Are you kidding? All of their "combo meals" are tiny. Most of them are a sandwich of some sort, or 1 or 2 pieces of chicken, and come with side orders which are either something healthy and tiny, or a tiny little thing of french fries, along with a cute little soda. To give you an idea, the straw is usually more than 2x as tall as the cup. That's the standard meal. It closely resembles what most restaurants call "kids meals." In fact, if anything, I'd say KFC is the biggest ripoff if you're measuring in grams per dollar OR even just grams per standard meal.
Sure, there are people who eat whole buckets of chicken, but those are the same people who would have eaten 10 double quarter pounders from McD, or 5 triple cheeseburgers from Wendy's. KFC provides as healthy a selection by default as any other fast food place, if not better. At least your choice is better than "fries or onion rings".
Pfft.. Tom Clancy is bad, but he's nothing compared to Dean Koontz. Here's a Koontz novel: There's a potential victim, a current or former cop who has a gun, or (in a rare twist) someone who hates guns but decides to get one anyway, then there's some supernatural creature or evil serial killer, then the hero shoots the bad thing, gets the girl, end of story. It's the kind of book Bush would write, if he could write.
for example if someone breaks into your house and becomes injured going up the stairs, you are liable for his injuries because you neglected to fix that broken bannister he was using.
That's nonsense. You're buying into that "Stella Awards" crap. You are not liable for injury to someone who was on your property illegally, just like you are not liable for hitting someone who didn't have a drivers license, or someone who was drunk. The person who should not have been there in the first place is always liable.
Because actual compliance would be anything more than lip service? And could be enforced how, exactly? Ironic that "Downsize DC" wants more laws. It's like the idea that peace leads to war (or that war leads to peace, as most people believe).
It's only at an angle until you buy Infinium shoes. The left shoe is 4" taller. Of course, the mousing surface won't be level then, so you'll have to buy the special angled Infinium chair. Only then will you realize that the chair negates the shoes, and the keyboard is once again at an angle, but by then you will have invested so much money into the whole thing that you'll just use it anyway.
The summary is summarily wrong, and is a complete misinterpretation of the article. I guess we* can forgive M. Piquepaille, since english probably isn't his native tongue, but the first paragraph of TFA is:
"Hundreds of earthquakes occur every day around the world, most of them underneath the oceans, while the vast majority of instruments used to record earthquakes are on land. As a result, advances in understanding basic earthquake processes have been limited by the available data."
While it's true that most earthquakes occur underwater, almost all of them are recorded by land-based stations. But the earthquakes occur in land, and the seismic waves travel through land, so that's not a huge problem. Also, most of the earthquake zones underwater are the same places where islands form, so getting close to the action isn't a problem there either. The use of underwater equipment will, hopefully, add more information, but almost every earthquake that occurrs today is recorded somewhere.
For example, they fault Linux OpenOffice desktops for not having all the features in Microsoft Windows Office, even though few actually use all of the Microsoft stuff. So, in essence, they're saying they want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features.
That's so nonspecific and generalizing a claim as to be completely worthless. People don't use all the features, therefore they don't need any subset of "all the features," except the ones OO authors decided to give them? When people say "all" in that context -- it doesn't have all the features -- they're really just talking about the features they were looking for, and encompassing them in the "all" statement. "I don't like all the movies," doesn't mean I don't like any movies.
But that's pretty much irrelevant. I don't know why anyone's even doing this sort of "investigation" anymore. Everyone knows the problems.
There's no standard for installing software, and at least 1 in 4 pieces of software is going to run into some distribution-specific problem. (1 in 4 being my anecdotal but completely accurate estimate).
Games. There are none. (To speak of.) Even where they exist, they can often be that 1 in 4 pieces of software that, GD it, won't install or run properly.
Different software. Nobody wants to learn one set of programs for work, and another for home.
Commercial software also enjoys two significant advantages. First, regardless of EULA's, people actually feel like they own something they purchased, and they're entitled to all the things that go along with a purchase: Namely that someone will be there to support it. People aren't so sure what to make of "free software." After all, you get what you pay for, right? That's a difficult concept to overcome, because it's so often true.
