From the article, "Under the Print Library Project, Google is scanning millions of copyright books from libraries at Harvard, Michigan and Stanford along with out-of-copyright materials there and at two other libraries."
So they're not just making it easier to do what is already legal; that's what project Gutenburg does. This is something else entirely.
I don't know...text against black and illuminated text is much easier on the eyes than books are. Not having to turn pages makes it faster, and being able to read in the dark is kind of nice. I don't know why you'd want to read on a laptop when there are plenty of good tiny PDAs that fit the bill and are smaller than books.
Here are the reasons I've been given for reading from dead wood: "I like the feel and smell of pages." "I like to turn the pages." "I like the feel of a book in my hands." "Reading from my PDA makes my eyes hurt" "I don't have a place to get e-books."
All of those are reasons based upon the fact that they've gotten used to doing it that way except the last two. The last two generations (within four years) of PDAs alleviate the second to last concern, and the last one is only a matter of time.
When there is a generation that starts by reading electronically, they won't want to go back, since in the nonsubjective ways reading electronically is pretty much universally better, so book publishers are very much in trouble.
Of course, you don't actually have to use multiple user bases now. The winbind component can do out-of-the-box Active Directory integration and even map users to linux users. So there's nothing to complain about there.
There are a few big problems with it, though: 1) You can't have a backup for if your WINS system is down; Samba will not deal with both the original and the backup (because it won't sync the winbind produced groups/usernames with the existing groups/usernames).
2) UIDs and GIDs are mapped by Samba on the fly...so if they're different the second time you try it, too bad. You'll just have to chown any files that have the wrong permissions.
I don't really think that Samba's the way to go with this anyway. A better "out of the box" type solution would be to a version of pam_ldap that has built-in support for registering the unix box with an active directory, which is really the only piece that is still a kludge (to do pam_ldap+nss_ldap+mit_krb5+sasl, you have to manually get the keytab right now).
Yeah...'cause keeping extra AA batteries around is far more convenient than plugging your gaming device into an outlet when you're sleeping or driving...
I can see your point. Since I'm talking about US game company being sued in the US, I must naturally be talking about EU laws.:)
I live in the US.
You can't buy X-rated TV unless you're an adult either. Basic Cable, or Satellite TV doesn't come with it. Once you put it in your home, be it games, movies, magazines, or TV all bets are off, but buying them is a strictly opt-in type of thing.
what effects the psyche more then something else is an unsubstantiated opinion
Just because I didn't substantiate it doesn't mean there is no real evidence.
Will you listen to evidence at all? Its all I can provide here. Most psychological studies aren't kept on the internet, so I can't provide one that covers the effect of books on desensitization.
Its harder to prove a negative. Why don't you prove that books have a measurable effect? Its makes more sense to prove that images have an effect that to prove that books don't have much of one because the effect from images is so much more noticable.
If you don't accept psychiatric study as evidence, there's really nothing that can change your mind, is there? You must have read something like this before since it is currently the prevailing opinion in the psychological community, and you obviously have an opinion on the subject (you'd be hard-pressed to not find a result like this if you tried to learn anything about the subject). There are journals brimming with studies, but your claim that it has no mental effect becomes untestable if you don't accept measurements of mental effects as evidence.
Re:Best Best Practice: Don't Bloat Perl
on
Perl Best Practices
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Everyone starts by learning a subset of the language As someone who regularly downloads and fixes broken perl modules, I have to disagree.
Everyone tends to use the same subset at the start.
The big thing you see in a beginner's code are just control structures (especially foreach statements), and regular expressions (and then mostly only stuff you'll see in an awk expression).
Things like inventing a new inheritance structure (as is done by Class::DBI, OOTools, and PDF::Template), embedding a LALR parser (all the template engines), are a sign of a mature coder, and happen much less. These people are more likely to write code in a logically consistent, well designed manner such that it is easy to extend.
So far I've found one module that I tried to fix (and ended up not because it was too much work) that wasn't either simple or well designed (Class::DBI::FormBuilder).
Actually everything that has graphics is regulated, isn't it?
