Guitar Hero: WT is incompatible with the Rock Band Wii drum kit.
How about the converse? Will Rock Band 2 work with World Tour equipment?
I've ordered WT already because I've already got two guitars from GH3 and Aerosmith; the drum kit can wait till I have more money to throw around. I'd like to get Rock Band 2 as well, but only if I don't end up with a room full of incompatible equipment.
And that most google searches for help end with instructions telling the user how to fix their problem or get their whatever working must also use precisely zero command line interactions
Actually, command line stuff is perfect for online instructions. It's easy for a luser to customise their desktop to the point where instructions like 'click this icon in the corner of the screen, then this, then this...' don't work any more, because the icons are somewhere else, called something else, and have a different theme applied so they don't look the same either. In fact it's often the first thing lusers do - they redecorate, change the colours, put a picture of their favourite puppy on the background, and pick the most awful icon theme they can find.
Give them a command line and instructions that go 'type the following exactly' and they'll manage it. Sure, they could have somehow contrived to alias ls to rm -rf/, but it's far less likely.
That may be the single strangest definition of 'wholesome' I've ever seen. Certainly/d/ is a lot more civil than/b/, you won't find them posting abuse and hate content for the lulz, but surely nothing with that many cartoon hermaphrodites can possibly qualify as 'wholesome'.
If we are so much better now, why is the color of the man's skin of any importance at all?
Because he's the first black president, and that's noteworthy; not so long ago it would have been unthinkable. In time it will be entirely unremarkable; example, off the top of your head, who was the fifth man on the moon?
"If you're not a democrat when you're young, you have no heart. If you're not a republican when you're old, you have no brain." -- Churchill.
Strange terms for a British politician to use; a democrat is someone who thinks that the government should be elected by the population at large, and a republican is either someone who thinks that the monarchy should be replaced with an elected head of state, or someone who thinks the British should get the hell out of the north of Ireland.
I think Churchill used the terms 'Socialist' and 'conservative'. And he should know; he changed sides between the Tories and the Labour Party. Twice.
I didn't realize that FDR was your president from 1914-1918...
That war doesn't even come close. Perhaps twenty million people were killed. The second war claimed at least three times that; the Soviet Union alone lost as many lives as the entire death toll of WWI.
Just because Britain and America got off amazingly lightly doesn't mean that WWII was anything other than worst in human history.
You're really more afraid of Obama in the White House than you are of an Islamic terrorist? Really?
Let us imagine a genie had come to me four years ago and offered me a choice. Either Osama bin Laden could be captured and his terrorist career ended. Or George W Bush could lose the 2004 election.
I would have gone for the election option without a moment's hesitation.
A terrorist out to kill all he can, can't really kill all that many. His resources are very limited. And if you take him out there'll be another terrorist along soon enough, just as bad as he. A rogue president on the other hand can bring about carnage on a global scale, for he has access to vast budgets and manpower and endless military supplies. The worst mayhem bin Laden ever engineered doesn't come close to the horrors the Bush regime inflicted upon the world. Defeat a president at an election, and there's at least a decent chance he won't be immediately replaced by a monster from the same mould.
So I have no problem with the idea that someone from the reactionary end of the scale might well view Obama in the same light as I saw Bush. Osama bin Laden is still a minor threat - a villain with big dreams, but wholly incapable of ever being more than a minor nuisance in the grand scheme of things. He wants to do all sorts of things you wouldn't like, but he probably won't be able to. If the President wants to do things you wouldn't like, who's going to stop him?
In socialism, you don't have any of those: free press, fair trials, free elections, private business.
I'd agree with that last one - Socialism is a system of common ownership of the means of production - but I don't see how the first three are incompatible with Socialism. Indeed it seems to me that, for instance, the Socialist press ought to be more free than under capitalist imperialism, for under capitalism freedom of the press applies only to those who own presses.
It's also fully lossless. I'm not sure people need or want that, considering the ballooning size of digital music libraries even with lossy compression.
Hard disks are up to 1.5TB. That's maybe a hundred times what they were when Napster first became popular. FLAC is typically, what, ten times the size of an MP3? Seems to me the time for lossless compression is here.
When someone routinely lands on the luxury tax square instead of my hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place.. I start dropping F-bombs like they are going out of style! I've been known to throw a pen accross the room also... Maybe I should seek help;)
Help is at hand. The dark blue squares are overrated; they're expensive to obtain, ruinously expensive to build upon, and are landed on extremely infrequently. Occasionally a hotel here will win you the game, but far more often you'll never recover your costs. A far better bet is the orange squares: these are comparatively inexpensive to obtain and to develop, and are very frequently visited because people often 'go to Jail' and then roll a five, six or eight when they leave (look at the probability distributions for 2d6, these rolls are good bets).