Second, computer stores are more than just a distrubution channel; they're a place to showcase software. Even though most software is never loaded up for customers to tinker with (except for the occasional console game), people infer things from product placement. A title with a huge display at the end of the aisle must be better than the titles sitting in the 2 for $9 bargain bin. And usually they are. There's no such mechanism for showcasing F/OSS.
The one thing that I think could tip the balance would be if Linux and F/OSS take hold in developing nations. When fifty, sixty, or seventy percent of the world's population grows up and lives with Linux, then it will enjoy the same entrenchment that Microsoft has today, and that will be tough for anybody to change. For better or worse.
Yeah, but BARELY RUNNING is not the same as running well.
Take my Gentoo box, for example, which flies. It's a P2 w/32MB of RAM and a 4GB HD, which I bought new in '97. Fast forward nine years later: The OS is done compiling, and I can finally use the system.
And then there's my digital watch, which runs a stripped down version of GNOME under Knoppix, just in very, very low resolution. Also input is accomplished by pressing button A between 1 and 52 times (1-26 for lowercase, 27-52 for upper), followed by button B to confirm the letter. You're pretty much screwed if you want to enter a space or an enter or anything other than letters. Other than that though, it screams. It sounds ridiculous, I know, but after a few weeks, you barely even notice that you're reading entire documents 3 characters at a time. Unless there's a 1, i, or l at the beginning, in which case it obviously shows 4 characters. Oh yeah, did I mention I got my digital watch from a gumball machine in NINETEEN EIGHTY THREE?!?! Let's see Windows try that. Not!
So the next time you want to talk about "system specs" this, or "minimum requirements" that, just remember: Linux could run on the Univac, if it wanted to. It doesn't want to, obviously.. that would be like dating your grandma, but if it wanted to, it could.
As long as you didn't purchase a Land Rover, a Mercedes, a web domain from RegistryFly, eaten at Applebee's, or flown on American Airlines, then they haven't lost; they just didn't win. Yet.
I watched the video, and that flight was impressive; no doubt about it.
But a lunar lander needn't be (and shouldn't be confined to) an aerodynamic design. That's a huge constraint. Huge. Maintaining position, with the help of inertia, it also a lot easier than horizontal flight. Again, aerodynamics will play a large role there, when they needn't be considered at all for lunar travel.
Just because someone can do it and win the prize doesn't mean the best design for the moon wasn't eliminated because it wasn't feasible on earth.
I maintain that this test requires engineers to provide a solution for a completely different set of variables than is appropriate. A solar sail wouldn't work at all on earth, but it might be great for traveling in space. A boat doesn't work well on land. A relatively high G environment with a thick atmosphere is, in my opinion, just as different from traveling on the moon as the examples I just listed. It's these sorts of limitations which prevent innovative solutions. See also: my other response.
Some things are more important than keeping costs down, like customer satisfaction. It would be nice if someone would just release a console without paring out features to buy seperately, but which pretty much everyone is going to need anyway. In the past, that should've been two controllers, and 1 game. In the present, that should be two controllers, a game, a HDD, onboard NIC, and a mic/headset. It seems that the idea of exceeding expectations has, as of late, been highly underused as a marketing technique.
I still don't think it's practical. In response to one of the other posts voicing similar arguments as yours, I posed the question of whether the Apollo lander would work at all on earth, but I didn't receive a response. My guess is that it would not. According to everything on the Wikipedia Apollo Lunar Module, tests were all done in orbit, and flight on earth was simulated using a crane.
The argument that it's "as close as we can get" just doesn't make sense to me. If you can't simulate any of the environment variables (literally), then the test is almost completely useless. A submarine sucks at traveling on land, but it's not bad for getting around underwater.
I understand the "if it will work on earth, it will definately work on the moon" concept, but it seems like requiring it to work on earth first constrains the possibile solutions. Again, I'm no rocket scientist, and perhaps any solution which would perform the necessary actions on the moon would, by definition, be able to complete the test on earth. It just seems like flight is a lot more difficult on earth because of its atmosphere where you have to worry about things like aerodynamics. (I imagine that anything that reaches 600ft would achieve a velocity high enough that drag is a factor.)
