Such a "well-documented statistic" would be utter nonsense. It makes sense to say "Alice is a better driver than Bob", it makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever, at all, to say "Alice is twice as good a driver as Bob". Perhaps you could invent some number like "driving quotient", but the scale of this number would be totally arbitrary, different valid ways of calculating this number would result in different percentages of people above or below average. Driving skill is an ordered, not proportional scale (if I have my terminology right).
Really, when anyone says average driver, they mean median.
I drive an SUV and I'm constantly tailgating asshole bikers going slow on the left. Justifiable homicide, I say!
WHY AREN'T YOU FUCKING DEAD ASSHOLE!!!!
All of the fancy stuff you can do with the GeForce 3--mostly based around vertex shaders--is not backward compatible with 90% of the market, so we never touched it.
Hmm. I was under the impression that vertex shaders could be reasonably simulated in software, it was pixel shaders that required hardware. Oh well, I guess that's why XBox games look so good despite their hardware being inferior to my computer--because everyone with an xbox has vertex/pixel shaders.
Fanboys don't want to hear that their cards aren't being pushed anywhere near the limits. The are much happier to have poorly written games that have high polygon counts and bad art, because then they can justify the money they spent on a new computer and/or video card.
I guess if that's the attitude that a PC games developer has, it's no wonder that most of the games I buy are console games. Maybe if you guys started making games with great art (or great gameplay), people would buy them without complaints about polycounts, just like I never complained about polycounts after I bought Rez, Ico, Smash Brothers, Jet Set Radio...
If you covered someone's mobile in jam, that'd stop them using it. Only while they stopped to smash your face to a pulp, mind, but it'd stop them none the less.
I have no hard data to back up this claim, but I imagine most people who don't use cell phones can beat up most of the people who use cell phones. It's those dog gone rules of civilized society, holding everyone back again...
They won't sue TV manufacturers or Microwave manufacturers because the average jury member would rather have his head cut off than give up eating TV dinners while watching "Friends". But cell phones... ah, that is a different kettle of fish altogether. Many interests coincide to want their demise. Suburban homeowners nervous that a cell-tower in the vicinity could reduce property values for a start.
If so many interests coincide to get rid of cell phones, why should your interests override them?
My great-grandfather was annoyed by cars. My grandfather was annoyed by the TV. He never like it except when he was watching it. My parents are annoyed by call waiting and so I still get busy signals. My wife is annoyed by cell phones. I'm sure my children's mega-PDA-communicator-multimedia-device will get on my nerves too.
And you're children will be annoyed by your wife's jamming devices. That's technology, sometimes it bites back. Get used to it.
America has a long history of only caring about Americans. Actually, for any given country X of the planet Earth, it has a long history of only caring about citizens of country X. Human beings aren't good at caring about abstract concepts like "global humanity"--they care about the friends and neighbors they see everyday. But America's been particularly isolationist, probably right up until about Pearl Harbor. Then we spent half a century killing Nazis and Communists and anyone remotely resembling them, not to save the world, but to protect ourselves. Now that the enemy is all dead or switched sides, our leaders think we're supposed to be some sort of new global police force or something...
That won't last long. Americans have never cared about Europeans or Asians, just as Europeans or Asians have never cared about Americans or each other.
Many, many windows computers don't come with MS Office or Outlook. Consumers actually have to go and pay money for them, a lot of money actually (likely about as much as for the computer itself.) The price of software is actually an important factor to many (not all, but still many) consumers. Just as not everyone is a Linux nerd, not everyone a PHB with money to burn. If they just want to switch it on and have it just work, they very much want to buy a cheaper one that also just works. People who don't care about computers DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR SOFTWARE MORE THAN THEY HAVE TO.
Presumably any CD distributed for consumers would contain easily installed binaries.
Yeah, I know, code is speech. (I wonder, are binaries speech? Well, they're bytes...) But closed black box hardware that you're not allowed to examine (game consoles, arcades) is NOT obviously free speech. We have to judge what the hardware does as free speech or not free speech.
For example, if an arcade game shows you a movie, then while you are distracted by the movie electrocutes you, then says game over, that's not protected speech, even though the movie is. You can't take something that IS protected speech, add something that ISN'T, and expect it to keep staying protected speech.
