It was historically useful, maybe, but today is pointless.
So you're telling me that you never use variable names like "xdiff", "rowStart", "tabName", "currentRow", or some other combination of semantic meaning combined with a noun?
Any programmer worth his salt uses names that are descriptive. And many of those names happen to align with Simonyi's original idea. In fact, he didn't originate the concept so much as bring it over from his work with Smalltalk.
80 col display terminals were around long before DOS - VT100's ran in either 80 or 132 col mode in the 70's.
Which is irrelevant to why they were coding that way. Microsoft Office was created for DOS (and later Windows) PCs. Thus the 80 column limitation was imposed by DOS, regardless of the history behind the chosen width. (In fact, IBM chose 40/80 columns to match their mainframe terminals. The PC was designed to be usable as a VT100 terminal in a pinch.)
If your code today needs more than 80 cols (or arguably 132 cols), you have bigger problems.
Says you. Indenting is four spaces per indent. 3 levels deep (Class -> Method -> Control structure) uses up 12 columns right there. Your code has to thus fit in 68 characters, which is a difficult thing to do when class names often exceed a dozen characters. Regardless of the spacing, here is a common line in Java that chews up 87 characters:
BufferedReader = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(new FileInputStream(file)));
I could separate it into individual variable assignments for the FileInputStream and the InputStreamReader, but why? There's no value in hanging on to those references, and the line is easy enough for another coder to read.
Feel free to throw around a few more insults like "peanut gallery" around, though. They're really helping you look intelligent and thoughtful.:-/
how is "rwPosition" any better than "rowPosition"?
They're not any different. The only reason to use the former format was to save keystrokes in the days before auto-completion. If Simonyi* invented the concept today, he would have used rowPosition rather than rwPosition**.
The thing is, he was working back in the days when programmers regularly used single character variables to save keystrokes as well as to keep their code within 80 columns. (i.e. DOS console resolution.) So he tried to push a semantic standard that communicated information about the code, and it got all screwed up in the translation.
* Thanks for the correction, guys ** In fact, Simonyi would have used rwPos
If you actually read the article, he's right. His point is that the use of Hungarian notation has been bastardized beyond believe. Programmers didn't understand why Hungarian originally used his famous notation, and thus tend to make an error every time they attempt to replicate his work. That's why we have tons of Java programs that look like crap due to some foolish programmer mindlessly following Hungarian Notation.
On the subject of the Office Document format, I believe that everything he says is also true; but with a few caveats. The first is the subject of Microsoft intentionally making Office Documents complicated. I fully accept (and have accepted for a long time) that Office docs were not intentionally obfuscated. However, I also accept that Microsoft was 100% willing to use the formats' inherent complexity to their advantage to maintain lock-in. The unnecessary complexity of OOXML proves this.
The other caveat is that I disagree with his workarounds. He suggests that you should use Office to generate Office files, or simply avoid the issue by generating a simpler file. There's no need to do this as it's perfectly possible to use a subset of Office features when producing a file programatically. Libraries like POI can produce semantically correct files, even if they aren't the most feature rich.
Doesn't matter. In this case a unilateral offer was made as a method of returning the item. By attempting to return the item to the store, you are exercising the terms of that offer. If the EULA writer was unable to uphold those terms, then he shouldn't have made the offer.
That being said, the store is unlikely to get off so easily. IIRC, the laws that govern retail business and make EULAs possible expect that a consumer should be able to return through a retail outlet. The judge may or may not be happy about the store's unwillingness to let you reject the terms of purchase.
The most likely outcome is that the store would not show up for the small-claims case, and you'd win by default. Then they'd stonewall your attempts to retrieve your money. In the end, you'd have to sell the judgment to a collection agency at a loss.
In the worst case, the judge will let the store off the hook but allow you to add the software maker as a co- and later sole-defendant, and rule that the software maker owes you a full refund plus sales tax. In this case you will be out your legal fees though.
Not necessarily. Most EULAs state that you can return the software to the place of purchase if you don't agree with the EULA. If the judge lets the store off the hook, he might be willing to put the software maker back on the hook for those legal fees as the software maker wasted your time by offering terms of agreement that it was unable to meet.
If you want to play the game well, you must ave both. Keep in mind that everyone expects that you will have secret satellites. If no secret satellites are found, then it raises the question as to where they are. If you launch satellites that are both secret and published, however, the enemy will focus on the secret and ignore the published. If he fails to take this precaution, then you can still rely on your secret satellites in addition to the public satellites.
