Even so, isn't the content of the game, the gameplay, how the missions work, what they're like, how you get an resolve them, much more important than the graphics engine?
Of course it should also have the distinctive visual style of Shadowrun, but I think that's more a matter of art design than the engine they use.
Didn't they decide recently that it's about your testosterone levels? Testosterone is the entire reason that men tend to be stronger than women. Is your testosterone higher than a certain level, you compete with the men; is it lower, you compete with the women, no matter what's between your legs.
Why can't you do this in small claims court? It's only a small claim per user, and having to send someone to small claims court for every single user is a lot more punitive than any class action suit.
Because I once owned Apple stock, I regularly get mail about how I'm still not part of some class action suit and how everybody is getting money but not me, because I owned that stock at the wrong time.
My problem with TomTom is that it doesn't know where it is. It can take 15 minutes before it's finally found its GPS location. My Android phone has the location in a few seconds.
Also, TomTom has sent me down the wrong road on occasion. And I live in the city where their HQ is located. So they really shouldn't be the one throwing stones here.
On some phone systems (for example Luxembourg during the eighties), only the caller can hang up a line. If the callee "hangs up" it's not really hung up until the caller hangs up as well, and a malicious caller can tie up his victim's line as long as he wants.
Normally this is not an issue, as in a normal call both parties will hang up. However, back in the day, pranksters figured out that this was an excellent way of annoying call-in amateur ("pirate") radio stations, completely sabotaging their game shows this way...
Good to know that even stupid technological failures can be put to productive use.
Weird. Talk to your phone provider. It's not unreasonable to expect calls to end when you hang up. Not doing so can be dangerous. What if you needed to call 911?
Exactly. G+ is much more like an improved Twitter. No 140 char limit, and much easier to have discussions. It sits a bit in between Facebook and Twitter, but much closer to Twitter.
The real name policy has nothing to do with it. There's an enormous mass of potential users who don't care at all about the policy because they don't know Google+ exists. That's the reason critical mass hasn't been achieved.
But it's quite possible that critical mass hasn't been achieved exactly because they started booting people when they were still trying to grow. If they really wanted to compete with Facebook, that was a very bad move.
I don't know if they want to compete with Facebook, though. They still have a lot of users, and they clearly have their own niche. A smaller niche than Facebook because it's more intellectual, but there are still plenty of people who love that.
Except that nobody ever lost their GMail over a name dispute. That was a widely-publicized misunderstanding which Google quickly denied (in vain, it appears). Google will yank your Google+ account for using a fake name, but not any of the other services related to the mail address.
Slight correction: Google will yank your G+ account if they think you're using a fake name, even when it's your real one. And they leave a lot of people who really do use fake names alone. It's a crappy policy that doesn't accomplish anything useful.
Yes, if you eliminate the people who post from your circles, then you're not going to see much. That's true. But if you were to circle some people who post interesting stuff, then you'd see a lot. I see way more than I can manage, and I can't really find anyone who's uninteresting enough to uncircle. In fact, I just circled a bunch more that were just recommended to me.
It sounds like a crappy study. They claim it's lonely because most people don't post anything publicly. But that's a completely meaningless way to measure activity.
I really don't post much on G+, yet I'm extremely active. I'm following dozens of very interesting people I'd never heard of before I joined G+, and I'm actively participating in the discussions resulting from their posts. It's thriving, it's vibrant, and the fact that most people don't post anything of their own is completely uninteresting.
Let's face it: most people don't have anything truly interesting to share. On Facebook, they share it anyway, so your wading through tons of crap. On G+, they don't share it or share it privately, so you only get to see the interesting stuff.
I've got a dimmer over my dining table. The dimmable bulb cost about twice what a regular CFL costs, and while it dims more than 40% (I'd say about 60%), it definitely doesn't go all the way to off. Maybe it was a bit better when it was new, but in the end we just decided we didn't really need it to be dimmable.
I have fluorescent lights that use pretty much exactly the same amount of power to output 100W equivalent of light. And those bulbs cost not much more than a buck a piece. What exactly does these provide to me for $30?
More flexibility and robustness. CFLs are sensitive to a wide variety of factors than LEDs couldn't care less about. Lots of power cycles, for example.
Granted, $30 is a lot. But that price will drop eventually.
I've got some 40W equivalent LEDs for €3 each from HEMA (a big, common Dutch chain with everything from clothes to food). 60-100W LEDs are apparently a lot harder to make, but lower powered ones can be incredibly cheap.
