I know they used to use it back in 1993 or 1994 at the Riverport Amphetheater (Now UMB Bank Pavillion), but I haven't seen it used there or anywhere since then.
Yes, staying with software with software that doesn't work correctly is a loss. (OpenOffice, I'm talking about you and your inability to properly kern fonts to/from powerpoint.) It's network effect. You can gnash your teeth and say how it doesn't matter, and how one only needs to wait for the software to improve, and how you don't need interoperability because you refuse to deal with others, or how you don't care about broken functionality, but most resonable people do. They want to get their job done, not fight with software. If you notice your tool, then your tool is broken and should be replaced.
If "works" is defined as true interopability. Seamless Integration with others. Achieving goals other than those that are politically defined. Then free software is not working when it comes to desktop applications. It isn't working when it comes to drivers. It doesn't work because it makes the affirmative decision to refuse to work.
Doing useful work != eye-candy. It's essential. I would even define it as an essential freedom.
Javascript will forever be the bastard stepchild as long as there's all the incompatabilities between platforms. Hell, even the standard APIs have different semantics. Until you don't have to code up three version of every function, JS will linger on the edge of respectability.
And why do you believe this is true, because if you bothered to watch the video, you know the guy clearly says, "1/0 = infinity, -1/0 = -infinity, 0/0 = nullity." Using these definitions:
A = 100/0 = 100(1/0) = 100 (infinity) = infinity B = 10/0 = 10(1/0) = 10(infinity) = infinity C = 1/0 = infinity
From what I understand about MSR from those that work there is that MSR does do some pretty interesting things. MSR does do good research. However, MSR has a hard time getting MS management to put their ideas into products. For instance, MSR is supposed to have some new approaches and algorithms for MSN Search. Approaches that the research showed actually work with real world data and queries. But MSN Search is slow to put them in.
MSR's lack of product development is interesting and, but it doesn't appear to be all MSR's fault.
People may be treating Google as a public utility, but Google (a private company) has absolutely no obligations to any website.
PG&E is a public company. ComEd is a public company. Verizon is a public company. AT&T is a public company. They're all public utilities. Simply being a publicly traded for profit corporation doesn't mean that you're not a public utility.
Ultimately, Google* has the right to change the rules when & if they please, in an arbitrary fashion, without consulting anyone.
Yes, but there is something called ethics. Google is held to a higher standard than the Ackbar and Jeff's Falafel and Oil Change Hut because of their unique position of being depended on by hunderds of millions of people the worldwide. Also, Google said they should be held to a higher standard with their "Don't be Evil" slogan.
Did Google act wrong in this case? No. But that doesn't mean that your larger point about corporations are beholden to no one is valid.
I had no idea that/. prevented you from using your mouse to copy and paste. I had no idea that/. prevented you from using your mouse to copy and paste. I had no idea that/. prevented you from using your mouse to copy and paste. I had no idea that/. prevented you from using your mouse to copy and paste. I had no idea that/. prevented you from using your mouse to copy and paste.
And it is oh so hurtful when you start with "*yawn*". Way to go Napoleon. You've certainly proved that you've got nothing to prove.
While yor statements are patently absurd and would only serve to create a permanent underclass incapable of competing in the world economy, you did inadvertently hit one interesting point: The use of property taxes to fund primary and secondary education. You're right. That should be abolished, or at least majorly reformed. The tax revenue should be moved into a central pool and then divided equally on a per student basis and then distributed to the school according to enrollment. Afterall, it is an obligation of the state (read your state's constitution) to provide an adequate primary and secondary education to each resident under 18.
I grew up in an economically depressed part of the state. I've seen what lack of property tax base does to the education system. Roofs leak. Repairs go undone. Out of date textbooks. (My high school world history textbook in 1992 ended with the Camp David Accords. Yes. The book was 14 years old, and it looked it.) Meanwhile those luckily enough to be born in the weathy Chicago suburbs got everything. Up to date textbooks. Fully stocked science labs. Multi-million dollar sports complexes. It's obscene, and it should be stopped. Of course it won't because they don't want their tax money being used to pay for someone else's school bus. Then that same suburbanite wonder's why the schools in the innercity and the rural parts of the state don't have any money to buy new desks.
Take a look at Finland for example, who finished first in a study of math, science and reading skills of students in industrialised countries.