Plans within plans. It's the only way to play the game.;-)
...of an idea I once had about putting a tag in images to say that the image contains "Adult Content". The idea being that someone who didn't want to see such content would be able to turn off access. (Especially for kids.) Sold as a method of keeping kids from accidentally accessing such materials (vs. intentionally accessing; an issue which you're unlikely to ever be able to block against) why wouldn't content producers want to integrate the solution?
Of course, this was back when 5 of the top 10 results on nearly any Altavista search were for pornographic content. Google managed to solve this issue by producing a better search engine. It's fairly rare to "accidently" come across a pornographic website these days.
"Wasting time" is their words*, not mine. From what I've heard on the issue, it's unlikely that the contempt charges will be successful in resulting in the prosecution of the aides, so from that perspective you could say that the proceedings are an ineffectual waste of time. Congress should be starting impeachment proceedings if they think their case is that strong.
That being said, maybe the House will manage to get something positive out of this. I mean, the failure to address the Telecom Immunity Act was probably a positive thing.:)
* Or at least, the Republican stance. My memory for precise wording has been known to be faulty.;-)
Everyone spins. Whether intentionally or not. But when the information presented before the floor (yes, I got to hear the walk-out speech) and before the press discusses the matter of the contempt charges, NOT mentioning that when discussing the walkout is, at best, shoddy reporting. At worst, it's bald faced lying that could get the reporter brought up on defamation charges.
And in your case, you do NOT know what they know. Yet, you accuse them of doing something without knowing if they had the information required.
I have accused them of shoddy reporting which prevents the reader from coming to his own conclusions. If you can make a valid argument that this article was NOT shoddy reporting (good luck on that) then I'll be happy to back down.
Unfortunately, all you've been doing is defending a really sloppy piece of journalism with hand waving of "well, we don't know." BULLSHIT. We know what was said on the floor, and we know what the congressmen claimed. Ignoring that is either incompetence or malice.
The fact that you'd defend this piece of trash reporting is not exactly boosting my respect for your opinion. It's sloppy reporting, no matter what you feel about the Republicans or Democrats.
And for the record, the Gonzalas issue of firing prosecutors (which is what this is centered around) has me just as peeved off as everyone else. That anger does not give reporters a free hand to start misreporting events.
This is true. Which is why it's important for all the facts to be presented so that the reader can make up his own mind.
You also have NO idea of what the media was told.
This is untrue. The news program I was listening to had interviews with several of the Republicans who walked out. They explicitly pointed to the issue over contempt of Congress.
Calling it spin makes you just as guilty of what you are accusing the media of doing.
And this is just outright wrong. Can the argument be made that the Republicans were actually looking to get the bill passed? Sure. But withholding key information about the event to provide an inescapable conclusion is the worst kind of sensationalist reporting. And to be perfectly honest, I take offense at your accusation that I'm attempting the same thing.
When you can show that I was intentionally withholding information to make an accusation into an inescapable conclusion, then you may feel free to call me out on it. Otherwise I would ask you to keep your unfounded accusations to yourself.
Same walkout, different spin on the story. To be honest, TFA is misleading and bordering on sensationalist. Not even once mentioning the contempt issue is just plain irresponsible journalism.
No, it is one sides. It puts a completely different spin on the report, effectively providing the reader with no option but to believe that the Republicans all were pissed off that the Telecom immunity bill didn't pass. In fact, the immunity bill may have had nothing to do with the events at the Capital. Spinning the story like that is simply irresponsible.
As for the charges, it's just political maneuvering. According to the news report, the President invoked executive powers to keep his aides from talking. Congress can hold those aides in contempt all they want, but the Judicial Branch is unlikely to enforce the contempt charge. As a result, it accomplishes nothing more than grandstanding to look like they're doing something about Bush's policies.
IMHO, start the impeachment process or don't. All this pussyfooting around is 100% impotent and accomplishes nothing more than a lot of publicity to make voters feel warm and fuzzy.
Trying to charge the White House aides is an interesting tactic, as it was Bush himself who invoked executive powers to keep them from testifying. Yet they know they can't charge the President himself (short of impeachment, they can't touch him) so the House chose to chase down the aides instead.
