GEMA did not, meaning that it refused to license it's property to Youtube.
Did you miss the part in the they already had a license agreement, but that it ended because they Youtube didn't want to pay the price that GEMA was asking? From the article:
"In 2007 the entities reached a licensing agreement for YouTube to use works from GEMA's extensive repertoire. Two years later negotiations to extend that deal broke down when GEMA's long-term demand of around 0.12 Euro per stream was rejected by Google."
That doesn't sound like they were refusing to license its property; it just suggests that they wanted more money than Google was willing to spend.
I think that it has enough description that you could take a stab at it, but if you don't want to worry about exactly how much extra spacing to use then don't implement the feature. This is not a core feature of the spec; it is a very rare bit of backwards compatibility for software that dates back two decades. I guarantee that nobody who complains about this tag possesses a document containing this feature.
If not knowing exactly how much white space to implement is going to be a major problem for you, then no standard office specification will be suitable. Look hard enough at any spec and you will find parts where they miss giving exact measurements. And if you don't do that, then the complaint will be that the specification is too verbose that it is unworkable.
And once again, it is amazing how seamlessly people can move from the argument that "there is no explanation" to "that explanation isn't good enough". It is just moving the goalposts.
It is pretty uncalled for to claim zealotry when you are uncompromisingly demanding an absolute 100% accuracy with MS-Office documents before LibreOffice could be used.
There are plenty of businesses where pixel perfect accuracy is not required when sending documents outside the company. If people really need to read my documents with absolute accuracy, then I can PDF it. If I want to test a slideshow then I can use the Powerpoint viewer (it even works under Linux using Wine).
Even without changing the version of Word, a document's pagination can vary wildly depending on the printer driver being used. You don't even change your software for Word to go wrong.
Excel can be a problem if you use complex macros, but 99% of the ones that I see are just being used a glorified table editors with basic calculations. I constantly move between different computers, using Excel, Calc and even the shareware spreadsheet Spread32 (when I want to view something quickly) and it all works better than I had expected. The bigger problem that I have is when a package doesn't implement a feature that you are used to. For example, if I want to search for something spanning the sheets of a workbook I will always use Excel because LibreOffice disables the "Find All" button when you choose the option to span worksheets.
But even you there may end up being some problems, you should not dismiss the use of LibreOffice within any business environment just because you might have some formatting problem.
Welcome to the world of document specifications. None of them really describe what you need to implement. Remember when people criticised Microsoft's ODF support because they implemented what the spec said rather than what OpenOffice actually used? (Fortunately the spec has been updated since then)
In the case of this tag, it is only going to be found in 18 year old documents that have been converted into XML format. I bet the number of times that it because the subject of complaint here on/. is way more than the number of documents that actually contain the tag. And then if you find the subset of the times where a few pixels different padding is actually noticed in those documents... well, I bet it has never happened.
But all this is moot, as the original claim was that AutospaceLikeWord95 was not publicly documented, where as it clearly does have an explanation - even if there may be room for improvement.
I think that a lot of people who love the Metro interface must have upgraded from XP to Windows 8, and so attribute improvements in previous versions of Windows to the Win8.
Power users should like metro better than the start menu. Once open, you just start typing and the app or file you intended to work with is ready to launch after about 3-4 letters typed. Its like a full screen graphical console.
That is not a Metro feature. It has been in all Windows since Vista (with the exception of the part where it takes up your entire screen). The difference was that Win8 split the results into files, apps and settings which then required more keystrokes (our mouse clicks) to get to the entry that you wanted. The 8.1 restored this functionality.
With metro the 5-6 applications that i use really frequently i can pin right in front of my face instead of digging through folders.
Whereas from Vista onwards, your 5-6 applications that you use frequently would be automatically shown on your start menu without having to pin them (although you do have that option too).
With 8.1 metro, my "start" area doesn't get bogged down with a bunch of bullshit just because I installed 1 new app - a BIG WIN in my book.