This reminds me of a quote from the West Wing. The background story of the episode was that it was the day the President receives the creditentials of every foriegn ambassador. Eventually the President receives the Swedish ambassador. The ambassador leaves, and the President turns to his aide and says, "Did you know Sweden has a 100% literacy rate? How do they do that? We have 99%. How do they have a 100%?" The aide says, "Maybe the don't Mr. President. Maybe they can't count either."
[1] This same high school suspended me (one day, three days in-school suspension, after which I was banned from using school computers for the rest of the school year) for doing as a teacher had asked me, hooking up computers to the network to use a deparment purchased laser printer, after said printers were used to look at pr0n during school hours.
Some how I suspect there's a bit more to this story than you're telling.
The Chinese government merely provides this as a government service, so the widest possible audience is sated. It's not worse. It's not even different. Consider first whether people are really, truly unhappy.
Well no. They censor to promote the idea that their monopoly of power is seen as legitament. They censor to promote the belief in their policies are unerring. That they know best. That they have the populace's best interests at heart, for the populace is incapable of acting in their own best interest. It's a way to maintain power. The fact that many in China see nothing wrong with this, and in fact BELIEVE, with these government lies are the real story. (It's not all that surprisng though.)
Whether the people are happy or unhappy is irrelevant. Many of the beliefs fostered by the regime are factually and demostrably untrue. People are always happy when they have no alternative, because they just accept it. Only when you have the ability to make a comparison can preference truly be established.
Self-policiing systems are completly different because I'm ultimately in control. If I don't like the group think, then I'm free to leave. And I can recognize the group think and form an opinion on it because I have access to multiple sources of information. If all I had was the Flat Earth Society Times-Piccayune, then I'd be happy with it, but that doesn't mean that I have a legitamate position.
You argue that games should become more realistic in a broad sense, but then mention game balance. Allow me to state the obvious, but the Real World is rarely balanced. The symmetry -- and in some cases the balanced asymmetry -- of the opponents are one of the things that makes games fun. No one would want to play the one-on-one game of Tree Ant vs Kid with Magnifying Glass.
About the only advantage the US has over them is their ability to field a large number of rookies - and the Chinese can field far more than the US can ever hope to. Although their equipment isn't as good, they make up for it by putting ten times as many men in the field and not really caring if half of them don't come back.
Really? Mercs have update to satelite images of the battle field? Mercs have real time video from UAVs? Mercs have air support and precision muntions? That's interesting.
Being able to get on a radio and have a house leveled where someone is shooting from is a very powerful weapon.
He is a very intelligent man. That doesn't make him right though. Calling for a "different set of rules" is what's troubling. Call me crazy, but I think the rules we've had for 230 years have worked pretty damn well thank you. His justification for curtailing the First Amendment is fear. The appeal to fear to justify a loss of civil liberties is well worn road, that inevitably leads to tyrants. Why? Because it's always easier to lose civil rights than it is to gain them.
The fact that he's calling Iraq a failure is nothing. He's just with vast majority of the American people. So what? Sounds like a guy trying to "get ahead of the curve" if you ask me.
1. It was done out of spite and stubornness. Things don't get that bad without a complete failure of compromise and statemenship. 2. It should people just how much they depended on the government.
People get pissed when things don't work. Not when everything is going fine. And in the end, Gingrich's stunt backfired. His, and the rest of GOP's, popular support fell like a rock, and he ended up getting nothing more than what was originally offered. It was a spectacular failure, and led to him being him being voted in several polls "the most hated man in politics."
From the blurb "For example, there's no consideration that military power or technology could fail or be jammed, she says. And the enemy doesn't learn, in contrast to a certain real-life conflict where the hallmark of insurgents is their ability to rapidly gain knowledge and evolve."
Well, first it's a recruiting tool. Of course the Americans are going to come out on top. (But, in all honesty, there really isn't a peer military any where in the world.) But more importantly, these criticisms with respect to the Army are ridiculous. There isn't a game made that has meets these criteria. Everyone can pickup as much ammo as they want without ever slowing down. Everyone can carry multiple full sized guns. Guns just miraculously appear whenever you change to them. (Aparently weapons are stored in some sort of pocket dimension like Optimus Prime's trailer.) Wounds don't do anything. You can be miracuously healed in an instance. Guns don't get jammed. People don't get tired. Guns are always accurate. Everyone can drive any vehicle, from snowmobiles to tanks. Oh and the tanks? They take a crew of one, and operate at full effectiveness right up until they explode.