That's a one-sided report. What I heard on the radio yesterday is that the Republicans were upset that the democrats were wasting time on the vote to hold Bush Officials in contempt of Congress. The Republican senators claimed that they were in support of the investigation, but felt that President and adviser communications should have some degree of privilege. They wanted to move on to the business for the day (which happened to be the surveillance bill) and called for a walk-out when the Democrats were insistent on worrying about the (probably impotent anyway) contempt vote.
Comment: Citations aren't needed for obvious facts that can be derived from existing facts. Read the definition for "Linux distribution" for more info.;-)
Use one of the aforementioned dead NES's controller port
Don't do that either. The NES isn't dead, its pins are just a little bent. Take it apart, bend the pins back into place, and it will work fine. For consoles that have been corroded by years of saliva (blowing in the cart is a BAD idea!) it's easy to find a replacement connector.
What you want to do is what I did with my Power Glove connector. Find an extension cable for the NES and do surgery on that instead. Not only will you save both an original NES and an original Advantage from destruction, but you'll end up with a more generic NES -> PC interface that you can plug any NES controller into.:)
Most consoles were played from the couch in the living room or family room. Finding a place to solidly plant these sticks was difficult for the average person.
Wii's "Classic Controller" appears to fall for the same trap as the Playstation
In the case of the Wii Classic Controller, it's not a mistake. The Classic Controller is intended to support dpad games for systems like the NES, SNES, Genesis, and Turbografix. The analog sticks are secondary controllers and mostly exist to support N64 games. For those games, the Gamecube controller may be a better option.
Basically, the Classic Controller is a recreation of the perfect DPad controller (i.e. the SNES controller) with modern controls tacked on.
Did you ever actually use some of the pre-gamepad joysticks? I expanded on the issues in this thread, but the problem can be summed up in one word: TORQUE.
There's nothing more "fun" than fighting one's self for stability of the controller. Some of the controllers were extremely hard on the wrists and caused tiring rather quickly. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the console joysticks were unnatural control devices. When playing my classic game machines, I often do things like hold the joystick sideways in an attempt to find a better grip. (Or at least get gravity on my side.;))
Joysticks always worked best in an arcade environment where the rotational forces were absorbed by the heavy machines rather than your hands.
Sure. The NES Advantage was another controller with a solid base. (And quite popular in its time.) The problem was that creating a solid base for an arcade-style joystick was an expensive proposition. Expensive enough to where shipping such large contraptions with a game console was prohibitive. Thus console joysticks were the much weaker variety seen in the Ataris and Colecovision. (And Videopacs for all you Europeans out there.;))
These inexpensive joysticks tended to suffer from mechanical wear due to the stresses imposed on them. In some cases, the sticks were so cheap they would practically disintegrate. (e.g. The 5200 control sticks would lose their boot regularly, the only thing that was centering the analog stick.)
Beyond the expense, there was also the issue of finding a proper surface to use. Most consoles were played from the couch in the living room or family room. Finding a place to solidly plant these sticks was difficult for the average person. They could place the contraption on their lap, but it could easily slide off from the forces applied to it. (Thus necessitating that the player keep a firm hold on both the stick and the buttons.)
Thus it ended up being cheaper and more reliable to ship gamepads with consoles rather than monstrous arcade sticks. By the SNES generation, arcade stick sales had dropped substantially and would never recover.
...TFA makes a rather grievous error when it refers to the "Nintendo joypad". The joypad was an early attempt at combining both control methods. e.g. The Atari CX78 was a joypad:
The NES controller was properly referred to as a gamepad. Modern controllers blur the distinction by having both DPad controls as well as thumbstick controls.
It was an inferior control device for home consoles. The joystick is only an effective controller when it's properly secured into a solid base. e.g. An arcade machine. When translated to home use, it tended to be detached from a solid base and thus suffered. The 2600 CX40s used a wide base to attempt to combat this problem, but a player still applied torque to his own hands when using the joystick. The CX24 Prolines that were included with the Atari 7800 were that much worse. It was physically straining to use the joysticks properly due to the narrow base.
The only company that produced a worse home joystick was Coleco. Their joystick was so small, you needed to palm it to use it. Palming the stick resulted in even MORE torque, thus making gaming very tiring despite the wide base.
At the end of the day, the gamepad was a superior control device for home consoles. It met the needs of the average game better, thus relegating joysticks to arcade and flight-sim use only.
