The problem is that Warhammer is not a true wargame. It is a game to play with minatures that you have collected and painted. Warhammer has always been about painting and collecting minatures. The game has been secondary. However recently Warhammer has been marketed as a "game" to increase the potential market.
I would have to say that D&D3 has the best mechanics. Personally I find that this makes for the best game as the mechanics don't get in the way. D&D3's mechanics are quite different from its predecessors. AD&D1 and AD&D2 have very similar mechanics. AD&D2 started out as a rewrite of v1, cleaning up some of the rules and incorperating some of the better ideas pubished in Dragon Magazine and elsewhere. V2 also pulled some ideas from the Basic D&D (Basic,Expert,Champion,Master). Then v2 fell apart as T$R fell into the toilet and started publishing more and more poorly concieved mechanics, spells, and characters. AD&D1 is my second choice as it has better source material then v2.
I honestly never liked the feel of AD&D2, although those are the rules we used the most. I was disapointed with AD&D2. It was published when other RPGs had already started away from class based systems to skill based. The v2 core mechanics were really just a rehash of v1 with most of the limitations of v1. Other systems had progressed. Finally the books were not very well written. Not that AD&D1 was anything to write home about, but the poor writeing did contribute to my disapointment.
When people talk about D&D they are usually refering to AdvancedD&D. The Basic (red book) D&D never recieved the attention it deserved. Basic D&D used most of the same core rules as the AD&D with some simplifications. D&D had some limitations such as fewer character classes. But it also had some of the best source material in the form of adventure modules, and the big appendixes that were published for the D&D homeworld. Due to the simpler rules, and excellent source material I found straight D&D easier to roleplay then AD&D1 or AD&D2.
D&D3 simplified the game by takeing out many of the restrictions that were in AD&D. The D&D3 mechanics are much more consistent then in previous versions which allow players to concentrate on the game not on memorizeing odd rules and exceptions. In addition it is easier for the DM to create new rules (on the fly) by either applying the mechanics directly, or by extrapolation. Any group that is useing AD&D1 or 2 should seriously consider useing the D&D3 rules next time they start a campaign.
I would not have expected that result. My mouse spends most of the time on the right so that it dosen't disctract me while I am trying to read. Also my mouse moves faster left to right. I am right handed. My thumb is stronger then my little finger and hence able to push the mouse faster. Similarly if I move my hand from the keyboard to the mouse the pointer moves to the right. With these observations I would have to conclude that for a right handed person the scroll bar should be on the right.
It is a shame though that more people haven't read Diana Wynne Jones' books. She is an excellent author. The plots are often quite intricate and always well written. Usually her books are found in the juvenile section which is a great disservice to her and the readers. Few authors in the general fantasy section write as well as she.
quite clear that the system was not architected from the ground up to have the reliability of Solaris, AIX, HP-UX
NT was designed from the start to match the reliability of Unix. However Unix had several more years of experience and bug fixes. What killed the reliability of NT were the marketing driven "features" that were pushed in later.
The NT kernel was good. Then Microsoft moved the GUI into the kernel.
This is pretty much spot on, not flamebait.
To be fair to MS they had to do something to improve GUI performance in order to move NT onto worstations, and to a certain extent compete with other servers. NT3.51 was fine as a server, but painfull as a workstation. Win3.1 and later Win95 both provided much better user response. It is hard to sell your "high performance" OS when it feels slower then the old tech.
Looking at him I would say that he would have gained weight if he had bought a bike. There is nothing like a little exercise in the morning to build up the muscle mass in a hurry.
For the price of a segway he could have bought a really nice recumbent bike or trike. Or save a bundle and buy used.
Before anyone jumps down my throat: If you can stand for 7 miles on a segway you can ride a bike for the same distance. 7 miles may seem like a long distance, and it will be for the first 2-4 weeks. But it won't be long before you have the muscle mass to do twice that without breaking a sweat.
I just re-read the specs on the Segway and they suck. Now that I am in some what decent shape my top speed is twice that of the Segway. My regular "cruising" speed is 50% faster. And I probably can beat the Segway's best case max range of 15mi/25km on an empty stomach.
If you are a person with a disability limiting your mobility I can see a need for a Segway. But for the rest of us a bike commute is not a problem.
The deffinition of insult is to "verbally humiliate." It does not matter where you see yourself on the social scale: abuse is still abuse. The fact that you can't see this goes a long way to explain why you find yourself lower on the social scale.
You do realise how close you were to being some of the most popular kids in school don't you? You were studying social patterns. Your "popular" peers had an inate knack for this. They recognized and acted on these patterns without thinking. That is why they were popular.
