As much as I've already posted my support for this idea, there's no friggin' way Madden.Current will be available at launch for $30/year for year after year.
While I'm not a fan of "yet another low, low monthly fee," $5 seems well within the boundaries of reasonable, even if it's for an ever-changing catalog of games.
I already use Gamefly, and to some extent, this provides a similar service, for less money -- albeit for a smaller selection of titles.
Games for Gold currently satisfies my need to play a game for a tiny bit and then throw it aside, but this provides another option.
Or, it would reinforce the idea that life spread uniformly through our solar system from some shared visitor in a wonderful accident of cosmic cross-contamination.
WotC has mostly abandoned Legacy and Vintage to whatever degeneracy might happen, but the "Modern" tournament format (all sets since 8th edition) is being fully supported, and new cards are balanced for inclusion in that environment.
8th ED was 2003, but balancing for it has only happened since the Modern format was introduced in 2011. Cards in the last 3-5 years (since the design of the sets in 2011) take their fit into Modern seriously.
Anyway, it'll be a little easier since they have full control of all Windows production. Nobody has to convince another distribution.
I'd love to see a single UI that works across 4" phones and 7" tablets with gorilla glass, and 13" laptops and 10" convertibles with membrane keyboards, and 24" desktops with 101-keyboards, and 60" XBox Ones with controllers but I'm not holding my breath.
Paper is already at least WORM, and depending on your format, randomly-accessible.
I don't suggest that this isn't interesting, I'm just asking a question about machine readable printed information density.
How many distinct characters or pixels can we reliably scan in from an 8.5x11 sheet of paper? What density of information allows us to have 4 or 8 or 16 or 256 colors of pixels?
More analogies. You can judge an entry level grade-school musician by notes missed. He gets credit for showing up to class and not tooting his horn (literally) during the rests. Advancement beyond that requires someone who knows what a good musician sounds like, the subtleties and nuances in his play and style.
You can judge entry-level programmers by lines of code, errors in their code, and other simple metrics. You take those numbers day by day, and like the poker player above, you know that sometimes good code brings bad results and gets discarded. You look at their performance over time, their ability to deliver expected workloads over weeks, months, quarters, and years. You look at their ability to provide complex solutions. Some of this might be, "I know it when I see it," but that's still how you measure people.
Art teachers can mostly agree on talented artists and musicians. Coding isn't that much of a mystery.
Slashdot Mirror
As much as I've already posted my support for this idea, there's no friggin' way Madden.Current will be available at launch for $30/year for year after year.
Madden fans are a slam dunk lock for $70/year.
I think it's just absolutely darling that people use non-virtual credit card numbers online.
While I'm not a fan of "yet another low, low monthly fee," $5 seems well within the boundaries of reasonable, even if it's for an ever-changing catalog of games.
I already use Gamefly, and to some extent, this provides a similar service, for less money -- albeit for a smaller selection of titles.
Games for Gold currently satisfies my need to play a game for a tiny bit and then throw it aside, but this provides another option.
What I'm saying is that "we don't know what we don't know." Nothing more. Nothing less.
As long as we define "life" as "life as we know it," sure.
Or, it would reinforce the idea that life spread uniformly through our solar system from some shared visitor in a wonderful accident of cosmic cross-contamination.
I'm ashamed to understand what you wrote. :(
WotC has mostly abandoned Legacy and Vintage to whatever degeneracy might happen, but the "Modern" tournament format (all sets since 8th edition) is being fully supported, and new cards are balanced for inclusion in that environment.
8th ED was 2003, but balancing for it has only happened since the Modern format was introduced in 2011. Cards in the last 3-5 years (since the design of the sets in 2011) take their fit into Modern seriously.
I'm completely stumped. Any guesses?
Unices? Who knows.
Anyway, it'll be a little easier since they have full control of all Windows production. Nobody has to convince another distribution.
I'd love to see a single UI that works across 4" phones and 7" tablets with gorilla glass, and 13" laptops and 10" convertibles with membrane keyboards, and 24" desktops with 101-keyboards, and 60" XBox Ones with controllers but I'm not holding my breath.
Who else gets divorced? Unmarried people?
Dolt.
How many colors are your 7727 characters, and do they include Unicode support?
You think Snowden 2.0 is more likely than a judge forcing them to respond to FOIA requests?
To each their own, I suppose.
Or, they could become less obstinate in blocking FOIA requests.
The thermonuclear option isn't always a good idea.
Divorce is expensive because it's worth it.
We can obviously scan well above 1200dpi, but determining each printed pixel's true nature reading 1200dpi ink-on-paper would be challenging.
Perhaps there are both em and en spaces between their dots :)
Paper is already at least WORM, and depending on your format, randomly-accessible.
I don't suggest that this isn't interesting, I'm just asking a question about machine readable printed information density.
How many distinct characters or pixels can we reliably scan in from an 8.5x11 sheet of paper? What density of information allows us to have 4 or 8 or 16 or 256 colors of pixels?
What's the current density of machine-readable written information on an 8.5x11 sheet of paper?
I'm going to guess more than a meg.
Well, go get your Nobel prize in epidemiology, since the world's last recorded case of smallpox was in 1978.
I'm not avoid naming metrics.
More analogies. You can judge an entry level grade-school musician by notes missed. He gets credit for showing up to class and not tooting his horn (literally) during the rests. Advancement beyond that requires someone who knows what a good musician sounds like, the subtleties and nuances in his play and style.
You can judge entry-level programmers by lines of code, errors in their code, and other simple metrics. You take those numbers day by day, and like the poker player above, you know that sometimes good code brings bad results and gets discarded. You look at their performance over time, their ability to deliver expected workloads over weeks, months, quarters, and years. You look at their ability to provide complex solutions. Some of this might be, "I know it when I see it," but that's still how you measure people.
Art teachers can mostly agree on talented artists and musicians. Coding isn't that much of a mystery.
Get the right managers.
Sure, there's a long, long list of Lazarus species, once thought dead but found alive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
And we might clone back an Ibex someday again...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
But the list of extinct species vastly outnumbers the Lazarus list, and includes plenty that we're directly responsible for with our own hands.
Some background - since I was unaware:
http://www.ghacks.net/2014/07/...
You simply use a longer timeline.
Nobody worth their skin judges a poker player by who won the last pot -- but over time I can measure quite well who the good ones are.
Destroying smallpox samples doesn't magically erase the disease from existence.
Correct.
In erases it from existence by non-magic, real, tangible methods (e.g. destroying every last living member of the species).