Sure some games have some of these things, but it's rare when they do, and they rarely have them all. Why aren't games realistic? Because they're games. They're meant to be fun, and when compared to fantasy, reality frankly sucks.
Monster may help on analog audio, but doesn't do jack for digital.
You're wrong. See, back in the analog world we had to contend with "dirty power." Now in the digital world, we have "dirty bytes." The two ideas are related since they both deal with electricity, but subtley different. See the signal can become corrupted when passing through the box, and you know how dirty it is in there. If you don't know, just crack it open and take a look. Anyway the bytes are made up of bits. Eight bits to be precise. Now as the signal passes through the box it picks up some bits of dirt along with the other bits. And when you put the bits together you get a dirty byte that's EIGHT TIMES DIRTIER. Now when these bytes come out of the box and need to be read. But they need cleaned up before they can be read. Just like how you have to blow the dust off an old book to read it. So you see, the $50 hdmi cable cleans the bytes before their processed. If they weren't cleaned before they get processed by the tv, the tv would have to do that causing it to act slower, just like how it's quicker to read a clean book than a dirty book. Still with me? Okay. I know what you're thinking. The dirt from the bytes has to go somewhere, and you know where that is right? That's right. INSIDE THE TV! That what makes digital equipment so dirty on the inside. And since it's so dirty inside the tv, the bytes inside just keep getting dirtier and dirtier. It would be like trying to dust your house in the middle of a sandstorm. Pretty silly huh? So you see, you're not just cleaning the bytes as the come in, but you're really doing preventive maintence to your tv at the same time. Now you could probabably get by with just buying one $50 hdmi, but if you REALLY want to be safe, you should probably change your HDMI every three months, or whenever you change you're programming package. Whichever comes first.
I know what I'm talking about. I have $100 24k gold plated optical cable, and I can definately see and hear the difference.
OK OK, one laaast point -- anyone who doesn't feel HD is a worthwhile upgrade SERIOUSLY needs to get their eyes checked. I recommend doing an A/B comparison between SD and HD, of the same content. HD is only truly profound when you _go back_ to SD, and you ask yourself, how the hell did I deal with this shit for so long? BRING ON MORE HD!!!
I've done just that, and I still just don't see the point. Sure you MIGHT be able to see a bit more blades of grass, but big deal. The benefit just isn't there. This IS NOT a black-and-white to color revolution like it's been made out to be. The difference between HD and SD isn't nearly as large as the HD industry, which you are a part of, would have us believe. If such a difference did exist, the why do 50% of HDTV owners think their watching HD content, when they're not? I'll tell you. Self delusion. ("I paid $8,000 for super clear tv, and by god it is!")
It's hype. Successful hype mind you, but still just hype. If was as big a deal it's being made out to be, then the corporations wouldn't of needed the power of legislation to coerce the public into an upgrade. The public would be upgrading voluntarily. The fact that HDTV conversion has been so slow, and sales of HD channels lethargic so far is indicitive that there's little to no demand. I'm sure you're seeing a ramp in sales of HD equipment, now, but it's not because of some sort of spontaneous demand. It's the fact that government is banning analog. The deadline is looming, and panic is setting in. If you didn't have Uncle Sam as your salesman, you'd still be trying to move box 1.
The way this HDTV conversion is going down smells. And as a capitalist, it's disturbing. It's command economy meets the oligarchy.
The fact that you make your living selling HD equipment and now you're telling everyone to upgrade makes you're opinion circumspect. That isn't meant to imply that you're being intensionally dishonest. Frankly, I think you merely drank your own kool-aid. Just like those HDTV owners, that can't even tell their not watch HD content.
Any code checked into a branch needs to be tested. Arguably the code in the stable branch needs to be test more (especially with regards to regressing), since people are actively depending on it. It is highly doubtful that the all the required testing could be completely so quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, yes. We all love Video Toaster.
I know they used to use it back in 1993 or 1994 at the Riverport Amphetheater (Now UMB Bank Pavillion), but I haven't seen it used there or anywhere since then.
Well you have a year or less. What's your plan to get 1 million new users.