More like 60%. Nitrogen is another 30%. Not for us directly, but for our food supplies which we will grow in these alien soils. The other 10% is the various misc. materials. (Most of which can be found relatively easily.) Once the Nitrogen and water problems are solved, the biggest issue is how to approach the bootstrapping of a colony. Doing something simple like making glass or steel is nigh impossible without the infrastructure to support it. And can we really afford to be shipping an entire infrastructure for the kind of high-tech materials fabrication that life on an alien planet would require?
I hope that the opportunity to visit other planets arrives in my lifetime. It's just a bit sobering when you realize the obstacles that face permanent human presence outside of Earth's biosphere.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're telling me that you never use variable names like "xdiff", "rowStart", "tabName", "currentRow", or some other combination of semantic meaning combined with a noun?
Any programmer worth his salt uses names that are descriptive. And many of those names happen to align with Simonyi's original idea. In fact, he didn't originate the concept so much as bring it over from his work with Smalltalk.Which is irrelevant to why they were coding that way. Microsoft Office was created for DOS (and later Windows) PCs. Thus the 80 column limitation was imposed by DOS, regardless of the history behind the chosen width. (In fact, IBM chose 40/80 columns to match their mainframe terminals. The PC was designed to be usable as a VT100 terminal in a pinch.)
Says you. Indenting is four spaces per indent. 3 levels deep (Class -> Method -> Control structure) uses up 12 columns right there. Your code has to thus fit in 68 characters, which is a difficult thing to do when class names often exceed a dozen characters. Regardless of the spacing, here is a common line in Java that chews up 87 characters: I could separate it into individual variable assignments for the FileInputStream and the InputStreamReader, but why? There's no value in hanging on to those references, and the line is easy enough for another coder to read.
Feel free to throw around a few more insults like "peanut gallery" around, though. They're really helping you look intelligent and thoughtful.
They're not any different. The only reason to use the former format was to save keystrokes in the days before auto-completion. If Simonyi* invented the concept today, he would have used rowPosition rather than rwPosition**.
The thing is, he was working back in the days when programmers regularly used single character variables to save keystrokes as well as to keep their code within 80 columns. (i.e. DOS console resolution.) So he tried to push a semantic standard that communicated information about the code, and it got all screwed up in the translation.
* Thanks for the correction, guys
** In fact, Simonyi would have used rwPos
If you actually read the article, he's right. His point is that the use of Hungarian notation has been bastardized beyond believe. Programmers didn't understand why Hungarian originally used his famous notation, and thus tend to make an error every time they attempt to replicate his work. That's why we have tons of Java programs that look like crap due to some foolish programmer mindlessly following Hungarian Notation.
On the subject of the Office Document format, I believe that everything he says is also true; but with a few caveats. The first is the subject of Microsoft intentionally making Office Documents complicated. I fully accept (and have accepted for a long time) that Office docs were not intentionally obfuscated. However, I also accept that Microsoft was 100% willing to use the formats' inherent complexity to their advantage to maintain lock-in. The unnecessary complexity of OOXML proves this.
The other caveat is that I disagree with his workarounds. He suggests that you should use Office to generate Office files, or simply avoid the issue by generating a simpler file. There's no need to do this as it's perfectly possible to use a subset of Office features when producing a file programatically. Libraries like POI can produce semantically correct files, even if they aren't the most feature rich.
Doesn't matter. In this case a unilateral offer was made as a method of returning the item. By attempting to return the item to the store, you are exercising the terms of that offer. If the EULA writer was unable to uphold those terms, then he shouldn't have made the offer.
That being said, the store is unlikely to get off so easily. IIRC, the laws that govern retail business and make EULAs possible expect that a consumer should be able to return through a retail outlet. The judge may or may not be happy about the store's unwillingness to let you reject the terms of purchase.
The most likely outcome is that the store would not show up for the small-claims case, and you'd win by default. Then they'd stonewall your attempts to retrieve your money. In the end, you'd have to sell the judgment to a collection agency at a loss.
Not necessarily. Most EULAs state that you can return the software to the place of purchase if you don't agree with the EULA. If the judge lets the store off the hook, he might be willing to put the software maker back on the hook for those legal fees as the software maker wasted your time by offering terms of agreement that it was unable to meet.
If you want to play the game well, you must ave both. Keep in mind that everyone expects that you will have secret satellites. If no secret satellites are found, then it raises the question as to where they are. If you launch satellites that are both secret and published, however, the enemy will focus on the secret and ignore the published. If he fails to take this precaution, then you can still rely on your secret satellites in addition to the public satellites.
;-)
Plans within plans. It's the only way to play the game.
