Neither of these are very appealing places to put back into rotation.
:-)
That's not entirely true. We've lost a lot of smaller farms as the farming industry has been consolidated into larger firms. As a result, we've dropped from 1.2 billion acres in the 1960's to ~968 million acres in 1997. That's over 200 million acres (or about 20% of previous capacity) to explain away as poor farmland!
The real answer is, of course, more complex. Farming technology has increased considerably, upping production across all farmland. Production is so high that it's been driving down prices and making it more profitable to convert the land to other uses. (Especially if it's not the creme de la creme of farmland to begin with.) Of the land that's left, the U.S. government actually pays farmers to leave some of it unfarmed. This helps prop up the market by artificially driving down supply to keep pace with the demand. If the demand were to suddenly rise, that farmland would become more profitable to use rather than leave empty.
The second point would be a good one except that replacing crude with corn would take a lot of land. Much more than we make up in increased yields.
That's my point, though. We can use the extra farmland we have lying around That 200 million acres could easily produce ~100 billion gallons of ethanol just from corn. Now if we factor in increases in Sugar Cane production (which is exceedingly poor in South America mostly due to farming through manual labor and wasteful burning of crop husks that could be recycled, and otherwise poor in the states due to overall low demand) we could easily produce enough Ethanol to offer E50 and E85 blends to all consumers. Futher increases in production plus the addition of Bio-diesel to power our trucking infrastructure could easily make up the difference to eliminate petroleum altogether.
In any case, there is a thread about algae elsewhere in this commentary that is worth thinking seriously about. There is also the possibility of using one of the microbes Venter found in his current voyage to extract hydrogen from water.
I'm definitely open to these sorts of concepts. However, in the short term Ethanol allows us to reuse our existing infrastructure and vehicles while new technologies mature and roll out to the market. Plus we have an existing supply to start from that can be ramped up with demand. For all we know, E85 blends with the petroleum coming from algea could be the way of the future.
The reduction in farmed land is pretty insignificant and takes place mostly on "highly erodable land" or in buffer zones around water. Neither of these are very appealing places to put back into rotation.
:-)
That's not entirely true. We've lost a lot of smaller farms as the farming industry has been consolidated into larger firms. As a result, we've dropped from 1.2 billion acres in the 1960's to ~968 million acres in 1997. That's over 200 million acres (or about 20% of previous capacity) to explain away as poor farmland!
The real answer is, of course, more complex. Farming technology has increased considerably, upping production across all farmland. Production is so high that it's been driving down prices and making it more profitable to convert the land to other uses. (Especially if it's not the creme de la creme of farmland to begin with.) Of the land that's left, the U.S. government actually pays farmers to leave some of it unfarmed. This helps prop up the market by artificially driving down supply to keep pace with the demand. If the demand were to suddenly rise, that farmland would become more profitable to use rather than leave empty.
The second point would be a good one except that replacing crude with corn would take a lot of land. Much more than we make up in increased yields.
That's my point, though. We can use the extra farmland we have lying around That 200 million acres could easily produce ~100 billion gallons of ethanol just from corn. Now if we factor in increases in Sugar Cane production (which is exceedingly poor in South America mostly due to farming through manual labor and wasteful burning of crop husks that could be recycled, and otherwise poor in the states due to overall low demand) we could easily produce enough Ethanol to offer E50 and E85 blends to all consumers. Futher increases in production plus the addition of Bio-diesel to power our trucking infrastructure could easily make up the difference to eliminate petroleum altogether.
In any case, there is a thread about algae elsewhere in this commentary that is worth thinking seriously about. There is also the possibility of using one of the microbes Venter found in his current voyage to extract hydrogen from water.
I'm definitely open to these sorts of concepts. However, in the short term Ethanol allows us to reuse our existing infrastructure and vehicles while new technologies mature and roll out to the market. Plus we have an existing supply to start from that can be ramped up with demand. For all we know, E85 blends with the petroleum coming from algea could be the way of the future.
For the games I do buy, I probably would pay full price if I had to.
