I'm trying to find the evidence of it. I think it's in a journal entry somewhere of taco's. It'll take a while to find. Can i get a little help on the search (anyone)?
Did you know that you can buy a computer today, and in 6 months, you are already obsoleted? No buybacks, not refunds.. nothing. In fact, you'd have to sell it used.
I think people should be used to this by now. It's called, economics. No one wants to buy back tangibles that they sold you. It's your fault you bought them.. and it's your fault if you buy the newest ones.
Besides, is the game THAT much more fun between 3.0 and 3.5? Isn't your GM supposed to make adjustments to the games when he see's fit? Hell, i've seen really random spells given out when there's a plot difficulty. I.e. "Damn, no one knows how to talk to this creature, and our guy who is multilingual is in jail." "Ok, I'm giving you a spell just so that you can understand any one language you choose, but you can only do that language. No dual tounges while you use it. But when you go back to your old language, you retain the knowledge of what you talked about. Level 5, costs xxx mp."
And also, if you really need those books, get everyone in your group to pitch in and buy the latest ones.
I bought all the 3rd ed books already after all... it seems stingy to charge users twice.
I played AD&D before the software. Does the software do anything that you can't do on paper with your imagination and the books?
This isn't bait a bait and switch. hell, slashdot does this too. First, all of the articles were user generated, now some of them are ads.
Nothing has been taken away that you can't have already. It's not like, someone wrote something, got everyone completely dependent on it without viable alternatives, and then said, "Give me more money, or you are screwed." BSA and operating systems for instance.
Or the RIAA,we own the product, we can do whatever we wish within our own personal confines. Turning my cd into mp3, ogg, making 30,000 copies, cracking any code and decorating my walls with them isn't illegal. It's the redistribution for no cost that is illegal.
This is a pretty well known & documented UI shortcoming with contemporary screens: between the fact that the typical monitor is backlit (thus, you're staring into a lightbulb the whole time -- and a flickering one at that) and the very low resolution compared to print (isn't typical resolution on the order of 72 dpi? that's worse than a cheap bubble-jet printer...), reading long texts off a CRT or LCD display isn't comfortable for most people. It's been written that this resolution issue is making computers a lot more uncomfortable for people than most folks realize, and that only with better screens (reflective instead of back-lit, and resolutions of say 1000dpi and higher) will reading electronic displays come to feel as comfortable as paper does for the average user.
Try setting the background to black and the text to a low intensity shade of white (or colour). Increase the fonts to a size above average for text book reading, and doublespace. For me, it gives the least eye problems. I do almost the same for coding. Otherwise my eyes start to hurt aftere a while.
But why give people a false sense of security? Locks and doors actually do work. They slow down prowlers and make it highly likely they'd be caught. Screenshots are easy to take, discrete and work.
I'm in total agreement, but to sum up. When making standards, or putting in systems or anything of that sort, you need representatives of all your stake holders. If it's a small project, you need only a few. On larger ones, you need to be more organized.
That's simple. YOu find someone crooked enough to look it up in a database somehwre.
No problem is impossible. Through enough resources at it, and it goes away. Just a matter of attaining those resources, such as time, or money, or people.
Given your name and home address, I'm sure anyone can find your other personal information and can get a credit card with/your/ info. Just gotta try hard enough.
Didn't you know? Rocketry, especially model rocketry, is a well known secret art. With some bubble gum, a cardboard tube, an m-80 and some match shavings, we can make "weapons of mass destruction" that can traverse many miles from iraq to the US.
C'mmon. What's the sense in this. Really. Anyone could be as dangerous with a potato gun and be less conspicuous, since you don't have to set it up, aim it and fire. Anyone who wants to make a rocket can make one if they really want to.
Or maybe now we should just restrict banning play stations now that they have technology for guidance systems in them.
Like GreenDay perhaps? Everyone has their loyal followings. I'll remember blink182, just like I remember Metallica or Pearl Jam.. or Nirvana... or Stone Temple Pilots.
I think we could argue that one all day. I'm not particular to the music of nirvana. I like them sorta, but it's sorta like alice in chains. They have a sound, but it wasn't.. broad enough. Not like say, Dream Theatre, or Pantera who kinda stretched things out a bit in their genre. Nirvana all sounds too alike in terms of style.