...of an idea I once had about putting a tag in images to say that the image contains "Adult Content". The idea being that someone who didn't want to see such content would be able to turn off access. (Especially for kids.) Sold as a method of keeping kids from accidentally accessing such materials (vs. intentionally accessing; an issue which you're unlikely to ever be able to block against) why wouldn't content producers want to integrate the solution?
Of course, this was back when 5 of the top 10 results on nearly any Altavista search were for pornographic content. Google managed to solve this issue by producing a better search engine. It's fairly rare to "accidently" come across a pornographic website these days.
So I'd say Google has already done quite a lot.
"Wasting time" is their words*, not mine. From what I've heard on the issue, it's unlikely that the contempt charges will be successful in resulting in the prosecution of the aides, so from that perspective you could say that the proceedings are an ineffectual waste of time. Congress should be starting impeachment proceedings if they think their case is that strong.
:)
;-)
That being said, maybe the House will manage to get something positive out of this. I mean, the failure to address the Telecom Immunity Act was probably a positive thing.
* Or at least, the Republican stance. My memory for precise wording has been known to be faulty.
I have accused them of shoddy reporting which prevents the reader from coming to his own conclusions. If you can make a valid argument that this article was NOT shoddy reporting (good luck on that) then I'll be happy to back down.
Unfortunately, all you've been doing is defending a really sloppy piece of journalism with hand waving of "well, we don't know." BULLSHIT. We know what was said on the floor, and we know what the congressmen claimed. Ignoring that is either incompetence or malice.
The fact that you'd defend this piece of trash reporting is not exactly boosting my respect for your opinion. It's sloppy reporting, no matter what you feel about the Republicans or Democrats.
And for the record, the Gonzalas issue of firing prosecutors (which is what this is centered around) has me just as peeved off as everyone else. That anger does not give reporters a free hand to start misreporting events.
This is true. Which is why it's important for all the facts to be presented so that the reader can make up his own mind.
This is untrue. The news program I was listening to had interviews with several of the Republicans who walked out. They explicitly pointed to the issue over contempt of Congress.
And this is just outright wrong. Can the argument be made that the Republicans were actually looking to get the bill passed? Sure. But withholding key information about the event to provide an inescapable conclusion is the worst kind of sensationalist reporting. And to be perfectly honest, I take offense at your accusation that I'm attempting the same thing.
When you can show that I was intentionally withholding information to make an accusation into an inescapable conclusion, then you may feel free to call me out on it. Otherwise I would ask you to keep your unfounded accusations to yourself.
FYI, the report has been updated to point out the missing information.
Same walkout, different spin on the story. To be honest, TFA is misleading and bordering on sensationalist. Not even once mentioning the contempt issue is just plain irresponsible journalism.
No, it is one sides. It puts a completely different spin on the report, effectively providing the reader with no option but to believe that the Republicans all were pissed off that the Telecom immunity bill didn't pass. In fact, the immunity bill may have had nothing to do with the events at the Capital. Spinning the story like that is simply irresponsible.
As for the charges, it's just political maneuvering. According to the news report, the President invoked executive powers to keep his aides from talking. Congress can hold those aides in contempt all they want, but the Judicial Branch is unlikely to enforce the contempt charge. As a result, it accomplishes nothing more than grandstanding to look like they're doing something about Bush's policies.
IMHO, start the impeachment process or don't. All this pussyfooting around is 100% impotent and accomplishes nothing more than a lot of publicity to make voters feel warm and fuzzy.
Trying to charge the White House aides is an interesting tactic, as it was Bush himself who invoked executive powers to keep them from testifying. Yet they know they can't charge the President himself (short of impeachment, they can't touch him) so the House chose to chase down the aides instead.
That's a one-sided report. What I heard on the radio yesterday is that the Republicans were upset that the democrats were wasting time on the vote to hold Bush Officials in contempt of Congress. The Republican senators claimed that they were in support of the investigation, but felt that President and adviser communications should have some degree of privilege. They wanted to move on to the business for the day (which happened to be the surveillance bill) and called for a walk-out when the Democrats were insistent on worrying about the (probably impotent anyway) contempt vote.
[Edit] -> [Delete Citation Tag]
;-)
Comment: Citations aren't needed for obvious facts that can be derived from existing facts. Read the definition for "Linux distribution" for more info.