And that's exactly it. If there was a game that you REALLY wanted, you'd probably run out and buy it in a heartbeat. I know I would. But I haven't seen a SINGLE game like that in a long time. Even big name games like Quake 4 and Doom 3 just don't have that "I want it!" feel to them. I could now purchase both of them at highly discounted prices, but I don't feel the need to. I tried the Doom 3 demo, but I wasn't impressed at all. My wife (a big fan of Q3) shows no interest in Quake 4, either.
The last game I purchased new was Star Trek: Bridge Commander for the PC. Otherwise, older games and the less expensive "casual" gaming have shown to be far more appealing.
I agree completely. Thank you for clarifying what I was trying to say. :-)
Let me explain this to you: Dvorak is what's known in the industry as a "Yellow Journalist". Which is to say that he publishes sensationalist articles designed to elicit a reaction in his readership, despite having little to no facts to support his position. These authors are usually frowned upon by any publication with journalistic integrity. Since PC Magazine has none (and needs the readership), they continue to post his foaming-at-the-mouth drivel.
Every once in awhile, Dvorak manages to hit upon a sensationalist story that's true by pure accident. This then convinces his "fans" that he knows what he's talking about. People then latch onto that single instance of "being right" to accept his pathetically low rate of correct predictions.
Stop listening to this guy. Stop posting his articles. Ban PC Magazine for publishing this nonsense. Otherwise Slashdot becomes just as bad as Dvorak himself.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that an overwhelming majority of those Internet users are part of the so-called Casual Gaming Market. Which means that hardcore games just won't appeal to them. (Never have, never will.) Many of them may not even have a console system, either.
Nintendo is betting a lot of money on the idea that their DS and Revolution systems will reach that market. Given how busy the current adult generation is (not much time for consoles and hardcore computer games), Nintendo may just hit paydirt.
What isn't being talked about is the fact that consumers are buying more games than they ever have. They are just spreading the money out a bit more, putting dollars into the used market, into handheld devices, into services like Live Arcade, and into direct downloads.
So there's no downturn because consumers aren't really abandoning games, they're turning to older , more nastolgic games and don't buy the new stuff? Hmm... I think there's a flaw in the logic there.
In my mind, if gamers aren't paying for new games to be developed, that means the industry is experiencing a downturn. The fact that gamers are buying older and used games only signifies that they don't want the new stuff that's being produced.
Do You think Oracle's lawyer want to tango with RMS and the FSF as an expert witness on the GPL's intentions?
The real question is: Will RMS and the FSF argue against or for Oracle's policies? Remember, RMS wants all software to be free, and MySQL claims that their interpretations of the GPL come from the FSF's FAQ. Considering that you have to link against GPLed drivers to access MySQL, you may find no support from those avenues.
Capcom, not EA.
:-P
Street Fighter
Street Fighter 2010: The Final Fight
Street Fighter 2 - The World Warrior
Street Fighter II - Champion Edition
Street Fighter II Turbo - Hyper Fighting
Street Fighter II - Special Champion Edition
Super Street Fighter II - The New Challengers
Street Fighter Alpha - Warriors' Dreams
Street Fighter Zero
Street Fighter Alpha 2
Street Fighter Zero 2
Street Fighter Alpha 3
Street Fighter Zero 3
Street Fighter Alpha 3 Double Upper
Street Fighter Zero Double Upper
Street Fighter Alpha 3 Max
Street Fighter III: New Generation
Street Fighter III: 2nd Impact - Giant Attack
Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike - Fight for the Future
Street Fighter EX
Street Fighter EX 2
Street Fighter EX 2 Plus
Street Fighter EX 3
X-Men vs. Street Fighter
Marvel Super Heroes vs. Street Fighter
Marvel vs. Capcom - Clash of Super Heroes
Marvel vs. Capcom 2 - New Age of Heroes
Capcom vs. SNK: Millennium Fight 2000
Capcom vs. SNK 2: Mark of the Millennium 2001
SNK vs. Capcom: Match of the Millennium
SVC Chaos: SNK vs. Capcom
You get all that? Somewhere in Japan there's got to be an entire company held by Capcom producing nothing more than more Street Fighter versions.