You absolutely can't buy anything with nudity if you're under 17, and you're going to have hard time getting an R or rated magazine or movie if you're under 13 (isn't that the age?)
Forget about your straw man, and stop inciting antireligious sentiment; religion is irrelevant here.
What you see has a much quicker, and more lasting effect on your psyche than what you read. That why there is no such ban on books, period - religious or otherwise.
Which do you think desensitizes you to violence more? Imagining from a book without ever having seen it, or watching a taped murder?
I'm not arguing for or against the ban. All I'm saying is that it isn't exactly a double standard. Its more like holding video games to the same standard as everything else.
For instance, if someone's child...say, a 30 year old man, who is in fact, someone's child, happens to break into my house I think its entirely appropriate to beat him about the head and shoulders with a baseball bat - even - or, in fact, especially - if his parent isn't there to approve.
"No breaking in, please" may not be enough to convince him not to.
That's a reason. Not more correct, though, since we were talking about the difference between in-ear and cans (covered headphones). Cans have a problem sounding tinny (that's why they're called cans), which means a problem in the low-end. You need very, very large speakers before you get resonance problems in the low end (unless you're talking about the resonance caused by bouncing the sound off of a wall or something).
"With the resonance frequency" isn't really a proper explanation, either, as you have not explained what resonant frequncy is.
A resonant frequency is the frequency at which current vibrations are exactly in phase with incoming vibrations, thus providing an amplifying effect at those frequencies compared to other frequencies.
In the case of dynamic speakers (headphones, microphones, in-ear monitors, etc), this means, specifically, that at a point that the signal is being pushed out, the incoming signal causes the magnet to push out even further.
This would never happen with an ideal speaker. In the ideal case, the speaker will already have returned to a rest position (or close to move the air at the new desired frequency) between each pulse of signal, so you won't have to worry about resonant frequencies. The easiest way to approximate this is to have less inertia to overcome on the way back via smaller speaker elements, just as you said.
First of all, I'd like to say IANAA, IAAST (I am not an audiophile, I am a sound technician).
No. They fail to isolate the low frequencies.
Those go straight through something like a pair of earphones.
However, active noise cancelling headphones (which in-ear 'phones are not ever, despite the GP's claim) can help out in cancelling the lows.
Ear covering headphones (cans) have another problem in that the speakers themselves are not suspended, which causes problems with the high end getting absorbed by things that aren't your ears (causing strange nonlinearies).
The big problem that in-ear headphones solve is in sound reproduction. Within the human range of hearing, most in-ear headphones claim to be able to reproduce any frequency without any nonlinearies (I haven't actually tried it myself, however I can point you to studies that test frequency response that confirm that they're much better than anything else). This is possible simply because the tiny, tiny elements don't have to produce much vibration to do their job, so the inertia of the speaker element becomes negligible, and because there's nothing else to get in the way of absorbing the sound besides your ear.
spray it all over a sensitive board that's grounded, you will transfer a charge, yeah?
Are you trying to say that the phrase "grounded air" is meaningful? Do you know how much charge air can hold before it starts to do what you're suggesting in a high enough quantity to damage a circuit board?
There are enough non-ions within the air itself that it is difficult to induce a current under almost any condition.
Its a good strategy to keep grounded compressed air on hand.
While it's little known in the computer industry, the common use for grounded compressed air is for tire-air replacement (it gets stale). Its best to replace the air in your tires once either every 4-6 months, or when you change your blinker-light fluid.
When using your grounded compressed air, its important to remember to stay away from electrical outlets. Normal air is an insulator, and therefore incapable of being a ground at all. Grounded compressed air is not, and as it drifts around it may randomly form an electrical path between things if it loses contact with the ground.
Now please excuse me. I have to go rotate my hood ornament.
The only thing that comes from Monty Python and the Holy Grail is "This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheeps' bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes."
Right after that they cut to the next scene.
Its nice to know I did it so well that there are people who actually think its a quote from the movie, though.:)
And when you're dealing with a legacy system stored on a tape? Or when you're getting data from a map (which just happens to come out unsorted), or from a hash table, or the system stack, or a random file, or...?