I mean, would the lunar lander from the Apollo program work on earth at all? It seems like the tin-can shape alone and lack of any aerodynamic controls would cause it to tumble and crash.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you kidding? All of their "combo meals" are tiny. Most of them are a sandwich of some sort, or 1 or 2 pieces of chicken, and come with side orders which are either something healthy and tiny, or a tiny little thing of french fries, along with a cute little soda. To give you an idea, the straw is usually more than 2x as tall as the cup. That's the standard meal. It closely resembles what most restaurants call "kids meals." In fact, if anything, I'd say KFC is the biggest ripoff if you're measuring in grams per dollar OR even just grams per standard meal.
Sure, there are people who eat whole buckets of chicken, but those are the same people who would have eaten 10 double quarter pounders from McD, or 5 triple cheeseburgers from Wendy's. KFC provides as healthy a selection by default as any other fast food place, if not better. At least your choice is better than "fries or onion rings".
Pfft.. Tom Clancy is bad, but he's nothing compared to Dean Koontz. Here's a Koontz novel: There's a potential victim, a current or former cop who has a gun, or (in a rare twist) someone who hates guns but decides to get one anyway, then there's some supernatural creature or evil serial killer, then the hero shoots the bad thing, gets the girl, end of story. It's the kind of book Bush would write, if he could write.
Do they mean turn on as in power on, or do they mean Macs get hot & bothered by worms?
for example if someone breaks into your house and becomes injured going up the stairs, you are liable for his injuries because you neglected to fix that broken bannister he was using.
That's nonsense. You're buying into that "Stella Awards" crap. You are not liable for injury to someone who was on your property illegally, just like you are not liable for hitting someone who didn't have a drivers license, or someone who was drunk. The person who should not have been there in the first place is always liable.
Because actual compliance would be anything more than lip service? And could be enforced how, exactly? Ironic that "Downsize DC" wants more laws. It's like the idea that peace leads to war (or that war leads to peace, as most people believe).
It's only at an angle until you buy Infinium shoes. The left shoe is 4" taller. Of course, the mousing surface won't be level then, so you'll have to buy the special angled Infinium chair. Only then will you realize that the chair negates the shoes, and the keyboard is once again at an angle, but by then you will have invested so much money into the whole thing that you'll just use it anyway.
It seems to have gotten them on the front page of /. just fine.
That's so nonspecific and generalizing a claim as to be completely worthless. People don't use all the features, therefore they don't need any subset of "all the features," except the ones OO authors decided to give them? When people say "all" in that context -- it doesn't have all the features -- they're really just talking about the features they were looking for, and encompassing them in the "all" statement. "I don't like all the movies," doesn't mean I don't like any movies.
But that's pretty much irrelevant. I don't know why anyone's even doing this sort of "investigation" anymore. Everyone knows the problems.
Commercial software also enjoys two significant advantages. First, regardless of EULA's, people actually feel like they own something they purchased, and they're entitled to all the things that go along with a purchase: Namely that someone will be there to support it. People aren't so sure what to make of "free software." After all, you get what you pay for, right? That's a difficult concept to overcome, because it's so often true.
Second, computer stores are more than just a distrubution channel; they're a place to showcase software. Even though most software is never loaded up for customers to tinker with (except for the occasional console game), people infer things from product placement. A title with a huge display at the end of the aisle must be better than the titles sitting in the 2 for $9 bargain bin. And usually they are. There's no such mechanism for showcasing F/OSS.
The one thing that I think could tip the balance would be if Linux and F/OSS take hold in developing nations. When fifty, sixty, or seventy percent of the world's population grows up and lives with Linux, then it will enjoy the same entrenchment that Microsoft has today, and that will be tough for anybody to change. For better or worse.
No wonder nobody's gotten modded up the past few days. GD mods are all on vacation. Back to work mods! We don't not pay you for nothing.
This is just another example of the man trying to keep us down.
Jurassic Beavers Challenge Current Mammal Theories
So I guess Bea Arthur having an internal struggle of, uh, mammoth proportions.
Yeah, but BARELY RUNNING is not the same as running well.
Take my Gentoo box, for example, which flies. It's a P2 w/32MB of RAM and a 4GB HD, which I bought new in '97. Fast forward nine years later: The OS is done compiling, and I can finally use the system.