Yes, staying with software with software that doesn't work correctly is a loss. (OpenOffice, I'm talking about you and your inability to properly kern fonts to/from powerpoint.) It's network effect. You can gnash your teeth and say how it doesn't matter, and how one only needs to wait for the software to improve, and how you don't need interoperability because you refuse to deal with others, or how you don't care about broken functionality, but most resonable people do. They want to get their job done, not fight with software. If you notice your tool, then your tool is broken and should be replaced.
If "works" is defined as true interopability. Seamless Integration with others. Achieving goals other than those that are politically defined. Then free software is not working when it comes to desktop applications. It isn't working when it comes to drivers. It doesn't work because it makes the affirmative decision to refuse to work.
Doing useful work != eye-candy. It's essential. I would even define it as an essential freedom.
To quote Jon Stewart, "Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America."
Javascript will forever be the bastard stepchild as long as there's all the incompatabilities between platforms. Hell, even the standard APIs have different semantics. Until you don't have to code up three version of every function, JS will linger on the edge of respectability.
DOH! Well A != B != C since they're "differnt" infinities. no.
Now I eagerly await the flames after I caught my own mistake.
100/0 != 10/0 != 1/0 != 0/0
And why do you believe this is true, because if you bothered to watch the video, you know the guy clearly says, "1/0 = infinity, -1/0 = -infinity, 0/0 = nullity." Using these definitions:
A = 100/0 = 100(1/0) = 100 (infinity) = infinity
B = 10/0 = 10(1/0) = 10(infinity) = infinity
C = 1/0 = infinity
A = B = C = 100/0 = 10/0 = 1/0
0/0 = nullity
nullity != infinity.
From what I understand about MSR from those that work there is that MSR does do some pretty interesting things. MSR does do good research. However, MSR has a hard time getting MS management to put their ideas into products. For instance, MSR is supposed to have some new approaches and algorithms for MSN Search. Approaches that the research showed actually work with real world data and queries. But MSN Search is slow to put them in.
MSR's lack of product development is interesting and, but it doesn't appear to be all MSR's fault.
People may be treating Google as a public utility, but Google (a private company) has absolutely no obligations to any website.
PG&E is a public company. ComEd is a public company. Verizon is a public company. AT&T is a public company. They're all public utilities. Simply being a publicly traded for profit corporation doesn't mean that you're not a public utility.
Ultimately, Google* has the right to change the rules when & if they please, in an arbitrary fashion, without consulting anyone.
Yes, but there is something called ethics. Google is held to a higher standard than the Ackbar and Jeff's Falafel and Oil Change Hut because of their unique position of being depended on by hunderds of millions of people the worldwide. Also, Google said they should be held to a higher standard with their "Don't be Evil" slogan.
Did Google act wrong in this case? No. But that doesn't mean that your larger point about corporations are beholden to no one is valid.
I had no idea that /. prevented you from using your mouse to copy and paste. /. prevented you from using your mouse to copy and paste. /. prevented you from using your mouse to copy and paste. /. prevented you from using your mouse to copy and paste. /. prevented you from using your mouse to copy and paste.
I had no idea that
I had no idea that
I had no idea that
I had no idea that
And it is oh so hurtful when you start with "*yawn*". Way to go Napoleon. You've certainly proved that you've got nothing to prove.
It's more of a crtique on how improbable it is to have 100% anything in a population.
While yor statements are patently absurd and would only serve to create a permanent underclass incapable of competing in the world economy, you did inadvertently hit one interesting point: The use of property taxes to fund primary and secondary education. You're right. That should be abolished, or at least majorly reformed. The tax revenue should be moved into a central pool and then divided equally on a per student basis and then distributed to the school according to enrollment. Afterall, it is an obligation of the state (read your state's constitution) to provide an adequate primary and secondary education to each resident under 18.
I grew up in an economically depressed part of the state. I've seen what lack of property tax base does to the education system. Roofs leak. Repairs go undone. Out of date textbooks. (My high school world history textbook in 1992 ended with the Camp David Accords. Yes. The book was 14 years old, and it looked it.) Meanwhile those luckily enough to be born in the weathy Chicago suburbs got everything. Up to date textbooks. Fully stocked science labs. Multi-million dollar sports complexes. It's obscene, and it should be stopped. Of course it won't because they don't want their tax money being used to pay for someone else's school bus. Then that same suburbanite wonder's why the schools in the innercity and the rural parts of the state don't have any money to buy new desks.
