That's the point. If MS discontinues their flight simulator, you can still run it. If someone pulls their game off OnLine you can do what?
You simply play one of the other games on the service.
I had a look at the list of OnLive games on Wikipedia, and I already own a lot of the titles on the list through other means. So obviously if you don't want this kind of service then you are not limited to accessing them through OnLive. However, if you are the type of person who just plays multiple games per month and doesn't revisit them after completion then it is a fine service.
It is no different than hiring DVDs rather than buying them.
Tell that to someone who dedicated spare time over 18 months to creating a new aircraft in MS Flight Sim only to have the franchise killed off for the promise of some X-box Windows live experience that may never come to fruition.
For every game that you can list where you have the opportunity to spend 18 months developing something, there are hundreds of games where you do not. You just play them until you get to the end and then stop.
Besides, does MS Flight Simulator X no longer run? If it does still run, then your 18 months of work can still be used. If that is not good enough, then it has already been pointed out that there is an open source flight sim that you can use, although it appears to have problems running on some systems. It looks like being open source will not fix all your problems.
Wow! That is huge fanboyism to suggest that by Apple choosing to use a Microsoft product that this would somehow be a slap in the face for Microsoft. Ha ha Microsoft, you lose because we chose to use your services.
Was their ever a chance that Apple would have considered using anything other than a back-end product from Microsoft? Did you expect that Apple would ever consider choosing Windows on the next Mac or Windows Phone to run their next iPhone or something?
Oh, or maybe a slap in the face is like a poke in Facebook. Does it mean to pay someone lots of money in a business transaction? I tell you, I just can't keep up with the modern business vernacular!
It likely happened 35,000 years before the Bible was written so it predates the whole marriage issue by tens of thousands of years
Actually, marriage predates the Bible. It is not really a religious thing, more a family construct that helps ensure the survival of ones own offspring.
To learn about Neanderthal sex we have to look at our DNA. This is completely in the realm of science - hence it is news for nerds.
On the other hand, heterosexual marriage is commonplace. The evidence for this surrounds us all the time and can be seen with our own eyes. This is neither news nor nerdy. And why do you make the connection between sex and marriage anyway? That seems to be outside the scope of the article.
The AC's post was obviously a troll to entice someone to mention Windows 95 so they could respond that 95 was really 3.1. It is nice to see that Billly Gates was ready with the punch line, although I can't help but wonder whether he was also the coward who made the setup line in the first place.
Anyone who tries to claim that Microsoft's most significant upgrade of Windows was just a marketing scam is a complete douche. Windows 95 had an entirely new user interface, pre-emptive multitasking, and..... hang on, I am falling into Billy Gates' trap too.
Suffice it to say that Billy Gates is a douche. The original poster was a douche too. If it turns out that the original poster was actually Billy Gates, then that makes him a double douche.
I missed the part in that paper that says that it is not warming on average. It says that it is not warming as much as some models suggest. The initial statement still stands.
On another note, with all the skepticism about the science of global warming surely we should wait for confirmation of this paper before deciding that it is more correct than all the other models especially given Dr Spencer's history of anti-AGW sentiments.
I was just about to ask that. I have never understood how people can say that everything must have a creator so therefore that proves that there is a god. But at the same time they will say that god didn't have a creator.
Religions are made up of equal measures of ignorance and hypocrisy.
Good idea. Ignore all the other compilers like Borland C++, Watcom C++, Intel C++, Mingw32 etc. Also ignore other languages like Borland Delphi and Java. And ignore the compilers that come with Windows with.NET (C#, VB.NET). And ignore the free C++ compiler that comes with the Windows SDK (which is the same compiler as used by Visual Studio).
Then limit yourself to saying that a well behaved Win32 program must use Microsoft's libraries and you correctly (but artificially) limit the selection down to a Microsoft tool. However, this doesn't mean much when there are so many Microsoft developer tools that are completely free.
I don't know why people are talking about Win32 programming though, when the great-grandparent must have been referring to Windows Phone. Developing for the Windows Phone does cost money ($99 per year which gives you access to the phone and XBox Live). This is a trivial cost in the scheme of things, but the principle does stink for in-house development projects. For that reason alone I prefer Android at work.
Science already does focus on the flaws, because it is the parts of science that we do not have the answers that give us jobs foe scientists.
Besides, being unlikely is not a flaw in the theory, given that we are talking about something happening in a 13 billion year timeframe over countless planets in the universe. All of a sudden an unlikely event seems a little more plausible. It is certainly more plausible than people 2000 ago having more insight into the origins of the universe than we do today.