The Beatles on the other hand, created something wholly new and breathtaking. I am comparing them on musical integrity; the songs Blink 182 make do not , comparably, take much skill to create or play.
Classical music tends to be a little more.. complex. Take SRV or Santana. They are a bit more complex. The Beatles didn't do anything so complex, that it isn't repeatable. As for them doing something breathtaking? Sure, why not. You like the Beatles, that's all fine and dandy. Your view of Blink182 is probably the same as mine with the Beatles.. to some extent.. just not the same direction:)
You will notice that Nirvana is not around that much anymore compared to a band like the Beatles (who is still played on all sorts of radio stations, not just Oldies).
Well, consider that Nirvana isn't really that old. 10 years does not necessarily make a grand oldie. Then again, Nirvana didn't do anything that a lot of the old bands didn't do already.. like Pearl Jam, or any other alternative bands may have. IMHO nirvana was only big because of the suicide thing:)
I think the problem with comparing blink182 to the beatles is, blink182 isn't as big. While blink182 captured an age group of the US, the beatles sorta did it world wide.
But asside from comparing apples with other fruit, and don't take offense to this, but the Beatles didn't offer much than contribute to pop music. Madonna did id. The jackson 5 did it. The eagles did it:) But you know what. They all did it in their own way. The beatles as a band, the jackson 5 as a group of black vocalists. Prince and Madonna as vocolists in their own right have done it recently. They made music that didn't require a lot of technology to warp their voices.
If you've ever heard blink182 with just their amps, guitars and drums, they really are much better than their recordings. they have a lot of fun on stage too. Sorta like "Bare Naked Ladies" but more punk than pop.:)
I'm sorry, but comparing ANY of these bands to the beatles is just plain wrong. The Beatles may have had their poppy sappy songs, but they also had plenty of musically genius and experimental yet great songs. The only way I can understand you being a musician and not appreciating the beatles is if you did not take the time to listen to their music other their poppy songs which are on the radio often today.
:) I miscommunicated. Not ME being a musician, but they being a musician. I left out a comma or a pronoun somewhere.
So they experimented in something. What if the experiment failed? It doesn't stop them from being musicians and making music.
What if Blink182's wacky antics and style become mainstream. What if they can become the father of some particular "thing" that everyone else decides to follow? Or what if they follow something that most people do. Look at early Metallica and Pantera. They both do something quite simliar, and some things quite different. Does that make their music, non-music, because they both did something different or the same?
As for the market... it probably doesn't have the strongest correlation to what is "good" and what is "popular".
- some arists become big after they are done while some some artists vs some becoming big while they are there - some are good, some are bad
Audit a live system somewhere, where people "live" to copy everything that isn't "sensitive". Then fake the sensitive info, like passwords, card numbers and names.
That is how you do final tests before production. You make a system so lifelike, it is infaliable.. or nealy so.
Crappy bands like Avril and Blink ARE teen society, right now those horrible pop-punkish bands are terribly 'in'
Hey now. They do have some redeeming qualties. Yes, they are pop punk, but it doesn't mean they don't do it well.
Look at the Beatles. They don't particularly chime anything for me as a musician. Do I like them? Not at all. But hey, they captured hearts, even in todays day and age. Madonna... great girl, all natrual and that, pop artist. Doesn't do a bad job either. Just not good to me in what I'd like to hear.
It's all a matter of personal taste and culture. "I don't like blink182, and a thousand other people I like don't like them. Yeah! They suck!" Remember when Metallica was the shizit? Because of a lot of.. bad stuff from them lately, who would want to like them?
Someone said it best. If someone likes it, it must be music. Probably because it reflects as something to someone somewhere. As for Britney Spears.. I don't know how that works. But that's just me:)
Blaming security vulnerabilities on a lack of OO principles is misguided and wrong.
No, I'm using OO as an example of the good use of it. Php has a problem with badly written internals, based off of spaghetti code and procedural programming.
Writing stuff in OO is a little harder to make memory leaks, while possible. Especially if you don't use malloc explicitly. Deleting all your objects (or implied in the case of garbage collection) as well as a well writen API, in the case of java and ruby, will help you not write bad code. It will help you keep organized. Dismissing OO is misguided and wrong as well.