You don't always have access to a database server. There's a ton of reasons why you may feel the need to reach for a sorting routine. The point is, though, that you always have access to something so that you will not have to implment sorting ever. You should expect that you have that.
The same goes for common collective data types, like associative arrays, lists (or stacks and queues), trees, and matrices. There are plenty of other concepts I always expect to find, and a few I'm never surprised to find.
Knowing when to expect an answer to questions like: "What standard library implements theoretical concept X in language Y?" is the mark of a veteran coder.
I myself came from a college background where I did a LOT of programming on my own.
I came to work for a company where many of the people working there didn't go to college.
Any simple canned algorithm that you can be taught in college isn't going to be implmented in the real world. Real programmers will always use a library for it. I would be bent out of shape if a programmer implented a sorting algorithm period. That indicates someone who is very , very green as a programmer.
Even gcc has a built in quicksort, and gcc has almost nothing built-in.
This is something one learns in the real world: what they can expect from a programming environment, and how to use other people's code. This is why - at least for small programs - experience often beats theory.
But one can always catch up in programming skill; you end up doing it all the time when you get out.
What you can't get is the theory, so eventually college educated have an edge.
binary standard which allows code No...that doesn't work. That only works if all of your machines have the same architecture. This means that any code you write for Windows using their ABI won't work on anything else at all.
Conversely, if you have a simple API, you can write code that will run everywhere. Why should module writers bow to a single archictecture? Further, why should they have to bend over backwards to support a large, cumbersome API that the language of their choice doesn't necessarily support (or doesn't support without proprietary components)?
Apache works fine on Windows - very, very well, actually. There are plenty of things that even the Windows version can do that make IIS look like a toy. However, there are a lot of neat modules that won't work - mostly due to the two things I mentioned. The same can be said of most development stuff. ActivePerl's package management system, which is a Windows perl port, contains about half of what CPAN does.
AN important point is that Windows OS is not necessarily at fault for the difficulty faced. Linux or the current babe of/. , OSX, would possibly just be as hard to administrate as a Windows environment.
Apache has only limited support for Windows, but still, Apache is a bitch to configure for any platform.
I think it can. Where does the the complexity lie? Its in the threading more than anything else. There is, in fact, a standard for such things. It's called Posix. Windows doesn't support it. At this point, it should.
I think we can blame Windows for that.
Further, Windows doesn't have a source-based build system at all! Shouldn't it? I mean, I can add Apache modules like they're legos because of it's compile system, but it won't work with Windows because Windows still insists that a compiler and make system shouldn't be part of the OS!
As far as being a pain to administrate, I disagree. It's not clicky-clicky, but when you get errors in the logs, they tell you exactly what's wrong, which makes it a lot easier to fix it. You don't end up with nearly as many nebulous messages as you get from the Windows event system when something goes wrong. To me, fixing things is a lot more of sysadmin's job than setup ever is, so this is a bigger deal than "I don't know how to start" type problems.
I don't know...I can't think of any game=>movies that don't suck. At least, I can't think of any that are considered anything beyond B movies - unless, of course, we include movies that are from game+something else, or concurrent releases where both are designed as one entity (only one that comes to mind there is Tron).
Here are the ones that come to mind: Super Mario Bros Mortal Kombat (two movies, somehow) Final Fantasy Street Fighter Double Dragon Tomb Raider Wing Commander Resident Evil
Can you honestly say that any of these are quality movies? These are the kind of movies I expect to find on the Sci-Fi channel or some other place that does made-for-TV (not that I didn't enjoy them, but they still suck).
That covers the majority of the game-to-movie titles out there.
I think it's safe to say that you don't get quality when you do that unless you're very, very good...and no one has been that good yet.
I still believe someone could pull it off by tapping the almost totally untapped RPG genre. Final Fantasy would have had a shot at excellence had they actually done a good job at the implementation and picked the best plot elements from the series (rather than remaking almost everything). Further, Zelda would make a great movie, I think.
The movie was so horrible that they decided to put some time between the game release and the movie.
You know - to let the anger cool off for wasting $8 to see it in the theatres. Of course, for stores with a "break it=buy it" policy, it could still have turned out okay. ("Me saw movie! Movie no good! Game be same! ME SMASH GAME!")