I think that you will find that he did not discuss that at all. He was talking about the scientificness of creationism vs evolution; that creationism makes claims that cannot be backed up scientifically.
Besides, you forgot explanation three: that the universe had a beginning, but that it was not created. Yes, it is true that scientists cannot state definitively the origins of our universe, but neither can creationists give us an explanation for what created the creator. That is the problem with insisting that everything that exists must have had a creator. At some point you will go back far enough to find something that does not. Scientists merely stop short of going further back that the evidence shows.
Well spotted. I missed that bit. That does make a difference. It would be interesting to see the transcript of what went on before his remarks to see how they ever got onto the subject in the first place.
That only works if religion doesn't actively attack science. Religious organisations have attempted to prevent evolution being taught because it conflicts with a story written 2000 years ago. When they couldn't stop it, they tried to start teaching their stories as facts in schools. When Creationism was rejected, they cynically made up a "science" so that they could force that into schools.
Intelligent Design is a very anti-science topic. By definition it cannot prove any of its claims, so it uses negative arguments attacking evolution. It claims that some things cannot be explained by science, so therefore ID is right. It claims that missing links prove evolution is wrong (and if a missing link is found, then they just move the goalposts and find another missing link).
It claims that some organisms (or parts of them - eg eyes) are so complicated that they couldn't possibly evolve, despite scientists being able to show fossil evidence of precursors to those organisms.
And finally, I didn't see anything attacking religion in the transcript so this whole argument is moot.
He should focus less on "being right" and more on serving his students.
The best way to serve his students would be to teach them. Why should stop doing that just because they come to class with pre-conceived ideas.
As a teacher, you shouldn't insult your student's views in front of class, no matter the subject.
True, unless it intersects with the subject matter being taught. If a student in a history class doesn't believe in Napoleon, should the teacher refrain from saying that he did exist in case it hurts the student's feelings?
Science classes should be able to mention the creationism debate because it is a great example of what is and isn't science. It gives a real world example of the scientific method.
I agree, 1st grade science should be oriented around presenting evidence to debunk the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, etc.
1st grade science should not teach that, but what happens when people try to make Santology part of the 9th grade science syllabus? I can understand teachers not wanting to teach it, but when a student asks why it is not being taught should they be able to discuss the reasons in class?
Why is it that teaching against religion is protected speech, but if the teacher were to favor religion then that is not protected?
It is an interesting question. If you look at the transcript, you will see that what was said did stay within the bounds of science, in that there was no statement that there was no God; just that there is no scientific proof of creationism and that the methodology of creationists does not meet scientific standards. He then continued to talk about the history of the dispute about teaching creationism in schools.
What is bizarre is that this is exactly what the creationists want - to teach the controversy. The trouble is that if you start asking scientifically minded people to do this then you are bound to end up with them teaching the flaws in creationism.
Google cannot hope to stay relevant if all it allows from the majority of devs are free apps on its market, and since most users don't care to load other markets, devs aren't going to bother with a platform that doesn't let them sell.
Let me get this straight. Developers will not target Android because they have to compete with people writing similar applications for free. So that means that the user will still be able to get the applications they need, but they won't be able to pay for them.
CTRL+B to toggle bold
CTRL+I to toggle italics
CTRL+U to toggle underlining
I think you meant to say:
F6 to toggle bold (or CTRL+F8, 2, 1)
CTRL+F8, 2, 4 to toggle italics
F8 to toggle underlining
I think I see why IT departments rejected Wordperfect in favour of Microsoft Office. The keyboard shortcuts were not intuitive. And all text mode word processors could be operated without a mouse, and as such they all had to have keyboard shortcuts. WordPerfect was not alone there.
WordPerfect's claim to fame back in the day was the reveal codes option. You didn't have WYSIWYG back in those days, so reveal codes made it obvious what formatting was going on. It was like the "View Source" in web browsers. But it was their lack of a Windows version that made everyone move away from WordPerfect. When they finally did come out with one it was really buggy.
To me all of that sounds like improvements in existing technology rather than innovation. CPUs got faster, mobile phones got smaller, etc.
And a car is just a wagon without a horse. It is amazing how simple and obvious everything is if you state it in simple and obvious terms.
Why is it that CPUs got faster? They didn't just deliberately make the chips slower 15 years ago so that they could sell you a faster version every year. No, there were physical limitations that needed to be worked around. New techniques needed to be invented to reduce the power requirements and crosstalk within the chips. New manufacturing processes and materials were required to be able to print the circuits at smaller and smaller sizes. These are the innovations. Faster CPUs are the results of those innovations.
Interesting point. I hadn't considered the problems of the supply line. I now see the need for this technology in a whole new light (no pun intended).