This was my obervation as well. In particular the bullies weren't popular with anyone but themselves. The people at the top of the social ladder where nice. That is how they became popular. Some of the jocks were jerks. Some were friends with everyone. The drama club was full of nerds, but they also threw the best parties. It is important to note that there is no single social latter. Rather there were several.
I disagree that there were no patterns. I see now that there were some strong social patterns at my high school: those people involved in more activities were more popular. Some activities carried more popularity weight. For example sports versus year book staff. But the important thing was to put yourself in a position to socialize with other people. Those that felt ostracized and hung out with the same 3 people remained social outcastes.
It is easy to see these patterns now that high school is well past me. It is too easy to fall back on the bad Hollywood stereotype of highschool. Some posters see this. Other posters and the author of this article seem to dwell on the past and search for people to blame.
I agree with your observation of North American entertainment, Hollywood in particular. It seems to be different when it comes to British shows. Often there will be a male character, who is overweight, but not a vilain or comic buffon. But then I don't get to see all that Britain has to offer.
As others have pointed out "rows" are probably "series."
It is said that mathematics is the universal language. It is still damn hard to have a conversation about it if both parties don't speak the same language.
geesh man get a better imagination! I have no trouble imagining that I have another $100000 in my bank account.
Re:He is insane...
on
The Faded Sun
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
On the surface an Apple merger with Sun would see like a good idea for the ideas you mention. Apple workstations coupled with Sun servers would seem to be a complete solution. There are some exciting implications from such a merger. More competition and innovation are always good. However artemis67 is correct that an Apple and Sun merger would not be a pretty fit.
The marketing strategies of the two companies are very different. Apple seems to be trying to push into the homes and small offices ("switcher" ads) so as to leverage a way into the larger bussinesses. Sun is in the enterprise market and trying hard to convince large and medium sized bussinesses that the solutions used in the enterprise are good for them too. The new AppleSun would have to come up with a completely new marketing strategy which would not be an easy task. The current Apple and Sun market execs have different view of the market probably don't even speak the same language.
The difficulties with marketing are nothing compared to the problems that would be faced by AppleSun when trying to integrate the two products. MacOS and Solaris have more differences then similarities. Neither product is Unix(tm), both are Unix derived. There is a big difference. Not that these products can't live and talk on the same network. That part is easy. The hard parts are a common development environment, and common system administration (or at least similar). A well integrated aproach to system administration is critical. An administrator wants to be able to easily create users on the AppleSun server running Solaris for the AppleSun workstations running MacOS. All the MacOS user extentions and all the Solaris user extentions have to work consistantly. There is much more to this then uid and gid. On Solaris there are policies and project groups and ACLs. All this has to be pushed down onto MacOS as these are impartant features in enterprise user management. Likewise there are MacOS file extentions that would have to be mapped into Solaris.
On the development side AppleSun face similar problems. It is possible to develope on a SunBlade 150 workstation for a massive SunFire15k. The same would have to be possible on an AppleSun workstation running MacOS. The binaries do not have to be compatible (that would be foolish), but the code has to be mostly compatible. With a minimum ammount of change you have to be able to move code the compiles and runs on a workstation to a much larger server.
There are other issues that would face a merged AppleSun. Microsoft would not be happy. Apple is currently "mostly harmless." A merged AppleSun would be a serious threat to Microsoft's plans to dominate the office market from server room to desktop. Apple currently relies on Microsoft for Office and IE. These applications are replaceable, but their loss would hurt. Much more dangerous would be a Microsoft that started throwing its weight around, cutting sweatheart deals with 3rd parties to develop primarily or exclusively for Windows. AppleSun could very quickly find that the much needed desktop applications were no longer available. Do not believe for a minute that Adobe would turn down some of Microsofts 40billion(??) in cash.
None of the above problems faced by AppleSun would be impossible to overcome. However it would mean a difficult merger. It would result in an AppleSun very different from the Apple of today. It is debatable if the current Apple management could even pull such a merger off as they do not understand the medium to enterprise market. Nor does the Sun management understand the home or small office market. Even if AppleSun had solutions to all of the above, if there were any slips then AppleSun would probably fail. Neither Apple nor Sun are in a particulary strong market position to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that Warhammer is not a true wargame. It is a game to play with minatures that you have collected and painted. Warhammer has always been about painting and collecting minatures. The game has been secondary. However recently Warhammer has been marketed as a "game" to increase the potential market.
GamesWorkshop does make some damn fine minatures.