And then there's my digital watch, which runs a stripped down version of GNOME under Knoppix, just in very, very low resolution. Also input is accomplished by pressing button A between 1 and 52 times (1-26 for lowercase, 27-52 for upper), followed by button B to confirm the letter. You're pretty much screwed if you want to enter a space or an enter or anything other than letters. Other than that though, it screams. It sounds ridiculous, I know, but after a few weeks, you barely even notice that you're reading entire documents 3 characters at a time. Unless there's a 1, i, or l at the beginning, in which case it obviously shows 4 characters. Oh yeah, did I mention I got my digital watch from a gumball machine in NINETEEN EIGHTY THREE?!?! Let's see Windows try that. Not!
So the next time you want to talk about "system specs" this, or "minimum requirements" that, just remember: Linux could run on the Univac, if it wanted to. It doesn't want to, obviously.. that would be like dating your grandma, but if it wanted to, it could.
That story was like a Rube Goldberg machine, in text form, only less amusing.
The overall consumer interest in sequels is falling.
I just get my games from the dumpster after they're obsolete, and then timeshift them back to "present day" via bittorrent.
And Jesus has already agreed to be my co-pilot.
As long as you didn't purchase a Land Rover, a Mercedes, a web domain from RegistryFly, eaten at Applebee's, or flown on American Airlines, then they haven't lost; they just didn't win. Yet.
I watched the video, and that flight was impressive; no doubt about it.
But a lunar lander needn't be (and shouldn't be confined to) an aerodynamic design. That's a huge constraint. Huge. Maintaining position, with the help of inertia, it also a lot easier than horizontal flight. Again, aerodynamics will play a large role there, when they needn't be considered at all for lunar travel.
Just because someone can do it and win the prize doesn't mean the best design for the moon wasn't eliminated because it wasn't feasible on earth.
I maintain that this test requires engineers to provide a solution for a completely different set of variables than is appropriate. A solar sail wouldn't work at all on earth, but it might be great for traveling in space. A boat doesn't work well on land. A relatively high G environment with a thick atmosphere is, in my opinion, just as different from traveling on the moon as the examples I just listed. It's these sorts of limitations which prevent innovative solutions. See also: my other response.
Some things are more important than keeping costs down, like customer satisfaction. It would be nice if someone would just release a console without paring out features to buy seperately, but which pretty much everyone is going to need anyway. In the past, that should've been two controllers, and 1 game. In the present, that should be two controllers, a game, a HDD, onboard NIC, and a mic/headset. It seems that the idea of exceeding expectations has, as of late, been highly underused as a marketing technique.
kind of like watching the titanic depart from england after knowing the end of the story.
For those that don't get the reference:
****SPOILER****
The ship sinks.
****SPOILER****
I still don't think it's practical. In response to one of the other posts voicing similar arguments as yours, I posed the question of whether the Apollo lander would work at all on earth, but I didn't receive a response. My guess is that it would not. According to everything on the Wikipedia Apollo Lunar Module, tests were all done in orbit, and flight on earth was simulated using a crane.
The argument that it's "as close as we can get" just doesn't make sense to me. If you can't simulate any of the environment variables (literally), then the test is almost completely useless. A submarine sucks at traveling on land, but it's not bad for getting around underwater.
If you know what that means, I would like to offer you a cookie, because I sure as heck don't.
Well, I think it means.. Wait. You don't want to offer me a cookie, so you're going to offer me a cookie?
If anyone knows what that means, I would like to offer my services as a cookie consumer.
I understand the "if it will work on earth, it will definately work on the moon" concept, but it seems like requiring it to work on earth first constrains the possibile solutions. Again, I'm no rocket scientist, and perhaps any solution which would perform the necessary actions on the moon would, by definition, be able to complete the test on earth. It just seems like flight is a lot more difficult on earth because of its atmosphere where you have to worry about things like aerodynamics. (I imagine that anything that reaches 600ft would achieve a velocity high enough that drag is a factor.)
I mean, would the lunar lander from the Apollo program work on earth at all? It seems like the tin-can shape alone and lack of any aerodynamic controls would cause it to tumble and crash.
Maybe for a squid, a whale is an all-you-can eat buffet?