Next thing I know, i'm gonna be told to dismiss seatbelts, since if I drive perfectly, I won't ever need them!
Slashdot Mirror
Those are the smaller rules that I have no authority on declaring or finding.
Hey, I know the basic rules, not the "well.. in that case" ones.
-s
It's a computer and fridge, with water and ice dispenser! Now if only it had a crisper :)
I'm trying to find the evidence of it. I think it's in a journal entry somewhere of taco's. It'll take a while to find. Can i get a little help on the search (anyone)?
Did you know that you can buy a computer today, and in 6 months, you are already obsoleted? No buybacks, not refunds.. nothing. In fact, you'd have to sell it used.
I think people should be used to this by now. It's called, economics. No one wants to buy back tangibles that they sold you. It's your fault you bought them.. and it's your fault if you buy the newest ones.
Besides, is the game THAT much more fun between 3.0 and 3.5? Isn't your GM supposed to make adjustments to the games when he see's fit? Hell, i've seen really random spells given out when there's a plot difficulty. I.e. "Damn, no one knows how to talk to this creature, and our guy who is multilingual is in jail." "Ok, I'm giving you a spell just so that you can understand any one language you choose, but you can only do that language. No dual tounges while you use it. But when you go back to your old language, you retain the knowledge of what you talked about. Level 5, costs xxx mp."
And also, if you really need those books, get everyone in your group to pitch in and buy the latest ones.
Cripes..
I played AD&D before the software. Does the software do anything that you can't do on paper with your imagination and the books?
This isn't bait a bait and switch. hell, slashdot does this too. First, all of the articles were user generated, now some of them are ads.
Nothing has been taken away that you can't have already. It's not like, someone wrote something, got everyone completely dependent on it without viable alternatives, and then said, "Give me more money, or you are screwed." BSA and operating systems for instance.
Or the RIAA,we own the product, we can do whatever we wish within our own personal confines. Turning my cd into mp3, ogg, making 30,000 copies, cracking any code and decorating my walls with them isn't illegal. It's the redistribution for no cost that is illegal.
Damned whiners.
Try setting the background to black and the text to a low intensity shade of white (or colour). Increase the fonts to a size above average for text book reading, and doublespace. For me, it gives the least eye problems. I do almost the same for coding. Otherwise my eyes start to hurt aftere a while.
But why give people a false sense of security? Locks and doors actually do work. They slow down prowlers and make it highly likely they'd be caught. Screenshots are easy to take, discrete and work.
If it can be seen or heard, it can be reproduced. Screenshots my friend.. screen shots
That's your mail handler's job. Most mail handlers support this as it is.
Idiotically enough, we have outgoing filters on our mail preventing words like shit, but not sh-it or shitake.
I'm in total agreement, but to sum up. When making standards, or putting in systems or anything of that sort, you need representatives of all your stake holders. If it's a small project, you need only a few. On larger ones, you need to be more organized.
:)
Sorta like gov't. Except be more effective
Are you sure you aren't a slashdot editor fulfilling your duplicate post quota? ;)
That's simple. YOu find someone crooked enough to look it up in a database somehwre.
/your/ info. Just gotta try hard enough.
No problem is impossible. Through enough resources at it, and it goes away. Just a matter of attaining those resources, such as time, or money, or people.
Given your name and home address, I'm sure anyone can find your other personal information and can get a credit card with
Apparently the uninformed politicians with their red crayons draw it.
Didn't you know? Rocketry, especially model rocketry, is a well known secret art. With some bubble gum, a cardboard tube, an m-80 and some match shavings, we can make "weapons of mass destruction" that can traverse many miles from iraq to the US.
C'mmon. What's the sense in this. Really. Anyone could be as dangerous with a potato gun and be less conspicuous, since you don't have to set it up, aim it and fire. Anyone who wants to make a rocket can make one if they really want to.
Or maybe now we should just restrict banning play stations now that they have technology for guidance systems in them.
Like GreenDay perhaps? Everyone has their loyal followings. I'll remember blink182, just like I remember Metallica or Pearl Jam.. or Nirvana... or Stone Temple Pilots.