Actually, Legend of Zelda (no subtitle) was only on 8-bit Nintendo. Today you can play it on pretty much anything, though, through the magic of emulation.
I've got it on my Palm Pilot.:)
(By the way, I know what you meant. Mean what you say, though...Legend of Zelda is a pretty awesome game IMHO)
That's not the problem with speech at all. We could deal with errors, were that the big problem. We can also create "perfect rules," or even (what speech AIs actually use) fuzzy rules that allow for errors (e.g. "that sentence contains a lot of greeting indicators. It's probably a greeting; I'll ignore the part about the dog and the fact that hello is spelled 'heloe'.")
The problem is the sheer volume of rules needed.
It's just way too much work to do by hand. All that is really needed is an automatic technique to get those rules in there.
I know what you're thinking: "but I know what the words mean and a computer's rule-based response wouldn't know even if you filled it full of rules!"
How do you determine the meaning of words? (I'm sure that there will be some who disagree with me here). You've memorized what each mean, and rules of syntax and grammer that tell you how to combine them. It's one giant expert system; you've got a gigantic collection of rules stored in your head that help you understand language. This is no different.
Your history is a little off. People didn't just "flock" to AMD. AMD fought tooth-and-nail with prices nearly half those of Intels starting around the same time Intel release the Pentium.
Athlons came much, much later.
Maybe they're starting to get frustrated that they don't have more marketshare than Intel already? They're usually cheaper, and they usually outperform.
It can take a while for an engineering company to realize that their competition is being underhanded. Today, it's certainly late enough in the game for them to realize this. "All of a sudden" has actually been a long time coming.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article, "Under the Print Library Project, Google is scanning millions of copyright books from libraries at Harvard, Michigan and Stanford along with out-of-copyright materials there and at two other libraries."
So they're not just making it easier to do what is already legal; that's what project Gutenburg does. This is something else entirely.
I don't know...text against black and illuminated text is much easier on the eyes than books are. Not having to turn pages makes it faster, and being able to read in the dark is kind of nice. I don't know why you'd want to read on a laptop when there are plenty of good tiny PDAs that fit the bill and are smaller than books.
Here are the reasons I've been given for reading from dead wood:
"I like the feel and smell of pages."
"I like to turn the pages."
"I like the feel of a book in my hands."
"Reading from my PDA makes my eyes hurt"
"I don't have a place to get e-books."
All of those are reasons based upon the fact that they've gotten used to doing it that way except the last two. The last two generations (within four years) of PDAs alleviate the second to last concern, and the last one is only a matter of time.
When there is a generation that starts by reading electronically, they won't want to go back, since in the nonsubjective ways reading electronically is pretty much universally better, so book publishers are very much in trouble.
It would be nice, wouldn't it?
Of course, you don't actually have to use multiple user bases now. The winbind component can do out-of-the-box Active Directory integration and even map users to linux users. So there's nothing to complain about there.
There are a few big problems with it, though:
1) You can't have a backup for if your WINS system is down; Samba will not deal with both the original and the backup (because it won't sync the winbind produced groups/usernames with the existing groups/usernames).
2) UIDs and GIDs are mapped by Samba on the fly...so if they're different the second time you try it, too bad. You'll just have to chown any files that have the wrong permissions.
I don't really think that Samba's the way to go with this anyway. A better "out of the box" type solution would be to a version of pam_ldap that has built-in support for registering the unix box with an active directory, which is really the only piece that is still a kludge (to do pam_ldap+nss_ldap+mit_krb5+sasl, you have to manually get the keytab right now).
Hold on, let me check my new brain for the answer.
Nope. It looks like that's all background noise.
Clearly we is just as smarter as we used to was, and can did our stuff just as much as we used to could.
Yeah...'cause keeping extra AA batteries around is far more convenient than plugging your gaming device into an outlet when you're sleeping or driving...
Oh, wait...no it isn't. Why is it better, again?
I can see your point. Since I'm talking about US game company being sued in the US, I must naturally be talking about EU laws. :)
I live in the US.
