Are you serious? 20% of people over 80 have dementia, and you're surprised that 10% think their doctors are trying to kill them? I bet 10% of them also think aliens are trying to kill them.
> I've even heard a few say "well, you should fix GCC instead"
Well what's wrong with that? If GCC is parsing "bad" code without giving warnings, then GCC should be fixed. The bad code can be fixed to avoid those warnings.
Who on earth is modding this up? The Freedom of Information Act is exactly that. It's not an Orwellian use of the word at all. The act made a lot of information available that wasn't available before.
Not really. (Ab)using laws sets precedents. If the guy ends up going to jail for just owning a modem, then how is it an over reaction to say that you can be thrown in jail for owning a modem?
> As you play through the game, killing enemies, completing goals and generally avoiding damage, you'll build up your Titan meter. Once it fills up, you can instantly mutate into a 15' tall Titan
Isn't this the kind of thing that makes stronger players stronger, and weaker players weaker?
I always liked mods which made weaker players stronger. Like the 'fat head' mod, or whatever it was called, that would increase the size of your head the more kills that you got, making it easier for the weaker players to get headshots. Evened out the game when playing with people with mixed abilities.
> Just because the sentencing was wrong doesn't mean the crime wasn't committed.
You're making the assumption that even though the sentence was wrong, the judgement was not. You're assuming that a 'non-corrupt' judge would have also found them all guilty.
The angular size of the 40 inch TV and the 40 foot wide screen is going to be pretty similar. So the angular size of the pixels is likewise going to be similar.
And yet WP is a lot more readable than Wolfram. Wolfram is completely inaccessible for non-mathematicians. (e.g. physicists, engineers, cosmologists, etc who use math but aren't mathematicians)
> Research would be developing new ways to improve operating systems, compilers, and web servers, for example, based on certain criteria (performance, security, design, etc.)
How does(non-trivially) contributing to GCC not meet these requirements?
bugs.kde.org is a good place to start to file bugs.
I forwarded your link to the Oxygen team on irc, but probably best to file a proper bug report so that you can track the status and help out. (Reporting bugs is often a good way to help out)
> Because, as you describe, the project used the 4.0 and 4.1 versions to get application developers on board, a lot of manpower was removed from the 3.5 branch.
If manpower wasn't removed from the 3.5 branch then we'd be a year behind at least. There really aren't that many developers. Most applications only have 1 or 2 main developers behind them.
For you, the missing features were more important than the features gained.
From that, you cannot conclude that "loosing a single feature" makes upgrading not worth it.
A simple counter example would be - if you lose the feature to auto-hide the taskbar, but gained the feature to search all the files on your system for certain keywords. For some, the new feature is worth more to them than the old feature, and thus it would be worth them upgrading, even though they lose a feature.
> Also your logic smells bad. Specifically where is my logic bad?
> I use Linux+KDE on my main PC I use for work. When I tried 4.0.x and 4.1.x I had to revert back to 3.5.x.
Which comes back to exactly what I just said. If the set of features lost is worth more to you than the set of features gained, then don't switch.
However it's quite possible to imagine the situation where features gained are worth more than the features lost. In such a case, a user would be willing to trade.
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
"In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity in the framework of quantum field theory. "
In laymans talk - Gravity Particles.
> How can you possibly answer "no" to that question?
Well given finite resources, the reason question should be:
should they focus more on usability and focus less on stability/bug fixing/adding features?
In which case the answer could quite possibly be no.
It's somewhat akin to "should teachers be paid more?" etc type questions.
Are you serious? 20% of people over 80 have dementia, and you're surprised that 10% think their doctors are trying to kill them? I bet 10% of them also think aliens are trying to kill them.
> Its their compiler, they are damn well allowed to do what they want - call me when AMD pour that kind of resource into having their own compiler.
ARM put money into GCC. That's far better than them trying to make their own compiler.
> I've even heard a few say "well, you should fix GCC instead"
Well what's wrong with that? If GCC is parsing "bad" code without giving warnings, then GCC should be fixed. The bad code can be fixed to avoid those warnings.
Who on earth is modding this up? The Freedom of Information Act is exactly that. It's not an Orwellian use of the word at all. The act made a lot of information available that wasn't available before.
Of course it's different - what do you think 'setting a precedence' means?
Not really. (Ab)using laws sets precedents. If the guy ends up going to jail for just owning a modem, then how is it an over reaction to say that you can be thrown in jail for owning a modem?
And complaining about that is a hysterical overreaction? WTF?
You've pretty much proven the posters point - you work in a bank.
An embedded linux etc job wouldn't require coding in Windows.
> As you play through the game, killing enemies, completing goals and generally avoiding damage, you'll build up your Titan meter. Once it fills up, you can instantly mutate into a 15' tall Titan
Isn't this the kind of thing that makes stronger players stronger, and weaker players weaker?
I always liked mods which made weaker players stronger. Like the 'fat head' mod, or whatever it was called, that would increase the size of your head the more kills that you got, making it easier for the weaker players to get headshots. Evened out the game when playing with people with mixed abilities.
> Just because the sentencing was wrong doesn't mean the crime wasn't committed.
You're making the assumption that even though the sentence was wrong, the judgement was not. You're assuming that a 'non-corrupt' judge would have also found them all guilty.
No, because all 540 people view the same two images. Their view doesn't change depending on where they sit.
Nah, it's just like viewing one screen with one eye, and another screen with the other eye. So you could say it's 2048x1080x2
The angular size of the 40 inch TV and the 40 foot wide screen is going to be pretty similar. So the angular size of the pixels is likewise going to be similar.
I always make the mistake of sitting too close and then having the 3D objects end up projected behind me.
The wikipedia version usually has much more info than the wolfram version. So I don't see how you can say they've just copied.
Take Pauli Matrices just as the first example I thought of:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PauliMatrices.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_matrices
Wikipedia has lot more information
And yet WP is a lot more readable than Wolfram. Wolfram is completely inaccessible for non-mathematicians. (e.g. physicists, engineers, cosmologists, etc who use math but aren't mathematicians)
> Research would be developing new ways to improve operating systems, compilers, and web servers, for example, based on certain criteria (performance, security, design, etc.)
How does(non-trivially) contributing to GCC not meet these requirements?
How does it break templates and virtual inheritance? Qt itself uses both considerably.
> But what does a simple game need admin privs for?
To write directly to the video card
bugs.kde.org is a good place to start to file bugs.
I forwarded your link to the Oxygen team on irc, but probably best to file a proper bug report so that you can track the status and help out. (Reporting bugs is often a good way to help out)
> Because, as you describe, the project used the 4.0 and 4.1 versions to get application developers on board, a lot of manpower was removed from the 3.5 branch.
If manpower wasn't removed from the 3.5 branch then we'd be a year behind at least. There really aren't that many developers. Most applications only have 1 or 2 main developers behind them.
You still don't seem to get it.
For you, the missing features were more important than the features gained.
From that, you cannot conclude that "loosing a single feature" makes upgrading not worth it.
A simple counter example would be - if you lose the feature to auto-hide the taskbar, but gained the feature to search all the files on your system for certain keywords. For some, the new feature is worth more to them than the old feature, and thus it would be worth them upgrading, even though they lose a feature.
> Also your logic smells bad.
Specifically where is my logic bad?
> I use Linux+KDE on my main PC I use for work. When I tried 4.0.x and 4.1.x I had to revert back to 3.5.x.
Which comes back to exactly what I just said. If the set of features lost is worth more to you than the set of features gained, then don't switch.
However it's quite possible to imagine the situation where features gained are worth more than the features lost. In such a case, a user would be willing to trade.