I would have to say that D&D3 has the best mechanics. Personally I find that this makes for the best game as the mechanics don't get in the way. D&D3's mechanics are quite different from its predecessors. AD&D1 and AD&D2 have very similar mechanics. AD&D2 started out as a rewrite of v1, cleaning up some of the rules and incorperating some of the better ideas pubished in Dragon Magazine and elsewhere. V2 also pulled some ideas from the Basic D&D (Basic,Expert,Champion,Master). Then v2 fell apart as T$R fell into the toilet and started publishing more and more poorly concieved mechanics, spells, and characters. AD&D1 is my second choice as it has better source material then v2.
I honestly never liked the feel of AD&D2, although those are the rules we used the most. I was disapointed with AD&D2. It was published when other RPGs had already started away from class based systems to skill based. The v2 core mechanics were really just a rehash of v1 with most of the limitations of v1. Other systems had progressed. Finally the books were not very well written. Not that AD&D1 was anything to write home about, but the poor writeing did contribute to my disapointment.
When people talk about D&D they are usually refering to AdvancedD&D. The Basic (red book) D&D never recieved the attention it deserved. Basic D&D used most of the same core rules as the AD&D with some simplifications. D&D had some limitations such as fewer character classes. But it also had some of the best source material in the form of adventure modules, and the big appendixes that were published for the D&D homeworld. Due to the simpler rules, and excellent source material I found straight D&D easier to roleplay then AD&D1 or AD&D2.
D&D3 simplified the game by takeing out many of the restrictions that were in AD&D. The D&D3 mechanics are much more consistent then in previous versions which allow players to concentrate on the game not on memorizeing odd rules and exceptions. In addition it is easier for the DM to create new rules (on the fly) by either applying the mechanics directly, or by extrapolation. Any group that is useing AD&D1 or 2 should seriously consider useing the D&D3 rules next time they start a campaign.
You probably should have gone straight to IBM: USB keyboard with Trackpoint.
I would not have expected that result. My mouse spends most of the time on the right so that it dosen't disctract me while I am trying to read. Also my mouse moves faster left to right. I am right handed. My thumb is stronger then my little finger and hence able to push the mouse faster. Similarly if I move my hand from the keyboard to the mouse the pointer moves to the right. With these observations I would have to conclude that for a right handed person the scroll bar should be on the right.
Am I the only fan of hers around here?
No.
It is a shame though that more people haven't read Diana Wynne Jones' books. She is an excellent author. The plots are often quite intricate and always well written. Usually her books are found in the juvenile section which is a great disservice to her and the readers. Few authors in the general fantasy section write as well as she.
obviously TotherFA is in error.
take advantage of the spammers work
You can't
No, because you are already late to the game. The 'dump' starts at the same time as the 'pump.'
quite clear that the system was not architected from the ground up to have the reliability of Solaris, AIX, HP-UX
NT was designed from the start to match the reliability of Unix. However Unix had several more years of experience and bug fixes. What killed the reliability of NT were the marketing driven "features" that were pushed in later.
The NT kernel was good. Then Microsoft moved the GUI into the kernel.
This is pretty much spot on, not flamebait.
To be fair to MS they had to do something to improve GUI performance in order to move NT onto worstations, and to a certain extent compete with other servers. NT3.51 was fine as a server, but painfull as a workstation. Win3.1 and later Win95 both provided much better user response. It is hard to sell your "high performance" OS when it feels slower then the old tech.
Looking at him I would say that he would have gained weight if he had bought a bike. There is nothing like a little exercise in the morning to build up the muscle mass in a hurry.
For the price of a segway he could have bought a really nice recumbent bike or trike. Or save a bundle and buy used.
Before anyone jumps down my throat: If you can stand for 7 miles on a segway you can ride a bike for the same distance. 7 miles may seem like a long distance, and it will be for the first 2-4 weeks. But it won't be long before you have the muscle mass to do twice that without breaking a sweat.
I just re-read the specs on the Segway and they suck. Now that I am in some what decent shape my top speed is twice that of the Segway. My regular "cruising" speed is 50% faster. And I probably can beat the Segway's best case max range of 15mi/25km on an empty stomach.
If you are a person with a disability limiting your mobility I can see a need for a Segway. But for the rest of us a bike commute is not a problem.
ditto. I am not sure which is worst.
unconscious after 8
:-)
8 pints or 8 girls?
Hats off to you if it is the latter!
True.
The deffinition of insult is to "verbally humiliate." It does not matter where you see yourself on the social scale: abuse is still abuse. The fact that you can't see this goes a long way to explain why you find yourself lower on the social scale.