Take a look at Finland for example, who finished first in a study of math, science and reading skills of students in industrialised countries.
This reminds me of a quote from the West Wing. The background story of the episode was that it was the day the President receives the creditentials of every foriegn ambassador. Eventually the President receives the Swedish ambassador. The ambassador leaves, and the President turns to his aide and says, "Did you know Sweden has a 100% literacy rate? How do they do that? We have 99%. How do they have a 100%?" The aide says, "Maybe the don't Mr. President. Maybe they can't count either."
[1] This same high school suspended me (one day, three days in-school suspension, after which I was banned from using school computers for the rest of the school year) for doing as a teacher had asked me, hooking up computers to the network to use a deparment purchased laser printer, after said printers were used to look at pr0n during school hours.
Some how I suspect there's a bit more to this story than you're telling.
The Chinese government merely provides this as a government service, so the widest possible audience is sated. It's not worse. It's not even different. Consider first whether people are really, truly unhappy.
Well no. They censor to promote the idea that their monopoly of power is seen as legitament. They censor to promote the belief in their policies are unerring. That they know best. That they have the populace's best interests at heart, for the populace is incapable of acting in their own best interest. It's a way to maintain power. The fact that many in China see nothing wrong with this, and in fact BELIEVE, with these government lies are the real story. (It's not all that surprisng though.)
Whether the people are happy or unhappy is irrelevant. Many of the beliefs fostered by the regime are factually and demostrably untrue. People are always happy when they have no alternative, because they just accept it. Only when you have the ability to make a comparison can preference truly be established.
Self-policiing systems are completly different because I'm ultimately in control. If I don't like the group think, then I'm free to leave. And I can recognize the group think and form an opinion on it because I have access to multiple sources of information. If all I had was the Flat Earth Society Times-Piccayune, then I'd be happy with it, but that doesn't mean that I have a legitamate position.
Second place is the first loser.
You argue that games should become more realistic in a broad sense, but then mention game balance. Allow me to state the obvious, but the Real World is rarely balanced. The symmetry -- and in some cases the balanced asymmetry -- of the opponents are one of the things that makes games fun. No one would want to play the one-on-one game of Tree Ant vs Kid with Magnifying Glass.
About the only advantage the US has over them is their ability to field a large number of rookies - and the Chinese can field far more than the US can ever hope to. Although their equipment isn't as good, they make up for it by putting ten times as many men in the field and not really caring if half of them don't come back.
Really? Mercs have update to satelite images of the battle field? Mercs have real time video from UAVs? Mercs have air support and precision muntions? That's interesting.
Being able to get on a radio and have a house leveled where someone is shooting from is a very powerful weapon.
He is a very intelligent man. That doesn't make him right though. Calling for a "different set of rules" is what's troubling. Call me crazy, but I think the rules we've had for 230 years have worked pretty damn well thank you. His justification for curtailing the First Amendment is fear. The appeal to fear to justify a loss of civil liberties is well worn road, that inevitably leads to tyrants. Why? Because it's always easier to lose civil rights than it is to gain them.
The fact that he's calling Iraq a failure is nothing. He's just with vast majority of the American people. So what? Sounds like a guy trying to "get ahead of the curve" if you ask me.
No. It pissed everyone off because:
1. It was done out of spite and stubornness. Things don't get that bad without a complete failure of compromise and statemenship.
2. It should people just how much they depended on the government.
People get pissed when things don't work. Not when everything is going fine. And in the end, Gingrich's stunt backfired. His, and the rest of GOP's, popular support fell like a rock, and he ended up getting nothing more than what was originally offered. It was a spectacular failure, and led to him being him being voted in several polls "the most hated man in politics."
What makes you think they don't get it? Really. Have you read their writings? This has always been what they wanted. A power grab.
They're crypto-facists. Plain and simple.
From the blurb "For example, there's no consideration that military power or technology could fail or be jammed, she says. And the enemy doesn't learn, in contrast to a certain real-life conflict where the hallmark of insurgents is their ability to rapidly gain knowledge and evolve."