You can't buy X-rated TV unless you're an adult either. Basic Cable, or Satellite TV doesn't come with it. Once you put it in your home, be it games, movies, magazines, or TV all bets are off, but buying them is a strictly opt-in type of thing.
what effects the psyche more then something else is an unsubstantiated opinion
Just because I didn't substantiate it doesn't mean there is no real evidence.
Will you listen to evidence at all? Its all I can provide here. Most psychological studies aren't kept on the internet, so I can't provide one that covers the effect of books on desensitization.
Its harder to prove a negative. Why don't you prove that books have a measurable effect? Its makes more sense to prove that images have an effect that to prove that books don't have much of one because the effect from images is so much more noticable.
If you don't accept psychiatric study as evidence, there's really nothing that can change your mind, is there? You must have read something like this before since it is currently the prevailing opinion in the psychological community, and you obviously have an opinion on the subject (you'd be hard-pressed to not find a result like this if you tried to learn anything about the subject). There are journals brimming with studies, but your claim that it has no mental effect becomes untestable if you don't accept measurements of mental effects as evidence.
Everyone starts by learning a subset of the language
As someone who regularly downloads and fixes broken perl modules, I have to disagree.
Everyone tends to use the same subset at the start.
The big thing you see in a beginner's code are just control structures (especially foreach statements), and regular expressions (and then mostly only stuff you'll see in an awk expression).
Things like inventing a new inheritance structure (as is done by Class::DBI, OOTools, and PDF::Template), embedding a LALR parser (all the template engines), are a sign of a mature coder, and happen much less. These people are more likely to write code in a logically consistent, well designed manner such that it is easy to extend.
So far I've found one module that I tried to fix (and ended up not because it was too much work) that wasn't either simple or well designed (Class::DBI::FormBuilder).
Actually everything that has graphics is regulated, isn't it?
You absolutely can't buy anything with nudity if you're under 17, and you're going to have hard time getting an R or rated magazine or movie if you're under 13 (isn't that the age?)
Forget about your straw man, and stop inciting antireligious sentiment; religion is irrelevant here.
What you see has a much quicker, and more lasting effect on your psyche than what you read. That why there is no such ban on books, period - religious or otherwise.
Which do you think desensitizes you to violence more? Imagining from a book without ever having seen it, or watching a taped murder?
I'm not arguing for or against the ban. All I'm saying is that it isn't exactly a double standard. Its more like holding video games to the same standard as everything else.
No, I'm sure there are times when it is.
For instance, if someone's child...say, a 30 year old man, who is in fact, someone's child, happens to break into my house I think its entirely appropriate to beat him about the head and shoulders with a baseball bat - even - or, in fact, especially - if his parent isn't there to approve.
"No breaking in, please" may not be enough to convince him not to.
That's a reason. Not more correct, though, since we were talking about the difference between in-ear and cans (covered headphones). Cans have a problem sounding tinny (that's why they're called cans), which means a problem in the low-end. You need very, very large speakers before you get resonance problems in the low end (unless you're talking about the resonance caused by bouncing the sound off of a wall or something).
"With the resonance frequency" isn't really a proper explanation, either, as you have not explained what resonant frequncy is.
A resonant frequency is the frequency at which current vibrations are exactly in phase with incoming vibrations, thus providing an amplifying effect at those frequencies compared to other frequencies.
In the case of dynamic speakers (headphones, microphones, in-ear monitors, etc), this means, specifically, that at a point that the signal is being pushed out, the incoming signal causes the magnet to push out even further.
This would never happen with an ideal speaker. In the ideal case, the speaker will already have returned to a rest position (or close to move the air at the new desired frequency) between each pulse of signal, so you won't have to worry about resonant frequencies. The easiest way to approximate this is to have less inertia to overcome on the way back via smaller speaker elements, just as you said.
First of all, I'd like to say IANAA, IAAST (I am not an audiophile, I am a sound technician).
No. They fail to isolate the low frequencies.
Those go straight through something like a pair of earphones.
However, active noise cancelling headphones (which in-ear 'phones are not ever, despite the GP's claim) can help out in cancelling the lows.