So what do video games add to static movies? They add INTERACTIVITY and SIMULATION. Could either of these things added to protected speech make it no longer protected speech?
In a particular world view (not my own), yes. Interactivity, for example, changes the expression of the idea of killing a person into a chance to actually experience killing a person. Expressing an idea, and giving a chance to experience are very different things, it's not ludicrous to imagine the people writing the Constitution would mean to protect one without protecting the other.
Another example, with simulation, a virtual world can take directions that the original creator didn't intend or even concieve. If I play Quake III as Xaero and kill someone else playing as Anarki, that's not an attempt by John Carmack to say that dorky computer hackers on cyber skateboards deserve to be killed by alien warlords--because John Carmack didn't intend for Xaero to always win.
To put that example in other terms (because this is fun), imagine that I am playing a Hamlet video game. On the Character Select screen, I choose Hamlet. I proceed to kill my father's murderer right away, because I'm awesome. Shakespeare obviously didn't intend that, and perhaps the developers of the simulated characters whom I'm supposed to interact with didn't forsee what happens, and the remainder of my Hamlet play experience is totally different from what anyone intended. Can this be said to be expression, if the idea to be expressed doesn't exist until it is viewed?
I want to just say "yes, it's still speech, fr33 sp33ch rul3z d00dz", but I can't call someone stupid who says "no".
Of course, I thought of these issues after playing a lot more than 4 video games...
Now, this is just a troll, but I like the choice of games you have there. How could a game that glorifies crime so incredibly explicitly (so explicit it's hard to call it explicit) NOT have a political agenda?
And Final Fantasy? Every final fantasy game I've played more than a third of the way through after I has a huge political agenda. IV and VI could be seen as distrust for large organizations (empires are evil, little parties of adventurers are good.) V and VII focused on environmental destruction. I've been told VIII is supposed to be a metaphor for Japanese foreign relations. I didn't play IX or X far enough to have any idea what their top secret subversive political agenda is...
Although I agree individual icons are clean in KDE, I see a lot more visual clutter in KDE then in most other desktop environments. Click on the "K" and 30 icons pop up. There's 30 icons underneath the already somewhat intimidating Konqueror menubar (Any menubar which starts with "Location" instead of "File" is a little disconcerting--are there standards for KDE menus at all? Some do start with "File"...) Although KDE has a cleaner "theme", compared to Windows, Mac, or even Ximian Gnome, it doesn't seem as organized, at least at first glance, IMHO.
None of this is likely to hinder the average linux user of KDE even slightly, but it is somewhat intimidating to people new to computers, linux, or KDE.
That's why I added "and desktop size". Meaning I've never found anyone who likes that XFree86 "virtual desktop" feature (not talking about that multiple desktop idea that a lot of window managers have, is definitely a point in X's favor.)
Impossible to install. I've NEVER run X without having to edit config files by hand before I could see ANYTHING. That's just X11, not linux, not gnome, not kde--X11 alone always requires a human being to mess with text files.
It's been true for 10 years, so it seems pretty damn inherent to me.
Yes, the front end (gnome or kde) is there. But you can't get to the front end unless you're a techie.
Slashdot Mirror
You no nothing!
The null hypothesis was proven false just a few years ago. Why can't slashdot get a clue?! Sorry I only know about unnatural sciences.
Really, when anyone says average driver, they mean median.
Won't emergency services have a harder time getting around 55mph traffic then just going with the flow of 75-80 mph traffic?
Geez, I don't even really drive an SUV! Looks like I'm revealed to be secretly the true asshole!
I drive an SUV and I'm constantly tailgating asshole bikers going slow on the left. Justifiable homicide, I say! WHY AREN'T YOU FUCKING DEAD ASSHOLE!!!!
Hmm. I was under the impression that vertex shaders could be reasonably simulated in software, it was pixel shaders that required hardware. Oh well, I guess that's why XBox games look so good despite their hardware being inferior to my computer--because everyone with an xbox has vertex/pixel shaders.
Fanboys don't want to hear that their cards aren't being pushed anywhere near the limits. The are much happier to have poorly written games that have high polygon counts and bad art, because then they can justify the money they spent on a new computer and/or video card.