Once again, this is a Vista feature. Like Metro, you have to go into a different section to see the full start menu that we knew from the days of XP and earlier. But installing a new app will normally just add a single main icon to your start menu, and you click on "All Programs" to see the full group of icons. The difference with Windows 8 is that it is not obvious how to get to the full list of programs in Metro, although the 8.1 upgrade did give a small down arrow button to get to it.
I could be running a 2007-era Intel MBP right now and still use the latest OS version, binaries, etc. Let me read that to you in practical terms: I can be using the latest OS/apps on a 7-year-old Apple laptop.
When I wanted to first test Windows 8 without ruining any useful computer, I tried it on an 2006 Celeron-based desktop. It was a little slow to boot due to the old hard drive (which I later swapped with a SSD) but it worked surprisingly well. I hated the operating system, but I could not fault it for its ability to work with ancient hardware.
Given that this was a low-end computer in its day, I could easily see the latest Windows working on any mid-range computer from a year or two before that.
The one and only real issue I'd seen with Macs and obsolescence as per hardware? The switch from PPC (G4/5) to Intel, but evne that was smoothed over for a few years with fat binaries.
If the switch from PPC to Intel was the "one and only real issue" then why doesn't the latest OS work on all Intel-based Macs? The system requirements that you posted stops its supported platforms long after the switch to Intel. And even when you can upgrade your computer (for example, change the CPU to a 64bit version) then you still need to hack the platformsupport.plist file before the OS can be installed. This means that the supported models are baked into the installer rather than just letting it look for the features that it needs. At least the latest Windows can run slowly on old systems - it doesn't just refuse to work merely because of the age of the hardware.
Jobs like home video editing now that everyone, just about, has a HD video camera in their tablet or the phone in their pocket and an insatiable desire to put their cat's funny antics up on Youtube.
I still don't believe that the majority of people are doing video editing that requires more than 4GB RAM. It is a small proportion that upload videos to the Internet anyway, and of those that do I have seen way too many examples that desperately need editing but obviously haven't. It seems that most people just don't care to do these memory intensive edit jobs. They will dump the video to disk, maybe trim it a bit and then upload.
Even among the people who do need more memory - gamers - just over half have 4GB or less according to the Steam survey.
And nobody needs more than 640k of memory, right? That old quip always brought the house down as I recall...
Except Bill denies ever saying that. And I didn't say that nobody needed more than 4GB, but that the XP operating system didn't need more than 4GB.
More and more computing jobs do need more than 4GB of RAM or at least work a lot better if more than 4GB is available via a 64-bit OS.
Like what jobs? The majority of tasks performed on computers by the majority of people are things like the basic word processing, spreadsheets, databases, email, web etc. Most of the time, these activities do not need more than 4GB when using older (non-bloated) software. If you do actually need more than 4GB, then you would have already upgraded to 64bit Windows. But just because some people have found a use for more memory, it doesn't mean that the majority of people need it.
XP has a number of limitations that Win7 and Win8 supercede -- nearly all XP installs still running are the 32-bit version with a 4GB limit on RAM and a 2TB limit for disk volumes, and as far as I know XP doesn't support TRIM for SSDs. It also limits out at DX9, important for gamers and there are probably other limitations due to its age and end-of-support status.
You could turn that around by saying that XP just didn't need more than 4GB of RAM and 2TB hard disk space. And as for DX9, according to Steam's Hardware & Software Survey, XP use is at 6.35% so it appears that gamers have already figured out that they need to upgrade.
Obviously the people using XP now are still satisfied with the OS. It is a vicious circle that you need to upgrade to use more hardware (RAM/HD), when it is only because that you have upgraded your software that you need to access more hardware.
You are right. For an article on the user experience, it really doesn't do much to help the user. Using terminology like UX was a bit silly, but even more so was the massive wall of text that actually told us nothing. For example, on the entire screenful of text about the Philips Hue Light Bulb, the only relevant text about the user interface (sorry, UX) was:
The only problem is that the app sucks...even the pigs in Angry Birds would not be caught dead with this app.