Or to be more abstract about it: Features, features, features! :)
What if tillable land became in demand for non-food crops to generate fuel?
We've still got more than enough. Some analysts are put off by the idea of massive increases in farm land, but they tend to ignore the fact that the US farms less land than ever before to produce more crops than ever before. Going back to an increase in farmland would not be difficult, and South America is full of untapped potential through both technological improvements to their farming processes and large amounts of land that can be reassigned to farming duties.
Technology-wise we could also reclaim desert and other hostile areas for farming. However, we're a long way away from even considering such an idea. (With population growth on the decline, we're actually farther than ever.)
He's talking about repeating parts of the movie by using the "Rewind Button" which simulates a tape rewind. That would artifically extend the length of the movie, thus using more battery power.
I think he gets the point that DVDs/UMDs are not VHS tapes.
As already pointed out, MS will do very little.
That's not entirely true. Microsoft will sell you an entire army of tech support drones and Microsoft Certified Support Providers. That way your boss can go back to his boss and say, "Microsoft is working on it." To which your boss's boss will say, "I'm glad we paid for Microsoft! Just imagine how difficult it would be to get support if we paid for Linux!" Thus your boss's neck is saved from the chopping block by simply passing the buck.
If your boss decided to keep things internal, he'd have to tell his boss, "We're working on the problem right now and hope to have it fixed soon. We could purchase support from company XYZ to speed up the process." To which your boss's boss will say, "If we're supporting it internally, why did it break in the first place and when is it going to be fixed? Is that third party the vendor? Then how do they know anything about anything?" If he gives the answer, "See, this open source stuff...," he'll hear the words, "You're fired!" before he finishes the sentence.
Of course, your boss's boss may be smarter than that. But many managers won't take the that risk with their own necks.
A little OT, but why the check does the app consume 75-85 MB of RAM just sitting there idle when it's first launched?
Question: A little OT, but why does Mozilla consume 80-100 MB of RAM just sitting there idle after it's launched?
Answer: Features, features, features!
That is a little tricky, but i'm sure it wouldn't take long to for someone to write a library so that nobody ever has to use MYSQL's library.
Oracle could merely do with that project what MySQL did to the LGPLed JDBC driver: Buy them out and relicense before the project is fully compatible. RMS would then hail them as true heros for relicensing under the GPL rather than the LGPL.
Why? You could take a public defender and beat Oracle every single time.
Public Defenders are for criminal cases. AFAIK, the court will not appoint one for a civil disagreement. There is also the massive expense for a company to find and prepare evidence for their defense. Since the GPL is hinged on very technical matters, Oracle could easy keep the case in the court for a LONG time and bleed a company dry trying to defend themselves. Worse yet, a judge may actually agree with Oracle due to difficulty in understanding the technical issues at hand. Which means that the case would be held up even more by appeals.
Ammonia can be produced without oil and farm equipment can be run on other technologies (such as hydrogen, batteries, or synthetic fuels) that are entirely grid powered. Our dependence on oil for farming is not fixed. It's based entirely on the fact that oil is cheap.
As long as there's a semi-official version of MySQL that's kept up to date (just without the Real Database(TM) features), any fork would have a difficult time surviving. Plus they couldn't call it "MySQL" or Oracle would come down on them like wrath from heaven.
2. MySQL has further enforced this by GPLing all of the drivers, which you MUST link against in order to access MySQL.
3. Did I mention that Oracle could take them to court regardless of whether or not they're actually in violation? Did I also mention that most companies would pay up rather than go to court? Why yes, I do believe I mentioned that.
MySQL OSS License Page
The older version of that page was more to the point:
So in short, Oracle would have broad powers under which to enforce the GPL, and they could easily extend them (whether correct or not) to bring a court case against companies whether or not the case has any validity. Understand now?