Well, first it's a recruiting tool. Of course the Americans are going to come out on top. (But, in all honesty, there really isn't a peer military any where in the world.) But more importantly, these criticisms with respect to the Army are ridiculous. There isn't a game made that has meets these criteria. Everyone can pickup as much ammo as they want without ever slowing down. Everyone can carry multiple full sized guns. Guns just miraculously appear whenever you change to them. (Aparently weapons are stored in some sort of pocket dimension like Optimus Prime's trailer.) Wounds don't do anything. You can be miracuously healed in an instance. Guns don't get jammed. People don't get tired. Guns are always accurate. Everyone can drive any vehicle, from snowmobiles to tanks. Oh and the tanks? They take a crew of one, and operate at full effectiveness right up until they explode.
Sure some games have some of these things, but it's rare when they do, and they rarely have them all. Why aren't games realistic? Because they're games. They're meant to be fun, and when compared to fantasy, reality frankly sucks.
Monster may help on analog audio, but doesn't do jack for digital.
You're wrong. See, back in the analog world we had to contend with "dirty power." Now in the digital world, we have "dirty bytes." The two ideas are related since they both deal with electricity, but subtley different. See the signal can become corrupted when passing through the box, and you know how dirty it is in there. If you don't know, just crack it open and take a look. Anyway the bytes are made up of bits. Eight bits to be precise. Now as the signal passes through the box it picks up some bits of dirt along with the other bits. And when you put the bits together you get a dirty byte that's EIGHT TIMES DIRTIER. Now when these bytes come out of the box and need to be read. But they need cleaned up before they can be read. Just like how you have to blow the dust off an old book to read it. So you see, the $50 hdmi cable cleans the bytes before their processed. If they weren't cleaned before they get processed by the tv, the tv would have to do that causing it to act slower, just like how it's quicker to read a clean book than a dirty book. Still with me? Okay. I know what you're thinking. The dirt from the bytes has to go somewhere, and you know where that is right? That's right. INSIDE THE TV! That what makes digital equipment so dirty on the inside. And since it's so dirty inside the tv, the bytes inside just keep getting dirtier and dirtier. It would be like trying to dust your house in the middle of a sandstorm. Pretty silly huh? So you see, you're not just cleaning the bytes as the come in, but you're really doing preventive maintence to your tv at the same time. Now you could probabably get by with just buying one $50 hdmi, but if you REALLY want to be safe, you should probably change your HDMI every three months, or whenever you change you're programming package. Whichever comes first.
I know what I'm talking about. I have $100 24k gold plated optical cable, and I can definately see and hear the difference.
OK OK, one laaast point -- anyone who doesn't feel HD is a worthwhile upgrade SERIOUSLY needs to get their eyes checked. I recommend doing an A/B comparison between SD and HD, of the same content. HD is only truly profound when you _go back_ to SD, and you ask yourself, how the hell did I deal with this shit for so long? BRING ON MORE HD!!!
I've done just that, and I still just don't see the point. Sure you MIGHT be able to see a bit more blades of grass, but big deal. The benefit just isn't there. This IS NOT a black-and-white to color revolution like it's been made out to be. The difference between HD and SD isn't nearly as large as the HD industry, which you are a part of, would have us believe. If such a difference did exist, the why do 50% of HDTV owners think their watching HD content, when they're not? I'll tell you. Self delusion. ("I paid $8,000 for super clear tv, and by god it is!")
It's hype. Successful hype mind you, but still just hype. If was as big a deal it's being made out to be, then the corporations wouldn't of needed the power of legislation to coerce the public into an upgrade. The public would be upgrading voluntarily. The fact that HDTV conversion has been so slow, and sales of HD channels lethargic so far is indicitive that there's little to no demand. I'm sure you're seeing a ramp in sales of HD equipment, now, but it's not because of some sort of spontaneous demand. It's the fact that government is banning analog. The deadline is looming, and panic is setting in. If you didn't have Uncle Sam as your salesman, you'd still be trying to move box 1.
The way this HDTV conversion is going down smells. And as a capitalist, it's disturbing. It's command economy meets the oligarchy.
The fact that you make your living selling HD equipment and now you're telling everyone to upgrade makes you're opinion circumspect. That isn't meant to imply that you're being intensionally dishonest. Frankly, I think you merely drank your own kool-aid. Just like those HDTV owners, that can't even tell their not watch HD content.
Any code checked into a branch needs to be tested. Arguably the code in the stable branch needs to be test more (especially with regards to regressing), since people are actively depending on it. It is highly doubtful that the all the required testing could be completely so quickly.