I think that it's a fair assumption that LED bulbs will be as unreliable as CFLs. The reason why CFLs die from heat and brownouts and mild spikes is because they rely on electronics that are made as shittily as possible to save on the overall cost of the bulb. There's very little to skimp on in incandescent bulbs, so it's harder to deliberately make the bulb cheaper yet still survive the first use.
The actual CFL element, just like LEDs, will easily last thousands of hours before failing or dimming significantly. It's never that part of CFLs that fail.
For me it is always that part that fails. I've got 10 year old CFLs that are taking noticeably more time to power up, or are simply dimmer than they used to be. If you're frying the electronics that quickly, you might want to take a look at how you're doing that.
I do agree that CFLs are more sensitive than incandescents, but from all I've seen so far, LEDs are quite robust.
You'll end up with a junky $60 LED bulb that costs $25 to manufacture instead of a well made $60 LED bulb that costs $26 to manufacture.
I've got LED bulbs that cost €3. I've only had them for a year, so it's impossible to say whether they'll last as long as a more expensive one, but for now they're working fine.
But you also need two fixtures for your two bulbs.
However it can be even cheaper. At the HEMA (a big Dutch chain of shops), I bought some 40W equivalent LEDs for €3 each. That's an awfully competitive price, and the light is good enough. (I've got two of these in a three-socket fixture together with a 60W equivalent CFL. The combination of LED and CFL light gives a perfect light mixture, in my opinion.)
The have been effectively outlawed in many places, and in my opinion, this was very premature. Mind you, I'm big on environmentalism, I was an early adopter with both CFLs and LEDs. I'd love to get rid of incandescents. But there simply are situations where incandescents are the better choice. CFLs aren't suitable for lights that get turned on and off a lot, and they're quite sensitive to many other things. I suppose to more efficient halogens (which are only slightly more efficient than common incandescents) could fit the bill, but they're more expensive, not much more efficient, and halogens seem to burn out even faster than everything else. So it's better to keep incandescents available until LEDs are finally ready to take over.
Slashdot Mirror
Even so, isn't the content of the game, the gameplay, how the missions work, what they're like, how you get an resolve them, much more important than the graphics engine?
Of course it should also have the distinctive visual style of Shadowrun, but I think that's more a matter of art design than the engine they use.
I don't do office politics. I just want a job where I can dress however I like, so that's how I dress.
Didn't they decide recently that it's about your testosterone levels? Testosterone is the entire reason that men tend to be stronger than women. Is your testosterone higher than a certain level, you compete with the men; is it lower, you compete with the women, no matter what's between your legs.
Tevas for an indoor sitting job? Are you nuts? You should wear Birckenstocks of course.
For normal programmers, dress code is flipflops and hawaii shorts. For a manager, I'd say jeans and Birckenstocks is probably your best bet.
I heard you're supposed to dress for the position you want, not the position you have. No idea if that's why I dress in shorts and sandals.
Why can't you do this in small claims court? It's only a small claim per user, and having to send someone to small claims court for every single user is a lot more punitive than any class action suit.
Because I once owned Apple stock, I regularly get mail about how I'm still not part of some class action suit and how everybody is getting money but not me, because I owned that stock at the wrong time.
My problem with TomTom is that it doesn't know where it is. It can take 15 minutes before it's finally found its GPS location. My Android phone has the location in a few seconds.
Also, TomTom has sent me down the wrong road on occasion. And I live in the city where their HQ is located. So they really shouldn't be the one throwing stones here.
Same in Netherland. Postcode + house number uniquely identifies and address.
On some phone systems (for example Luxembourg during the eighties), only the caller can hang up a line. If the callee "hangs up" it's not really hung up until the caller hangs up as well, and a malicious caller can tie up his victim's line as long as he wants.
Normally this is not an issue, as in a normal call both parties will hang up. However, back in the day, pranksters figured out that this was an excellent way of annoying call-in amateur ("pirate") radio stations, completely sabotaging their game shows this way...
Good to know that even stupid technological failures can be put to productive use.
Weird. Talk to your phone provider. It's not unreasonable to expect calls to end when you hang up. Not doing so can be dangerous. What if you needed to call 911?
It would be very EU to do so. Big stickers on products is what the EU is about.
Exactly. G+ is much more like an improved Twitter. No 140 char limit, and much easier to have discussions. It sits a bit in between Facebook and Twitter, but much closer to Twitter.
The real name policy has nothing to do with it. There's an enormous mass of potential users who don't care at all about the policy because they don't know Google+ exists. That's the reason critical mass hasn't been achieved.
But it's quite possible that critical mass hasn't been achieved exactly because they started booting people when they were still trying to grow. If they really wanted to compete with Facebook, that was a very bad move.