Ear covering headphones (cans) have another problem in that the speakers themselves are not suspended, which causes problems with the high end getting absorbed by things that aren't your ears (causing strange nonlinearies).
The big problem that in-ear headphones solve is in sound reproduction. Within the human range of hearing, most in-ear headphones claim to be able to reproduce any frequency without any nonlinearies (I haven't actually tried it myself, however I can point you to studies that test frequency response that confirm that they're much better than anything else). This is possible simply because the tiny, tiny elements don't have to produce much vibration to do their job, so the inertia of the speaker element becomes negligible, and because there's nothing else to get in the way of absorbing the sound besides your ear.
spray it all over a sensitive board that's grounded, you will transfer a charge, yeah?
Are you trying to say that the phrase "grounded air" is meaningful? Do you know how much charge air can hold before it starts to do what you're suggesting in a high enough quantity to damage a circuit board?
There are enough non-ions within the air itself that it is difficult to induce a current under almost any condition.
grounded compressed air
Its a good strategy to keep grounded compressed air on hand.
While it's little known in the computer industry, the common use for grounded compressed air is for tire-air replacement (it gets stale). Its best to replace the air in your tires once either every 4-6 months, or when you change your blinker-light fluid.
When using your grounded compressed air, its important to remember to stay away from electrical outlets. Normal air is an insulator, and therefore incapable of being a ground at all.
Grounded compressed air is not, and as it drifts around it may randomly form an electrical path between things if it loses contact with the ground.
Now please excuse me. I have to go rotate my hood ornament.
No it's not. I made that part up entirely.
:)
The only thing that comes from Monty Python and the Holy Grail is "This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheeps' bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes."
Right after that they cut to the next scene.
Its nice to know I did it so well that there are people who actually think its a quote from the movie, though.
You got that here, right?
And when you're dealing with a legacy system stored on a tape? Or when you're getting data from a map (which just happens to come out unsorted), or from a hash table, or the system stack, or a random file, or...?
You don't always have access to a database server. There's a ton of reasons why you may feel the need to reach for a sorting routine. The point is, though, that you always have access to something so that you will not have to implment sorting ever. You should expect that you have that.
The same goes for common collective data types, like associative arrays, lists (or stacks and queues), trees, and matrices. There are plenty of other concepts I always expect to find, and a few I'm never surprised to find.
Knowing when to expect an answer to questions like: "What standard library implements theoretical concept X in language Y?" is the mark of a veteran coder.
Fairly arrogant of you.
I myself came from a college background where I did a LOT of programming on my own.
I came to work for a company where many of the people working there didn't go to college.
Any simple canned algorithm that you can be taught in college isn't going to be implmented in the real world. Real programmers will always use a library for it. I would be bent out of shape if a programmer implented a sorting algorithm period. That indicates someone who is very , very green as a programmer.
Even gcc has a built in quicksort, and gcc has almost nothing built-in.
This is something one learns in the real world: what they can expect from a programming environment, and how to use other people's code. This is why - at least for small programs - experience often beats theory.
But one can always catch up in programming skill; you end up doing it all the time when you get out.
What you can't get is the theory, so eventually college educated have an edge.
binary standard which allows code
No...that doesn't work. That only works if all of your machines have the same architecture. This means that any code you write for Windows using their ABI won't work on anything else at all.
Conversely, if you have a simple API, you can write code that will run everywhere. Why should module writers bow to a single archictecture? Further, why should they have to bend over backwards to support a large, cumbersome API that the language of their choice doesn't necessarily support (or doesn't support without proprietary components)?
Apache works fine on Windows - very, very well, actually. There are plenty of things that even the Windows version can do that make IIS look like a toy. However, there are a lot of neat modules that won't work - mostly due to the two things I mentioned. The same can be said of most development stuff. ActivePerl's package management system, which is a Windows perl port, contains about half of what CPAN does.
AN important point is that Windows OS is not necessarily at fault for the difficulty faced. Linux or the current babe of /. , OSX, would possibly just be as hard to administrate as a Windows environment.
Apache has only limited support for Windows, but still, Apache is a bitch to configure for any platform.