I guess if that's the attitude that a PC games developer has, it's no wonder that most of the games I buy are console games. Maybe if you guys started making games with great art (or great gameplay), people would buy them without complaints about polycounts, just like I never complained about polycounts after I bought Rez, Ico, Smash Brothers, Jet Set Radio...
Whatever my wife's ass is invincible and stuff.
Moral: no one is afraid of anyone who uses a cell phone.
I have no hard data to back up this claim, but I imagine most people who don't use cell phones can beat up most of the people who use cell phones. It's those dog gone rules of civilized society, holding everyone back again...
If so many interests coincide to get rid of cell phones, why should your interests override them?
Yep. The personal choice of everyone on the subway with you.
Dr. Miscommunicado's phone jammer only activates when cell phone communication is detected.
You say, stupid phone, why don't you ever let me call my associates?
You stop paying for phone that never works.
Dr. Miscommunicado wins, yet again.
Damn you, Dr. Miscommmunicado!
But the first 19 times, man, that was the shit!
And you're children will be annoyed by your wife's jamming devices. That's technology, sometimes it bites back. Get used to it.
That won't last long. Americans have never cared about Europeans or Asians, just as Europeans or Asians have never cared about Americans or each other.
Presumably any CD distributed for consumers would contain easily installed binaries.
WOSM?
awesome!
Ahem. You have a very creative way of writing books. Most of us uses pens/keyboards with out fingers.
This says nothing about fucking video games.
It also says nothing about fucking swearing on fucking internet message boards, my dear Professor Shitfuck.
For example, if an arcade game shows you a movie, then while you are distracted by the movie electrocutes you, then says game over, that's not protected speech, even though the movie is. You can't take something that IS protected speech, add something that ISN'T, and expect it to keep staying protected speech.
So what do video games add to static movies? They add INTERACTIVITY and SIMULATION. Could either of these things added to protected speech make it no longer protected speech?
In a particular world view (not my own), yes. Interactivity, for example, changes the expression of the idea of killing a person into a chance to actually experience killing a person. Expressing an idea, and giving a chance to experience are very different things, it's not ludicrous to imagine the people writing the Constitution would mean to protect one without protecting the other.
Another example, with simulation, a virtual world can take directions that the original creator didn't intend or even concieve. If I play Quake III as Xaero and kill someone else playing as Anarki, that's not an attempt by John Carmack to say that dorky computer hackers on cyber skateboards deserve to be killed by alien warlords--because John Carmack didn't intend for Xaero to always win.
To put that example in other terms (because this is fun), imagine that I am playing a Hamlet video game. On the Character Select screen, I choose Hamlet. I proceed to kill my father's murderer right away, because I'm awesome. Shakespeare obviously didn't intend that, and perhaps the developers of the simulated characters whom I'm supposed to interact with didn't forsee what happens, and the remainder of my Hamlet play experience is totally different from what anyone intended. Can this be said to be expression, if the idea to be expressed doesn't exist until it is viewed?
I want to just say "yes, it's still speech, fr33 sp33ch rul3z d00dz", but I can't call someone stupid who says "no".
Of course, I thought of these issues after playing a lot more than 4 video games...
And Final Fantasy? Every final fantasy game I've played more than a third of the way through after I has a huge political agenda. IV and VI could be seen as distrust for large organizations (empires are evil, little parties of adventurers are good.) V and VII focused on environmental destruction. I've been told VIII is supposed to be a metaphor for Japanese foreign relations. I didn't play IX or X far enough to have any idea what their top secret subversive political agenda is...
None of this is likely to hinder the average linux user of KDE even slightly, but it is somewhat intimidating to people new to computers, linux, or KDE.
Wait a minute, what else is it supposed to do?
I guess all things considered, for being more than 10 years old, Xlib is certainly more elegant than Win32...
Maybe you should run VNC over the 56k modem, because over 100BaseT X is slow and choppy for me. ;)
That's why I added "and desktop size". Meaning I've never found anyone who likes that XFree86 "virtual desktop" feature (not talking about that multiple desktop idea that a lot of window managers have, is definitely a point in X's favor.)
It's been true for 10 years, so it seems pretty damn inherent to me.
Yes, the front end (gnome or kde) is there. But you can't get to the front end unless you're a techie.