When a man is in fear of his life, fighting in the service of those who cannot defend themselves, it is glorious regardless of how ugly it is. Not because he overcame his enemy, but because he overcame his fear and made a sacrifice of himself.
The sole and entire purpose of violence is to overcome an enemy. There is no other excuse for it. To glorify a courageous sacrifice, separately from any contribution it may make to overall victory, is to encourage entirely futile waste of life, and is to my mind wholly monstrous; that is why I say that people who put about such ideas and perpetuate 'the old Lie' are the ones who ought to be shot first when the violence starts.
Now to sacrifice one's life in such a way that it does contribute substantially to the overcoming of an enemy, that might be something that should reasonably be encouraged - though I will not call it glorious, it is at least as sordid and horrible as any other violent death. But there are many who courageously sacrifice themselves for nothing. For example, there was nothing worthwhile at all about the sacrifices made by the kamikaze pilots. They died entirely in vain, for by that stage there was no hope that their deaths could ever save their country. They would have done far better to go home to their families and live out their lives there. Will you call it glorious?
That is an empty opinion, an expression of your distaste for violence and your desire to redefine words that might elevate it to a virtue.
I will allow that violence is occasionally necessary. That does not make it glorious. Collecting the town's rubbish is necessary. Unblocking the sewers is necessary. Violence is to be classed alongside those: it is something that is inherently messy, ugly and often downright disgusting, but which needs to be done.
For myself I'm with Billy Cassidy on this one: the ones who go on about blood sacrifices and glory and beauty in fighting are the ones yeh fuckin' shoot first.
Just masquerade as an iPhone, and you get a nice high-quality.MOV file. You can download it and store it as long as you like, and play it using standard free software.
As someone called in to a local radio station, "Haven't those guys passed their sell-by date?"
Are you kidding? The Beatles have gone beyond rock stardom; their songs are common currency. In a secular society they've replaced the old hymns as the songbook everyone has in common, the set of tunes everyone knows, the basis vectors of our musical culture. I've heard mothers singing Beatles songs to infants in the cradle, and once a song gets into that market it's good for centuries. Some day a book of folk songs will contain the words and music to 'Yesterday' and list it as 'Traditional'. The name of the Beatles might be forgotten in the millennia to come, but I'd expect their music to survive for a very long time indeed.
Will there be an Elvis expansion pack?
I doubt it. They're too heavily dominated by the vocalist. If you're going for really early rock and roll, I vote Buddy Holly. Or Chuck Berry. I want to play Johnny B. Goode!
Clinton cut intelligence and military budgets...and we know what that contributed to.
Good point; with better funded intelligence, we'd have known ahead of time that there weren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and could have saved ourselves an awful lot of bother.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised that the case of Dilbert in particular is being cited here. It's not as if you can't get every strip back to 1991 from the website.
How about the converse? Will Rock Band 2 work with World Tour equipment?
I've ordered WT already because I've already got two guitars from GH3 and Aerosmith; the drum kit can wait till I have more money to throw around. I'd like to get Rock Band 2 as well, but only if I don't end up with a room full of incompatible equipment.
When a simulation costs more than the real thing, surely you've got to wonder if there's a problem.
There's your problem you see. It should be user canal, and you sudo to get elevated privileges as and when needed.
Actually, command line stuff is perfect for online instructions. It's easy for a luser to customise their desktop to the point where instructions like 'click this icon in the corner of the screen, then this, then this...' don't work any more, because the icons are somewhere else, called something else, and have a different theme applied so they don't look the same either. In fact it's often the first thing lusers do - they redecorate, change the colours, put a picture of their favourite puppy on the background, and pick the most awful icon theme they can find.
Give them a command line and instructions that go 'type the following exactly' and they'll manage it. Sure, they could have somehow contrived to alias ls to rm -rf /, but it's far less likely.
That may be the single strangest definition of 'wholesome' I've ever seen. Certainly /d/ is a lot more civil than /b/, you won't find them posting abuse and hate content for the lulz, but surely nothing with that many cartoon hermaphrodites can possibly qualify as 'wholesome'.
Because he's the first black president, and that's noteworthy; not so long ago it would have been unthinkable. In time it will be entirely unremarkable; example, off the top of your head, who was the fifth man on the moon?
Strange terms for a British politician to use; a democrat is someone who thinks that the government should be elected by the population at large, and a republican is either someone who thinks that the monarchy should be replaced with an elected head of state, or someone who thinks the British should get the hell out of the north of Ireland.
I think Churchill used the terms 'Socialist' and 'conservative'. And he should know; he changed sides between the Tories and the Labour Party. Twice.
That war doesn't even come close. Perhaps twenty million people were killed. The second war claimed at least three times that; the Soviet Union alone lost as many lives as the entire death toll of WWI.