*weeps*
I think we could argue that one all day. I'm not particular to the music of nirvana. I like them sorta, but it's sorta like alice in chains. They have a sound, but it wasn't.. broad enough. Not like say, Dream Theatre, or Pantera who kinda stretched things out a bit in their genre. Nirvana all sounds too alike in terms of style.
:)
But that's my humble opinion
Classical music tends to be a little more.. complex. Take SRV or Santana. They are a bit more complex. The Beatles didn't do anything so complex, that it isn't repeatable. As for them doing something breathtaking? Sure, why not. You like the Beatles, that's all fine and dandy. Your view of Blink182 is probably the same as mine with the Beatles.. to some extent.. just not the same direction
Well, consider that Nirvana isn't really that old. 10 years does not necessarily make a grand oldie. Then again, Nirvana didn't do anything that a lot of the old bands didn't do already.. like Pearl Jam, or any other alternative bands may have. IMHO nirvana was only big because of the suicide thing
I think the problem with comparing blink182 to the beatles is, blink182 isn't as big. While blink182 captured an age group of the US, the beatles sorta did it world wide.
But asside from comparing apples with other fruit, and don't take offense to this, but the Beatles didn't offer much than contribute to pop music. Madonna did id. The jackson 5 did it. The eagles did it
If you've ever heard blink182 with just their amps, guitars and drums, they really are much better than their recordings. they have a lot of fun on stage too. Sorta like "Bare Naked Ladies" but more punk than pop.
So they experimented in something. What if the experiment failed? It doesn't stop them from being musicians and making music.
What if Blink182's wacky antics and style become mainstream. What if they can become the father of some particular "thing" that everyone else decides to follow? Or what if they follow something that most people do. Look at early Metallica and Pantera. They both do something quite simliar, and some things quite different. Does that make their music, non-music, because they both did something different or the same?
As for the market... it probably doesn't have the strongest correlation to what is "good" and what is "popular".
- some arists become big after they are done while some some artists vs some becoming big while they are there
- some are good, some are bad
Mix and match at that point.
But how often are there these characters? Maybe if it got popular/big enough, they might.
I guess a category isn't a category, a competition isn't a competition, unless you have the people to fill it.
Maybe an honorary mentioning then?
I'd wager you can..
Audit a live system somewhere, where people "live" to copy everything that isn't "sensitive". Then fake the sensitive info, like passwords, card numbers and names.
That is how you do final tests before production. You make a system so lifelike, it is infaliable.. or nealy so.
Hey now. They do have some redeeming qualties. Yes, they are pop punk, but it doesn't mean they don't do it well.
Look at the Beatles. They don't particularly chime anything for me as a musician. Do I like them? Not at all. But hey, they captured hearts, even in todays day and age. Madonna... great girl, all natrual and that, pop artist. Doesn't do a bad job either. Just not good to me in what I'd like to hear.
It's all a matter of personal taste and culture. "I don't like blink182, and a thousand other people I like don't like them. Yeah! They suck!" Remember when Metallica was the shizit? Because of a lot of.. bad stuff from them lately, who would want to like them?
Someone said it best. If someone likes it, it must be music. Probably because it reflects as something to someone somewhere. As for Britney Spears.. I don't know how that works. But that's just me
oOooo.. did i hurt the little boy's feelings.
http://cgi-spec.golux.com/cgi-120-00a.html :) tnx for playing
Not saying it's bad because of not using OO..just not using OO makes it easier. But hey, procedural spaghetti code is up to the designer, not me :)
Wow.. how nice and rude. Whatever.. argue with someone who cares.
No, I'm using OO as an example of the good use of it. Php has a problem with badly written internals, based off of spaghetti code and procedural programming.
Writing stuff in OO is a little harder to make memory leaks, while possible. Especially if you don't use malloc explicitly. Deleting all your objects (or implied in the case of garbage collection) as well as a well writen API, in the case of java and ruby, will help you not write bad code. It will help you keep organized. Dismissing OO is misguided and wrong as well.
Next thing I know, i'm gonna be told to dismiss seatbelts, since if I drive perfectly, I won't ever need them!