Don't do that either. The NES isn't dead, its pins are just a little bent. Take it apart, bend the pins back into place, and it will work fine. For consoles that have been corroded by years of saliva (blowing in the cart is a BAD idea!) it's easy to find a replacement connector.
What you want to do is what I did with my Power Glove connector. Find an extension cable for the NES and do surgery on that instead. Not only will you save both an original NES and an original Advantage from destruction, but you'll end up with a more generic NES -> PC interface that you can plug any NES controller into.
I said:
And you said
Communication disconnect, HO!
In the case of the Wii Classic Controller, it's not a mistake. The Classic Controller is intended to support dpad games for systems like the NES, SNES, Genesis, and Turbografix. The analog sticks are secondary controllers and mostly exist to support N64 games. For those games, the Gamecube controller may be a better option.
Basically, the Classic Controller is a recreation of the perfect DPad controller (i.e. the SNES controller) with modern controls tacked on.
Did you ever actually use some of the pre-gamepad joysticks? I expanded on the issues in this thread, but the problem can be summed up in one word: TORQUE.
;))
There's nothing more "fun" than fighting one's self for stability of the controller. Some of the controllers were extremely hard on the wrists and caused tiring rather quickly. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the console joysticks were unnatural control devices. When playing my classic game machines, I often do things like hold the joystick sideways in an attempt to find a better grip. (Or at least get gravity on my side.
Joysticks always worked best in an arcade environment where the rotational forces were absorbed by the heavy machines rather than your hands.
Sure. The NES Advantage was another controller with a solid base. (And quite popular in its time.) The problem was that creating a solid base for an arcade-style joystick was an expensive proposition. Expensive enough to where shipping such large contraptions with a game console was prohibitive. Thus console joysticks were the much weaker variety seen in the Ataris and Colecovision. (And Videopacs for all you Europeans out there. ;))
These inexpensive joysticks tended to suffer from mechanical wear due to the stresses imposed on them. In some cases, the sticks were so cheap they would practically disintegrate. (e.g. The 5200 control sticks would lose their boot regularly, the only thing that was centering the analog stick.)
Beyond the expense, there was also the issue of finding a proper surface to use. Most consoles were played from the couch in the living room or family room. Finding a place to solidly plant these sticks was difficult for the average person. They could place the contraption on their lap, but it could easily slide off from the forces applied to it. (Thus necessitating that the player keep a firm hold on both the stick and the buttons.)
Thus it ended up being cheaper and more reliable to ship gamepads with consoles rather than monstrous arcade sticks. By the SNES generation, arcade stick sales had dropped substantially and would never recover.
...TFA makes a rather grievous error when it refers to the "Nintendo joypad". The joypad was an early attempt at combining both control methods. e.g. The Atari CX78 was a joypad:
http://www.atariage.com/controller_page.html?SystemID=7800&ControllerID=24
The NES controller was properly referred to as a gamepad. Modern controllers blur the distinction by having both DPad controls as well as thumbstick controls.
It was an inferior control device for home consoles. The joystick is only an effective controller when it's properly secured into a solid base. e.g. An arcade machine. When translated to home use, it tended to be detached from a solid base and thus suffered. The 2600 CX40s used a wide base to attempt to combat this problem, but a player still applied torque to his own hands when using the joystick. The CX24 Prolines that were included with the Atari 7800 were that much worse. It was physically straining to use the joysticks properly due to the narrow base.
The only company that produced a worse home joystick was Coleco. Their joystick was so small, you needed to palm it to use it. Palming the stick resulted in even MORE torque, thus making gaming very tiring despite the wide base.
At the end of the day, the gamepad was a superior control device for home consoles. It met the needs of the average game better, thus relegating joysticks to arcade and flight-sim use only.
You should pay more attention to the polls. ;-)
Here's the computation:
http://www.google.com/search?q=pi+*+e&btnG=Search
And here's an explanation of its components:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi
More like 60%. Nitrogen is another 30%. Not for us directly, but for our food supplies which we will grow in these alien soils. The other 10% is the various misc. materials. (Most of which can be found relatively easily.) Once the Nitrogen and water problems are solved, the biggest issue is how to approach the bootstrapping of a colony. Doing something simple like making glass or steel is nigh impossible without the infrastructure to support it. And can we really afford to be shipping an entire infrastructure for the kind of high-tech materials fabrication that life on an alien planet would require?
I hope that the opportunity to visit other planets arrives in my lifetime. It's just a bit sobering when you realize the obstacles that face permanent human presence outside of Earth's biosphere.