I came away from that article without much insight as to why these things are good or bad "user experiences". They say that a picture tells a thousand words, but in this case the graphic at the top of the article summarizing the product names was just as informative as the 5,000 words that followed.
They are unable to predict the future though, and always have been.
That is a pretty unsupportable statement considering that the scientists are well aware of how much certainty their models have, and so give a large error range such that it was nearly impossible to get it wrong. Your claim that they all have been falsified by observations is a complete lie.
If this slushy effect is real then update the model, recalculate the figures for the previous years data and see how accurate it is.
Don't waste everyone's time making predictions using a model that doesn't work on previous years data.
That is exactly how the models work; when new facts are found they plug that into their models and calibrate it against past data. They also compare the predictions against new measurements, and if there is a discrepancy then they try to figure out why - as was the case here. This is why the models are getting more accurate as the years go by.
Just another example of Man thinking he has everything figured out only to be made a fool of by nature.
Except Man doesn't think that he has everything figured out. This is even mentioned in the summary:
Other researchers believe this discovery may help explain disparities between projections of mass loss by climate models and observations from satellites.
Researchers knew that the models did not match what was happening and didn't know why. In fact, you can tell that they don't think that they know it all by seeing how they state their margins of error (which takes into account that there might be things that they don't know). Hell, even when they try to sound certain they can't quite bring themselves to stating things in terms of absolutes (hence the IPCC report saying that it was 95% certain that climate change was man made).
And think about it, if scientists came out and said that they had discovered everything that there was to know then they would be putting themselves out of a job.
...or typesetters & typists, accountants, video editors, music composers, engineers & architects, etc. In fact, anyone who produces, rather than consumes will tend to use computers as their main system. SSDs work nicely for all of them, if only to store the OS and program files.
That you only know gamers and developers says more about the company you keep rather than what technology is used out there. It is true that tablets and smart phone sales are on the rise and PC sales are declining, but that doesn't mean that people have stopped using their old computers.
Perhaps if museums for kids were better tailored for interactive education instead of going through and being told to read each sign and label students would care. Maybe times have changed and that's how it generally is today, I hope that's true.
You obviously haven't been in a museum in the last couple of decades. They have had interactive displays, personal spoken tours using portable audio devices (using an MP3 player, Discman or Minidisc player), and the better museums had tour guides. That is the new technology where a person takes a group of people around and tells them about the art. It's amazing what they can do these days!
But maybe if you are the kind of person who cannot read a small sign, then perhaps even a museum couldn't be much help for you. I wonder how you go with some of those lengthy dissertations on Twitter.
I had a look at the link that you gave, but couldn't see any mention about "Putting this in for the Office team" that was apparently one of the big discussions. I did manage to find this, but it doesn't really show a smoking gun for widespread collusion between the Windows and Office development teams, especially because they also mention of specific code for Borland, IBM, and Symantec in that article.
I think that the use of a few vague comments in the Windows source code leak as proof of secret API calls in Office is about as undamning as the focussing on a few instances of terminology in the CRU email leaks when trying to prove climate change is all one big conspiracy. If all the allegations were true, I would have expected to see more specific evidence.
By my very quick and informal count (a single pass through that page counting the games listed as having Steam keys), there are around 107 Steam games total
I think you are dramatically underestimating how many Steam games there are. I just started counting my Steam keys, and by the time I counted my fifth bundle (four Android bundles and the Deep Silver bundle) I had already counted 31 unique games. I am not going to bother counting the other twenty-odd bundles, because I have no doubt that they will easily get past the 100 mark.
Here is what I found so far:
Fieldrunners
BIT.TRIP BEAT
SpaceChem
Uplink
Crayon Physics Deluxe
Eufloria
Splice
Superbrothers: Sword & Sworcery EP
Waking Mars
Cogs
Zen Bound 2
Avadon: The Black Fortress
Dynamite Jack
Beat Hazard Ultra
Nightsky
Solar 2
Aquaria
Fractal
Stealth Bastard Deluxe
Organ Trail: Director's Cut
Frozen Synapse
Broken Sword: Director's Cut
McPixel
Risen 2
Sacred 2 Gold
Saints Row 2
Saints Row: The Third
Dead Island GOTY
Metro 2033
Risen
Sacred Citadel
Just to confirm it, I just click two other bundles at random and got 20 unique Steam games to make over 50 in just seven bundles. And that is not even going near the "Humble Weekly Sale" section where virtually everything was delivered by Steam.