I don't know if they want to compete with Facebook, though. They still have a lot of users, and they clearly have their own niche. A smaller niche than Facebook because it's more intellectual, but there are still plenty of people who love that.
Except that nobody ever lost their GMail over a name dispute. That was a widely-publicized misunderstanding which Google quickly denied (in vain, it appears). Google will yank your Google+ account for using a fake name, but not any of the other services related to the mail address.
Slight correction: Google will yank your G+ account if they think you're using a fake name, even when it's your real one. And they leave a lot of people who really do use fake names alone. It's a crappy policy that doesn't accomplish anything useful.
Yes, if you eliminate the people who post from your circles, then you're not going to see much. That's true. But if you were to circle some people who post interesting stuff, then you'd see a lot. I see way more than I can manage, and I can't really find anyone who's uninteresting enough to uncircle. In fact, I just circled a bunch more that were just recommended to me.
It sounds like a crappy study. They claim it's lonely because most people don't post anything publicly. But that's a completely meaningless way to measure activity.
I really don't post much on G+, yet I'm extremely active. I'm following dozens of very interesting people I'd never heard of before I joined G+, and I'm actively participating in the discussions resulting from their posts. It's thriving, it's vibrant, and the fact that most people don't post anything of their own is completely uninteresting.
Let's face it: most people don't have anything truly interesting to share. On Facebook, they share it anyway, so your wading through tons of crap. On G+, they don't share it or share it privately, so you only get to see the interesting stuff.
But the real difference is this.
Surely Ada Lovelace has been dead for over 120 years, or whatever the current limit is?
I've got a dimmer over my dining table. The dimmable bulb cost about twice what a regular CFL costs, and while it dims more than 40% (I'd say about 60%), it definitely doesn't go all the way to off. Maybe it was a bit better when it was new, but in the end we just decided we didn't really need it to be dimmable.
I have fluorescent lights that use pretty much exactly the same amount of power to output 100W equivalent of light. And those bulbs cost not much more than a buck a piece. What exactly does these provide to me for $30?
More flexibility and robustness. CFLs are sensitive to a wide variety of factors than LEDs couldn't care less about. Lots of power cycles, for example.
Granted, $30 is a lot. But that price will drop eventually.
I like white-blue only when it's indirect light. For direct light, I prefer something more yellow, for some mysterious reason.
I've got some 40W equivalent LEDs for €3 each from HEMA (a big, common Dutch chain with everything from clothes to food). 60-100W LEDs are apparently a lot harder to make, but lower powered ones can be incredibly cheap.
I think that it's a fair assumption that LED bulbs will be as unreliable as CFLs. The reason why CFLs die from heat and brownouts and mild spikes is because they rely on electronics that are made as shittily as possible to save on the overall cost of the bulb. There's very little to skimp on in incandescent bulbs, so it's harder to deliberately make the bulb cheaper yet still survive the first use.
The actual CFL element, just like LEDs, will easily last thousands of hours before failing or dimming significantly. It's never that part of CFLs that fail.
For me it is always that part that fails. I've got 10 year old CFLs that are taking noticeably more time to power up, or are simply dimmer than they used to be. If you're frying the electronics that quickly, you might want to take a look at how you're doing that.
I do agree that CFLs are more sensitive than incandescents, but from all I've seen so far, LEDs are quite robust.
You'll end up with a junky $60 LED bulb that costs $25 to manufacture instead of a well made $60 LED bulb that costs $26 to manufacture.
I've got LED bulbs that cost €3. I've only had them for a year, so it's impossible to say whether they'll last as long as a more expensive one, but for now they're working fine.
But you also need two fixtures for your two bulbs.
However it can be even cheaper. At the HEMA (a big Dutch chain of shops), I bought some 40W equivalent LEDs for €3 each. That's an awfully competitive price, and the light is good enough. (I've got two of these in a three-socket fixture together with a 60W equivalent CFL. The combination of LED and CFL light gives a perfect light mixture, in my opinion.)
The have been effectively outlawed in many places, and in my opinion, this was very premature. Mind you, I'm big on environmentalism, I was an early adopter with both CFLs and LEDs. I'd love to get rid of incandescents. But there simply are situations where incandescents are the better choice. CFLs aren't suitable for lights that get turned on and off a lot, and they're quite sensitive to many other things. I suppose to more efficient halogens (which are only slightly more efficient than common incandescents) could fit the bill, but they're more expensive, not much more efficient, and halogens seem to burn out even faster than everything else. So it's better to keep incandescents available until LEDs are finally ready to take over.