You do realise how close you were to being some of the most popular kids in school don't you? You were studying social patterns. Your "popular" peers had an inate knack for this. They recognized and acted on these patterns without thinking. That is why they were popular.
If only we knew then what we know now.
This was my obervation as well. In particular the bullies weren't popular with anyone but themselves. The people at the top of the social ladder where nice. That is how they became popular. Some of the jocks were jerks. Some were friends with everyone. The drama club was full of nerds, but they also threw the best parties. It is important to note that there is no single social latter. Rather there were several.
I disagree that there were no patterns. I see now that there were some strong social patterns at my high school: those people involved in more activities were more popular. Some activities carried more popularity weight. For example sports versus year book staff. But the important thing was to put yourself in a position to socialize with other people. Those that felt ostracized and hung out with the same 3 people remained social outcastes.
It is easy to see these patterns now that high school is well past me. It is too easy to fall back on the bad Hollywood stereotype of highschool. Some posters see this. Other posters and the author of this article seem to dwell on the past and search for people to blame.
I agree with your observation of North American entertainment, Hollywood in particular. It seems to be different when it comes to British shows. Often there will be a male character, who is overweight, but not a vilain or comic buffon. But then I don't get to see all that Britain has to offer.
Even if such a machine were created, an attacker could trojan the entry system and capture the PINs as they were used.
Ah thank you. That makes sense.
I did not quite understand your second paragraph. Could you please explain the advantages of softupdates versus journalled again. thanks.
As others have pointed out "rows" are probably "series."
It is said that mathematics is the universal language. It is still damn hard to have a conversation about it if both parties don't speak the same language.
blah. The same can be said of winXP.
Console access to any computer will grant complete control regardless of the OS.
geesh man get a better imagination! I have no trouble imagining that I have another $100000 in my bank account.
On the surface an Apple merger with Sun would see like a good idea for the ideas you mention. Apple workstations coupled with Sun servers would seem to be a complete solution. There are some exciting implications from such a merger. More competition and innovation are always good. However artemis67 is correct that an Apple and Sun merger would not be a pretty fit.
The marketing strategies of the two companies are very different. Apple seems to be trying to push into the homes and small offices ("switcher" ads) so as to leverage a way into the larger bussinesses. Sun is in the enterprise market and trying hard to convince large and medium sized bussinesses that the solutions used in the enterprise are good for them too. The new AppleSun would have to come up with a completely new marketing strategy which would not be an easy task. The current Apple and Sun market execs have different view of the market probably don't even speak the same language.
The difficulties with marketing are nothing compared to the problems that would be faced by AppleSun when trying to integrate the two products. MacOS and Solaris have more differences then similarities. Neither product is Unix(tm), both are Unix derived. There is a big difference. Not that these products can't live and talk on the same network. That part is easy. The hard parts are a common development environment, and common system administration (or at least similar). A well integrated aproach to system administration is critical. An administrator wants to be able to easily create users on the AppleSun server running Solaris for the AppleSun workstations running MacOS. All the MacOS user extentions and all the Solaris user extentions have to work consistantly. There is much more to this then uid and gid. On Solaris there are policies and project groups and ACLs. All this has to be pushed down onto MacOS as these are impartant features in enterprise user management. Likewise there are MacOS file extentions that would have to be mapped into Solaris.
On the development side AppleSun face similar problems. It is possible to develope on a SunBlade 150 workstation for a massive SunFire15k. The same would have to be possible on an AppleSun workstation running MacOS. The binaries do not have to be compatible (that would be foolish), but the code has to be mostly compatible. With a minimum ammount of change you have to be able to move code the compiles and runs on a workstation to a much larger server.
There are other issues that would face a merged AppleSun. Microsoft would not be happy. Apple is currently "mostly harmless." A merged AppleSun would be a serious threat to Microsoft's plans to dominate the office market from server room to desktop. Apple currently relies on Microsoft for Office and IE. These applications are replaceable, but their loss would hurt. Much more dangerous would be a Microsoft that started throwing its weight around, cutting sweatheart deals with 3rd parties to develop primarily or exclusively for Windows. AppleSun could very quickly find that the much needed desktop applications were no longer available. Do not believe for a minute that Adobe would turn down some of Microsofts 40billion(??) in cash.
None of the above problems faced by AppleSun would be impossible to overcome. However it would mean a difficult merger. It would result in an AppleSun very different from the Apple of today. It is debatable if the current Apple management could even pull such a merger off as they do not understand the medium to enterprise market. Nor does the Sun management understand the home or small office market. Even if AppleSun had solutions to all of the above, if there were any slips then AppleSun would probably fail. Neither Apple nor Sun are in a particulary strong market position to begin with.