It looks like they all require Steam too. What is the point?
I just had a look, and of the nine games listed on the front page, five of them had a DRM-free sign. Just because they have Steam keys available doesn't preclude a direct download version too. Not all of the games were on GOG either, and those that are there are currently at full price (though GOG has had some pretty aggressive sales lately so it may be worth waiting).
Many years ago, I was trying to fix a TV from the 70s. Full schematic glued to the inside of the set.
Same here, but with a radio from the 30s or 40s. I guess the difference is that those devices didn't require a code listing for the firmware. A simple circuit diagram wouldn't be that useful these days.
Also, in the past if a device broke then you would have it repaired. They were made to last. These days you just throw it away and get a new one.
All this value free for the express edition! gotta thank GNU, if it weren't for them we'd be milked for way less stuff.
Actually, you can thank the Microsoft's own Platform SDK for all this free value. This included a free C++ compiler, and was released at the start of this century. It was originally for MSDN subscribers, but it was released to the public for anyone to download. If you want to thank anyone for this inital free release, I think it would be Watcom C++ which was released as open source in 2000 after commercial development stopped. At the time that was a much bigger competitor to Microsoft's dev kits than any GNU software.
Since the sea ice is already in the sea, it does not affect sea levels at all.
How does that follow?
If you put some ice in water and let it melt, the water level will remain the same. Even if you see ice sticking up out of the water when it floats along, the weight of it still displaces the same amount of water that the ice is made from.
This means that melting sea ice will not make the oceans rise.
It's common knowledge that, unlike the arctic, Antarctic ice has been increasing.
As is often the case this common knowledge is actually a common misconception. While the sea ice is increasing, the land ice is shedding mass at an accelerating rate. Since the sea ice is already in the sea, it does not affect sea levels at all. Thawing land ice does increase sea levels, since it introduces water to the sea that used to sit on land.
Slashdot Mirror
GEMA did not, meaning that it refused to license it's property to Youtube.
Did you miss the part in the they already had a license agreement, but that it ended because they Youtube didn't want to pay the price that GEMA was asking? From the article:
"In 2007 the entities reached a licensing agreement for YouTube to use works from GEMA's extensive repertoire. Two years later negotiations to extend that deal broke down when GEMA's long-term demand of around 0.12 Euro per stream was rejected by Google."
That doesn't sound like they were refusing to license its property; it just suggests that they wanted more money than Google was willing to spend.
I think that it has enough description that you could take a stab at it, but if you don't want to worry about exactly how much extra spacing to use then don't implement the feature. This is not a core feature of the spec; it is a very rare bit of backwards compatibility for software that dates back two decades. I guarantee that nobody who complains about this tag possesses a document containing this feature.
If not knowing exactly how much white space to implement is going to be a major problem for you, then no standard office specification will be suitable. Look hard enough at any spec and you will find parts where they miss giving exact measurements. And if you don't do that, then the complaint will be that the specification is too verbose that it is unworkable.
And once again, it is amazing how seamlessly people can move from the argument that "there is no explanation" to "that explanation isn't good enough". It is just moving the goalposts.
It is pretty uncalled for to claim zealotry when you are uncompromisingly demanding an absolute 100% accuracy with MS-Office documents before LibreOffice could be used.
There are plenty of businesses where pixel perfect accuracy is not required when sending documents outside the company. If people really need to read my documents with absolute accuracy, then I can PDF it. If I want to test a slideshow then I can use the Powerpoint viewer (it even works under Linux using Wine).
Even without changing the version of Word, a document's pagination can vary wildly depending on the printer driver being used. You don't even change your software for Word to go wrong.