I think it can. Where does the the complexity lie? Its in the threading more than anything else. There is, in fact, a standard for such things. It's called Posix. Windows doesn't support it. At this point, it should.
I think we can blame Windows for that.
Further, Windows doesn't have a source-based build system at all! Shouldn't it? I mean, I can add Apache modules like they're legos because of it's compile system, but it won't work with Windows because Windows still insists that a compiler and make system shouldn't be part of the OS!
As far as being a pain to administrate, I disagree. It's not clicky-clicky, but when you get errors in the logs, they tell you exactly what's wrong, which makes it a lot easier to fix it. You don't end up with nearly as many nebulous messages as you get from the Windows event system when something goes wrong. To me, fixing things is a lot more of sysadmin's job than setup ever is, so this is a bigger deal than "I don't know how to start" type problems.
I don't know...I can't think of any game=>movies that don't suck. At least, I can't think of any that are considered anything beyond B movies - unless, of course, we include movies that are from game+something else, or concurrent releases where both are designed as one entity (only one that comes to mind there is Tron).
Here are the ones that come to mind:
Super Mario Bros
Mortal Kombat (two movies, somehow)
Final Fantasy
Street Fighter
Double Dragon
Tomb Raider
Wing Commander
Resident Evil
Can you honestly say that any of these are quality movies? These are the kind of movies I expect to find on the Sci-Fi channel or some other place that does made-for-TV (not that I didn't enjoy them, but they still suck).
That covers the majority of the game-to-movie titles out there.
I think it's safe to say that you don't get quality when you do that unless you're very, very good...and no one has been that good yet.
I still believe someone could pull it off by tapping the almost totally untapped RPG genre. Final Fantasy would have had a shot at excellence had they actually done a good job at the implementation and picked the best plot elements from the series (rather than remaking almost everything). Further, Zelda would make a great movie, I think.
The movie was so horrible that they decided to put some time between the game release and the movie.
You know - to let the anger cool off for wasting $8 to see it in the theatres. Of course, for stores with a "break it=buy it" policy, it could still have turned out okay. ("Me saw movie! Movie no good! Game be same! ME SMASH GAME!")
Good news, everyone! You get to live!
:)
Actually, Legend of Zelda (no subtitle) was only on 8-bit Nintendo. Today you can play it on pretty much anything, though, through the magic of emulation.
I've got it on my Palm Pilot.
(By the way, I know what you meant. Mean what you say, though...Legend of Zelda is a pretty awesome game IMHO)
That's not the problem with speech at all. We could deal with errors, were that the big problem. We can also create "perfect rules," or even (what speech AIs actually use) fuzzy rules that allow for errors (e.g. "that sentence contains a lot of greeting indicators. It's probably a greeting; I'll ignore the part about the dog and the fact that hello is spelled 'heloe'.")
The problem is the sheer volume of rules needed.
It's just way too much work to do by hand. All that is really needed is an automatic technique to get those rules in there.
I know what you're thinking: "but I know what the words mean and a computer's rule-based response wouldn't know even if you filled it full of rules!"
How do you determine the meaning of words? (I'm sure that there will be some who disagree with me here). You've memorized what each mean, and rules of syntax and grammer that tell you how to combine them. It's one giant expert system; you've got a gigantic collection of rules stored in your head that help you understand language. This is no different.
...and your presenting it as factual.
Obviously this isn't the case, is it?
Satire is quite protected by the law as part of freedom of speech.
Your history is a little off. People didn't just "flock" to AMD. AMD fought tooth-and-nail with prices nearly half those of Intels starting around the same time Intel release the Pentium.
Athlons came much, much later.
Maybe they're starting to get frustrated that they don't have more marketshare than Intel already?
They're usually cheaper, and they usually outperform.
It can take a while for an engineering company to realize that their competition is being underhanded. Today, it's certainly late enough in the game for them to realize this. "All of a sudden" has actually been a long time coming.
That's a silly assumption to make.
As a whole, linux development proceeds at a breakneck pace and adds as many features as it possibly can.
By comparison, all of the other environments are far more rigorous and controlled. Linux has more developers, too.
Because of these things, it would make sense that linux has more available for it. What makes you think otherwise?