I read about this story yesterday, and that news article (which I can't find now to give the link) had a picture of someone wearing camouflage clothing with bright shiny solar panels affixed to their jacket. This picture may have just been a mock up for the news site, but it did show a potential flaw with this idea. It doesn't matter how much lighter you make the technology if it turns the big bright spotlight on the wearer. You might as well draw a target on the back and write "shoot me".
I imagine that the best and brightest at the military probably have some idea about keeping a low profile on the battlefield, so they must have thought about this too.
...unlike C# which Microsoft seems to enjoy having confusion surround (see the HTML/JavaScript fiasco)
It is not confusing. Microsoft used HTML/Javascript for Active Desktop. They used HTML/Javascript for Windows Explorer folder views. They used HTML/Javascript for Windows Sidebar. And they will use HTML/Javascript for the tile interface of Windows 8. It doesn't mean that.NET will disappear, just like.NET did not spell the demised of the standard Windows API.
or Java, which Oracle seems intent on bringing confusion, branding, and licensing to
It has always had branding and licensing, long before Oracle came on the scene. Look at how they went after Microsoft for license and trademark violations.
C++ has managed to evolve for how many years now?
But have they managed to actually implement the features that people want? I have just been reading up on the changes to this new version, and a lot of it seems to be fixing things problems that only exist because of stuff ups in the last version. Java and.NET offer much more than C++, and do it with cleaner code. Sure operator overloading might make some mathematical classes cleaner in C++, but the horrible template interface makes your code appear like it being seen through a haze of line noise.
No, because other passengers will be aware when a situation occurs that will require extra attention by the driver and will instinctively not distract the driver during those times. An extra passenger also means an extra pair of eyes to look out for dangers.
So, a driver gets heavily distracted trying to infer things that would, in a normal conversation, be inferred from facial cues, but looking at his passenger's face to get those clues doesn't distract him very much?
Nothing that I said required the driver to look away from the traffic. Also, I explicitly said that the passenger will change the pacing of the conversation to ebb and flow as required by traffic conditions because they are looking out the window at the traffic too.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the point. If MS discontinues their flight simulator, you can still run it. If someone pulls their game off OnLine you can do what?
You simply play one of the other games on the service.
I had a look at the list of OnLive games on Wikipedia, and I already own a lot of the titles on the list through other means. So obviously if you don't want this kind of service then you are not limited to accessing them through OnLive. However, if you are the type of person who just plays multiple games per month and doesn't revisit them after completion then it is a fine service.
It is no different than hiring DVDs rather than buying them.
Tell that to someone who dedicated spare time over 18 months to creating a new aircraft in MS Flight Sim only to have the franchise killed off for the promise of some X-box Windows live experience that may never come to fruition.
For every game that you can list where you have the opportunity to spend 18 months developing something, there are hundreds of games where you do not. You just play them until you get to the end and then stop.
Besides, does MS Flight Simulator X no longer run? If it does still run, then your 18 months of work can still be used. If that is not good enough, then it has already been pointed out that there is an open source flight sim that you can use, although it appears to have problems running on some systems. It looks like being open source will not fix all your problems.
Wow! That is huge fanboyism to suggest that by Apple choosing to use a Microsoft product that this would somehow be a slap in the face for Microsoft. Ha ha Microsoft, you lose because we chose to use your services.
Was their ever a chance that Apple would have considered using anything other than a back-end product from Microsoft? Did you expect that Apple would ever consider choosing Windows on the next Mac or Windows Phone to run their next iPhone or something?
Oh, or maybe a slap in the face is like a poke in Facebook. Does it mean to pay someone lots of money in a business transaction? I tell you, I just can't keep up with the modern business vernacular!
It likely happened 35,000 years before the Bible was written so it predates the whole marriage issue by tens of thousands of years
Actually, marriage predates the Bible. It is not really a religious thing, more a family construct that helps ensure the survival of ones own offspring.
To learn about Neanderthal sex we have to look at our DNA. This is completely in the realm of science - hence it is news for nerds.
On the other hand, heterosexual marriage is commonplace. The evidence for this surrounds us all the time and can be seen with our own eyes. This is neither news nor nerdy. And why do you make the connection between sex and marriage anyway? That seems to be outside the scope of the article.
The AC's post was obviously a troll to entice someone to mention Windows 95 so they could respond that 95 was really 3.1. It is nice to see that Billly Gates was ready with the punch line, although I can't help but wonder whether he was also the coward who made the setup line in the first place.