Excel can be a problem if you use complex macros, but 99% of the ones that I see are just being used a glorified table editors with basic calculations. I constantly move between different computers, using Excel, Calc and even the shareware spreadsheet Spread32 (when I want to view something quickly) and it all works better than I had expected. The bigger problem that I have is when a package doesn't implement a feature that you are used to. For example, if I want to search for something spanning the sheets of a workbook I will always use Excel because LibreOffice disables the "Find All" button when you choose the option to span worksheets.
But even you there may end up being some problems, you should not dismiss the use of LibreOffice within any business environment just because you might have some formatting problem.
Welcome to the world of document specifications. None of them really describe what you need to implement. Remember when people criticised Microsoft's ODF support because they implemented what the spec said rather than what OpenOffice actually used? (Fortunately the spec has been updated since then)
In the case of this tag, it is only going to be found in 18 year old documents that have been converted into XML format. I bet the number of times that it because the subject of complaint here on /. is way more than the number of documents that actually contain the tag. And then if you find the subset of the times where a few pixels different padding is actually noticed in those documents... well, I bet it has never happened.
But all this is moot, as the original claim was that AutospaceLikeWord95 was not publicly documented, where as it clearly does have an explanation - even if there may be room for improvement.
If you back up yours with some evidence, I'm sure I can find some for mine...
Here, let me Google that for you.
I think that a lot of people who love the Metro interface must have upgraded from XP to Windows 8, and so attribute improvements in previous versions of Windows to the Win8.
Power users should like metro better than the start menu. Once open, you just start typing and the app or file you intended to work with is ready to launch after about 3-4 letters typed. Its like a full screen graphical console.
That is not a Metro feature. It has been in all Windows since Vista (with the exception of the part where it takes up your entire screen). The difference was that Win8 split the results into files, apps and settings which then required more keystrokes (our mouse clicks) to get to the entry that you wanted. The 8.1 restored this functionality.
With metro the 5-6 applications that i use really frequently i can pin right in front of my face instead of digging through folders.
Whereas from Vista onwards, your 5-6 applications that you use frequently would be automatically shown on your start menu without having to pin them (although you do have that option too).
With 8.1 metro, my "start" area doesn't get bogged down with a bunch of bullshit just because I installed 1 new app - a BIG WIN in my book.
Once again, this is a Vista feature. Like Metro, you have to go into a different section to see the full start menu that we knew from the days of XP and earlier. But installing a new app will normally just add a single main icon to your start menu, and you click on "All Programs" to see the full group of icons. The difference with Windows 8 is that it is not obvious how to get to the full list of programs in Metro, although the 8.1 upgrade did give a small down arrow button to get to it.
I could be running a 2007-era Intel MBP right now and still use the latest OS version, binaries, etc. Let me read that to you in practical terms: I can be using the latest OS/apps on a 7-year-old Apple laptop.
When I wanted to first test Windows 8 without ruining any useful computer, I tried it on an 2006 Celeron-based desktop. It was a little slow to boot due to the old hard drive (which I later swapped with a SSD) but it worked surprisingly well. I hated the operating system, but I could not fault it for its ability to work with ancient hardware.
Given that this was a low-end computer in its day, I could easily see the latest Windows working on any mid-range computer from a year or two before that.
The one and only real issue I'd seen with Macs and obsolescence as per hardware? The switch from PPC (G4/5) to Intel, but evne that was smoothed over for a few years with fat binaries.
If the switch from PPC to Intel was the "one and only real issue" then why doesn't the latest OS work on all Intel-based Macs? The system requirements that you posted stops its supported platforms long after the switch to Intel. And even when you can upgrade your computer (for example, change the CPU to a 64bit version) then you still need to hack the platformsupport.plist file before the OS can be installed. This means that the supported models are baked into the installer rather than just letting it look for the features that it needs. At least the latest Windows can run slowly on old systems - it doesn't just refuse to work merely because of the age of the hardware.
Jobs like home video editing now that everyone, just about, has a HD video camera in their tablet or the phone in their pocket and an insatiable desire to put their cat's funny antics up on Youtube.