Just because Britain and America got off amazingly lightly doesn't mean that WWII was anything other than worst in human history.
Let us imagine a genie had come to me four years ago and offered me a choice. Either Osama bin Laden could be captured and his terrorist career ended. Or George W Bush could lose the 2004 election.
I would have gone for the election option without a moment's hesitation.
A terrorist out to kill all he can, can't really kill all that many. His resources are very limited. And if you take him out there'll be another terrorist along soon enough, just as bad as he. A rogue president on the other hand can bring about carnage on a global scale, for he has access to vast budgets and manpower and endless military supplies. The worst mayhem bin Laden ever engineered doesn't come close to the horrors the Bush regime inflicted upon the world. Defeat a president at an election, and there's at least a decent chance he won't be immediately replaced by a monster from the same mould.
So I have no problem with the idea that someone from the reactionary end of the scale might well view Obama in the same light as I saw Bush. Osama bin Laden is still a minor threat - a villain with big dreams, but wholly incapable of ever being more than a minor nuisance in the grand scheme of things. He wants to do all sorts of things you wouldn't like, but he probably won't be able to. If the President wants to do things you wouldn't like, who's going to stop him?
I'd agree with that last one - Socialism is a system of common ownership of the means of production - but I don't see how the first three are incompatible with Socialism. Indeed it seems to me that, for instance, the Socialist press ought to be more free than under capitalist imperialism, for under capitalism freedom of the press applies only to those who own presses.
Hard disks are up to 1.5TB. That's maybe a hundred times what they were when Napster first became popular. FLAC is typically, what, ten times the size of an MP3? Seems to me the time for lossless compression is here.
Help is at hand. The dark blue squares are overrated; they're expensive to obtain, ruinously expensive to build upon, and are landed on extremely infrequently. Occasionally a hotel here will win you the game, but far more often you'll never recover your costs. A far better bet is the orange squares: these are comparatively inexpensive to obtain and to develop, and are very frequently visited because people often 'go to Jail' and then roll a five, six or eight when they leave (look at the probability distributions for 2d6, these rolls are good bets).
What was that rule about how all grammar flames invariably contain a glaring error themselves?
Is this some sort of bizarre American temperance thing? Why on earth would you want to punish a kid for bringing you a beer?
The sole and entire purpose of violence is to overcome an enemy. There is no other excuse for it. To glorify a courageous sacrifice, separately from any contribution it may make to overall victory, is to encourage entirely futile waste of life, and is to my mind wholly monstrous; that is why I say that people who put about such ideas and perpetuate 'the old Lie' are the ones who ought to be shot first when the violence starts.
Now to sacrifice one's life in such a way that it does contribute substantially to the overcoming of an enemy, that might be something that should reasonably be encouraged - though I will not call it glorious, it is at least as sordid and horrible as any other violent death. But there are many who courageously sacrifice themselves for nothing. For example, there was nothing worthwhile at all about the sacrifices made by the kamikaze pilots. They died entirely in vain, for by that stage there was no hope that their deaths could ever save their country. They would have done far better to go home to their families and live out their lives there. Will you call it glorious?
I will allow that violence is occasionally necessary. That does not make it glorious. Collecting the town's rubbish is necessary. Unblocking the sewers is necessary. Violence is to be classed alongside those: it is something that is inherently messy, ugly and often downright disgusting, but which needs to be done.
For myself I'm with Billy Cassidy on this one: the ones who go on about blood sacrifices and glory and beauty in fighting are the ones yeh fuckin' shoot first.
They're the mythical Norse heroes from his epic passpoem.
Just masquerade as an iPhone, and you get a nice high-quality .MOV file. You can download it and store it as long as you like, and play it using standard free software.
Jaunty Jackalope.
This being /., it would be kind of redundant even if he was.
Are you kidding? The Beatles have gone beyond rock stardom; their songs are common currency. In a secular society they've replaced the old hymns as the songbook everyone has in common, the set of tunes everyone knows, the basis vectors of our musical culture. I've heard mothers singing Beatles songs to infants in the cradle, and once a song gets into that market it's good for centuries. Some day a book of folk songs will contain the words and music to 'Yesterday' and list it as 'Traditional'. The name of the Beatles might be forgotten in the millennia to come, but I'd expect their music to survive for a very long time indeed.
Will there be an Elvis expansion pack?
I doubt it. They're too heavily dominated by the vocalist. If you're going for really early rock and roll, I vote Buddy Holly. Or Chuck Berry. I want to play Johnny B. Goode!
That would work, yeah. What's got me excited is that I'm really, really shit at the drums. So this is the game for me!
We are in favour of workers' control of the means of encryption.
Good point; with better funded intelligence, we'd have known ahead of time that there weren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and could have saved ourselves an awful lot of bother.