Anyone who tries to claim that Microsoft's most significant upgrade of Windows was just a marketing scam is a complete douche. Windows 95 had an entirely new user interface, pre-emptive multitasking, and ..... hang on, I am falling into Billy Gates' trap too.
Suffice it to say that Billy Gates is a douche. The original poster was a douche too. If it turns out that the original poster was actually Billy Gates, then that makes him a double douche.
I missed the part in that paper that says that it is not warming on average. It says that it is not warming as much as some models suggest. The initial statement still stands.
On another note, with all the skepticism about the science of global warming surely we should wait for confirmation of this paper before deciding that it is more correct than all the other models especially given Dr Spencer's history of anti-AGW sentiments.
And where does god come from?
I was just about to ask that. I have never understood how people can say that everything must have a creator so therefore that proves that there is a god. But at the same time they will say that god didn't have a creator.
Religions are made up of equal measures of ignorance and hypocrisy.
Which would be terrible if Iraq were doing badly.
Yes, things are going very well.
Good idea. Ignore all the other compilers like Borland C++, Watcom C++, Intel C++, Mingw32 etc. Also ignore other languages like Borland Delphi and Java. And ignore the compilers that come with Windows with .NET (C#, VB.NET). And ignore the free C++ compiler that comes with the Windows SDK (which is the same compiler as used by Visual Studio).
Then limit yourself to saying that a well behaved Win32 program must use Microsoft's libraries and you correctly (but artificially) limit the selection down to a Microsoft tool. However, this doesn't mean much when there are so many Microsoft developer tools that are completely free.
I don't know why people are talking about Win32 programming though, when the great-grandparent must have been referring to Windows Phone. Developing for the Windows Phone does cost money ($99 per year which gives you access to the phone and XBox Live). This is a trivial cost in the scheme of things, but the principle does stink for in-house development projects. For that reason alone I prefer Android at work.
Science already does focus on the flaws, because it is the parts of science that we do not have the answers that give us jobs foe scientists.
Besides, being unlikely is not a flaw in the theory, given that we are talking about something happening in a 13 billion year timeframe over countless planets in the universe. All of a sudden an unlikely event seems a little more plausible. It is certainly more plausible than people 2000 ago having more insight into the origins of the universe than we do today.
I think that you will find that he did not discuss that at all. He was talking about the scientificness of creationism vs evolution; that creationism makes claims that cannot be backed up scientifically.
Besides, you forgot explanation three: that the universe had a beginning, but that it was not created. Yes, it is true that scientists cannot state definitively the origins of our universe, but neither can creationists give us an explanation for what created the creator. That is the problem with insisting that everything that exists must have had a creator. At some point you will go back far enough to find something that does not. Scientists merely stop short of going further back that the evidence shows.
This wasn't even a science class; it was history.
Well spotted. I missed that bit. That does make a difference. It would be interesting to see the transcript of what went on before his remarks to see how they ever got onto the subject in the first place.
You can teach science without attacking religion.
That only works if religion doesn't actively attack science. Religious organisations have attempted to prevent evolution being taught because it conflicts with a story written 2000 years ago. When they couldn't stop it, they tried to start teaching their stories as facts in schools. When Creationism was rejected, they cynically made up a "science" so that they could force that into schools.
Intelligent Design is a very anti-science topic. By definition it cannot prove any of its claims, so it uses negative arguments attacking evolution. It claims that some things cannot be explained by science, so therefore ID is right. It claims that missing links prove evolution is wrong (and if a missing link is found, then they just move the goalposts and find another missing link).
It claims that some organisms (or parts of them - eg eyes) are so complicated that they couldn't possibly evolve, despite scientists being able to show fossil evidence of precursors to those organisms.
And finally, I didn't see anything attacking religion in the transcript so this whole argument is moot.
He should focus less on "being right" and more on serving his students.
The best way to serve his students would be to teach them. Why should stop doing that just because they come to class with pre-conceived ideas.
As a teacher, you shouldn't insult your student's views in front of class, no matter the subject.
True, unless it intersects with the subject matter being taught. If a student in a history class doesn't believe in Napoleon, should the teacher refrain from saying that he did exist in case it hurts the student's feelings?
Science classes should be able to mention the creationism debate because it is a great example of what is and isn't science. It gives a real world example of the scientific method.
I agree, 1st grade science should be oriented around presenting evidence to debunk the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, etc.
1st grade science should not teach that, but what happens when people try to make Santology part of the 9th grade science syllabus? I can understand teachers not wanting to teach it, but when a student asks why it is not being taught should they be able to discuss the reasons in class?
Why is it that teaching against religion is protected speech, but if the teacher were to favor religion then that is not protected?