I still don't believe that the majority of people are doing video editing that requires more than 4GB RAM. It is a small proportion that upload videos to the Internet anyway, and of those that do I have seen way too many examples that desperately need editing but obviously haven't. It seems that most people just don't care to do these memory intensive edit jobs. They will dump the video to disk, maybe trim it a bit and then upload.
Even among the people who do need more memory - gamers - just over half have 4GB or less according to the Steam survey.
And nobody needs more than 640k of memory, right? That old quip always brought the house down as I recall...
Except Bill denies ever saying that. And I didn't say that nobody needed more than 4GB, but that the XP operating system didn't need more than 4GB.
More and more computing jobs do need more than 4GB of RAM or at least work a lot better if more than 4GB is available via a 64-bit OS.
Like what jobs? The majority of tasks performed on computers by the majority of people are things like the basic word processing, spreadsheets, databases, email, web etc. Most of the time, these activities do not need more than 4GB when using older (non-bloated) software. If you do actually need more than 4GB, then you would have already upgraded to 64bit Windows. But just because some people have found a use for more memory, it doesn't mean that the majority of people need it.
XP has a number of limitations that Win7 and Win8 supercede -- nearly all XP installs still running are the 32-bit version with a 4GB limit on RAM and a 2TB limit for disk volumes, and as far as I know XP doesn't support TRIM for SSDs. It also limits out at DX9, important for gamers and there are probably other limitations due to its age and end-of-support status.
You could turn that around by saying that XP just didn't need more than 4GB of RAM and 2TB hard disk space. And as for DX9, according to Steam's Hardware & Software Survey, XP use is at 6.35% so it appears that gamers have already figured out that they need to upgrade.
Obviously the people using XP now are still satisfied with the OS. It is a vicious circle that you need to upgrade to use more hardware (RAM/HD), when it is only because that you have upgraded your software that you need to access more hardware.
You are right. For an article on the user experience, it really doesn't do much to help the user. Using terminology like UX was a bit silly, but even more so was the massive wall of text that actually told us nothing. For example, on the entire screenful of text about the Philips Hue Light Bulb, the only relevant text about the user interface (sorry, UX) was:
The only problem is that the app sucks...even the pigs in Angry Birds would not be caught dead with this app.
I came away from that article without much insight as to why these things are good or bad "user experiences". They say that a picture tells a thousand words, but in this case the graphic at the top of the article summarizing the product names was just as informative as the 5,000 words that followed.
They are unable to predict the future though, and always have been.
That is a pretty unsupportable statement considering that the scientists are well aware of how much certainty their models have, and so give a large error range such that it was nearly impossible to get it wrong. Your claim that they all have been falsified by observations is a complete lie.
If this slushy effect is real then update the model, recalculate the figures for the previous years data and see how accurate it is.
Don't waste everyone's time making predictions using a model that doesn't work on previous years data.
That is exactly how the models work; when new facts are found they plug that into their models and calibrate it against past data. They also compare the predictions against new measurements, and if there is a discrepancy then they try to figure out why - as was the case here. This is why the models are getting more accurate as the years go by.
Just another example of Man thinking he has everything figured out only to be made a fool of by nature.
Except Man doesn't think that he has everything figured out. This is even mentioned in the summary:
Other researchers believe this discovery may help explain disparities between projections of mass loss by climate models and observations from satellites.
Researchers knew that the models did not match what was happening and didn't know why. In fact, you can tell that they don't think that they know it all by seeing how they state their margins of error (which takes into account that there might be things that they don't know). Hell, even when they try to sound certain they can't quite bring themselves to stating things in terms of absolutes (hence the IPCC report saying that it was 95% certain that climate change was man made).
And think about it, if scientists came out and said that they had discovered everything that there was to know then they would be putting themselves out of a job.
...or typesetters & typists, accountants, video editors, music composers, engineers & architects, etc. In fact, anyone who produces, rather than consumes will tend to use computers as their main system. SSDs work nicely for all of them, if only to store the OS and program files.