It is an interesting question. If you look at the transcript, you will see that what was said did stay within the bounds of science, in that there was no statement that there was no God; just that there is no scientific proof of creationism and that the methodology of creationists does not meet scientific standards. He then continued to talk about the history of the dispute about teaching creationism in schools.
What is bizarre is that this is exactly what the creationists want - to teach the controversy. The trouble is that if you start asking scientifically minded people to do this then you are bound to end up with them teaching the flaws in creationism.
Google cannot hope to stay relevant if all it allows from the majority of devs are free apps on its market, and since most users don't care to load other markets, devs aren't going to bother with a platform that doesn't let them sell.
Let me get this straight. Developers will not target Android because they have to compete with people writing similar applications for free. So that means that the user will still be able to get the applications they need, but they won't be able to pay for them.
I can see how this would set the platform back.
CTRL+B to toggle bold
CTRL+I to toggle italics
CTRL+U to toggle underlining
I think you meant to say:
F6 to toggle bold (or CTRL+F8, 2, 1)
CTRL+F8, 2, 4 to toggle italics
F8 to toggle underlining
I think I see why IT departments rejected Wordperfect in favour of Microsoft Office. The keyboard shortcuts were not intuitive. And all text mode word processors could be operated without a mouse, and as such they all had to have keyboard shortcuts. WordPerfect was not alone there.
WordPerfect's claim to fame back in the day was the reveal codes option. You didn't have WYSIWYG back in those days, so reveal codes made it obvious what formatting was going on. It was like the "View Source" in web browsers. But it was their lack of a Windows version that made everyone move away from WordPerfect. When they finally did come out with one it was really buggy.
If he is getting older, then the Deckard is not a replicant. That solves that debate.
To me all of that sounds like improvements in existing technology rather than innovation. CPUs got faster, mobile phones got smaller, etc.
And a car is just a wagon without a horse. It is amazing how simple and obvious everything is if you state it in simple and obvious terms.
Why is it that CPUs got faster? They didn't just deliberately make the chips slower 15 years ago so that they could sell you a faster version every year. No, there were physical limitations that needed to be worked around. New techniques needed to be invented to reduce the power requirements and crosstalk within the chips. New manufacturing processes and materials were required to be able to print the circuits at smaller and smaller sizes. These are the innovations. Faster CPUs are the results of those innovations.
Interesting point. I hadn't considered the problems of the supply line. I now see the need for this technology in a whole new light (no pun intended).
I read about this story yesterday, and that news article (which I can't find now to give the link) had a picture of someone wearing camouflage clothing with bright shiny solar panels affixed to their jacket. This picture may have just been a mock up for the news site, but it did show a potential flaw with this idea. It doesn't matter how much lighter you make the technology if it turns the big bright spotlight on the wearer. You might as well draw a target on the back and write "shoot me".
I imagine that the best and brightest at the military probably have some idea about keeping a low profile on the battlefield, so they must have thought about this too.
I not only don't RTFA, I don't RTFS or RTFT
What the hell is this? A job application for /. editor?
...unlike C# which Microsoft seems to enjoy having confusion surround (see the HTML/JavaScript fiasco)
It is not confusing. Microsoft used HTML/Javascript for Active Desktop. They used HTML/Javascript for Windows Explorer folder views. They used HTML/Javascript for Windows Sidebar. And they will use HTML/Javascript for the tile interface of Windows 8. It doesn't mean that .NET will disappear, just like .NET did not spell the demised of the standard Windows API.
or Java, which Oracle seems intent on bringing confusion, branding, and licensing to
It has always had branding and licensing, long before Oracle came on the scene. Look at how they went after Microsoft for license and trademark violations.
C++ has managed to evolve for how many years now?
But have they managed to actually implement the features that people want? I have just been reading up on the changes to this new version, and a lot of it seems to be fixing things problems that only exist because of stuff ups in the last version. Java and .NET offer much more than C++, and do it with cleaner code. Sure operator overloading might make some mathematical classes cleaner in C++, but the horrible template interface makes your code appear like it being seen through a haze of line noise.
No, because other passengers will be aware when a situation occurs that will require extra attention by the driver and will instinctively not distract the driver during those times. An extra passenger also means an extra pair of eyes to look out for dangers.
So, a driver gets heavily distracted trying to infer things that would, in a normal conversation, be inferred from facial cues, but looking at his passenger's face to get those clues doesn't distract him very much?
Nothing that I said required the driver to look away from the traffic. Also, I explicitly said that the passenger will change the pacing of the conversation to ebb and flow as required by traffic conditions because they are looking out the window at the traffic too.
Somehow, that seems counterintuitive....
And completely counter to what I said.