That you only know gamers and developers says more about the company you keep rather than what technology is used out there. It is true that tablets and smart phone sales are on the rise and PC sales are declining, but that doesn't mean that people have stopped using their old computers.
Me too!
Perhaps if museums for kids were better tailored for interactive education instead of going through and being told to read each sign and label students would care. Maybe times have changed and that's how it generally is today, I hope that's true.
You obviously haven't been in a museum in the last couple of decades. They have had interactive displays, personal spoken tours using portable audio devices (using an MP3 player, Discman or Minidisc player), and the better museums had tour guides. That is the new technology where a person takes a group of people around and tells them about the art. It's amazing what they can do these days!
But maybe if you are the kind of person who cannot read a small sign, then perhaps even a museum couldn't be much help for you. I wonder how you go with some of those lengthy dissertations on Twitter.
I had a look at the link that you gave, but couldn't see any mention about "Putting this in for the Office team" that was apparently one of the big discussions. I did manage to find this, but it doesn't really show a smoking gun for widespread collusion between the Windows and Office development teams, especially because they also mention of specific code for Borland, IBM, and Symantec in that article.
I think that the use of a few vague comments in the Windows source code leak as proof of secret API calls in Office is about as undamning as the focussing on a few instances of terminology in the CRU email leaks when trying to prove climate change is all one big conspiracy. If all the allegations were true, I would have expected to see more specific evidence.
By my very quick and informal count (a single pass through that page counting the games listed as having Steam keys), there are around 107 Steam games total
I think you are dramatically underestimating how many Steam games there are. I just started counting my Steam keys, and by the time I counted my fifth bundle (four Android bundles and the Deep Silver bundle) I had already counted 31 unique games. I am not going to bother counting the other twenty-odd bundles, because I have no doubt that they will easily get past the 100 mark.
Here is what I found so far:
Just to confirm it, I just click two other bundles at random and got 20 unique Steam games to make over 50 in just seven bundles. And that is not even going near the "Humble Weekly Sale" section where virtually everything was delivered by Steam.
It looks like they all require Steam too. What is the point?
I just had a look, and of the nine games listed on the front page, five of them had a DRM-free sign. Just because they have Steam keys available doesn't preclude a direct download version too. Not all of the games were on GOG either, and those that are there are currently at full price (though GOG has had some pretty aggressive sales lately so it may be worth waiting).
Many years ago, I was trying to fix a TV from the 70s. Full schematic glued to the inside of the set.
Same here, but with a radio from the 30s or 40s. I guess the difference is that those devices didn't require a code listing for the firmware. A simple circuit diagram wouldn't be that useful these days.
Also, in the past if a device broke then you would have it repaired. They were made to last. These days you just throw it away and get a new one.
All this value free for the express edition! gotta thank GNU, if it weren't for them we'd be milked for way less stuff.
Actually, you can thank the Microsoft's own Platform SDK for all this free value. This included a free C++ compiler, and was released at the start of this century. It was originally for MSDN subscribers, but it was released to the public for anyone to download. If you want to thank anyone for this inital free release, I think it would be Watcom C++ which was released as open source in 2000 after commercial development stopped. At the time that was a much bigger competitor to Microsoft's dev kits than any GNU software.
Since the sea ice is already in the sea, it does not affect sea levels at all.
How does that follow?
If you put some ice in water and let it melt, the water level will remain the same. Even if you see ice sticking up out of the water when it floats along, the weight of it still displaces the same amount of water that the ice is made from.
This means that melting sea ice will not make the oceans rise.
It's common knowledge that, unlike the arctic, Antarctic ice has been increasing.
As is often the case this common knowledge is actually a common misconception. While the sea ice is increasing, the land ice is shedding mass at an accelerating rate. Since the sea ice is already in the sea, it does not affect sea levels at all. Thawing land ice does increase sea levels, since it introduces water to the sea that used to sit on land.
It is possible that their software was written using .NET, which could run on both full Windows and the ARM-based Windows RT.