I'm quite certain that any comments made about being offended were greeted the way they always are "quit taking things so seriously" or "its not personal" or "its just a joke, lighten up" or worse.
More importantly perhaps, the media would never have reported on those situations, and that's the only reason you haven't heard about it happening. You can't say it didn't.
More importantly, it appears to be a well-known behaviour on the part of multiple officers. Are you going to sue all the officers involved, or their employer for not disciplining them?
There's no benefit to a micro-kernel in these so-called ring -1 attacks. None.
Feel free to read the debate, or the previous Slashdot discussions or consider Linus' previous famous quote: Microkernels are like masturbation, it feels good but it doesn't accomplish anything.
Again, this is a moronic comment unless you're actually willing to brandish a weapon on the police when they break up your party and think it will do you any good at all.
If a man goes to a private website like say, Playboy in private and then discusses it in front of female co-workers, they may be charged with harassment. Guess what, just because its a private website, magazine, or bar doesn't mean you should repeat those thoughts or experiences or stories in front of your co-workers who could most obviously be offended.
No offence, but from all the people I know with PhDs, I've learned it means you have an ability to focus and personal discipline. An ability to apply the knowledge gained in a specific field to any other on the other hand? Not necessarily any different from the general public.
That's not true at all. Logically speaking, scientists are no different in brain function from most any other educated person other than in their field of study.
Therefore, do me a survey on educated people vs. uneducated peoples' perspectives, but specifying 'scientists' is silly. You may as well survey 'doctors' about the use of Lorazapan. Most of them don't know anything beyond what they're told in a drug company pamphlet, and a select few actually have good first-hand research knowledge.
JPEG is pretty efficient at compressing images -- the only way they get smaller on average is by increasing the quality loss. Therefore, the larger of the two images in bytes is probably the better looking copy.
No offence, but that's not insightful at all, that's just ignorant.
There are high cost service agreements or peering arrangements that will guarantee you some percentage of the service you've purchased, but in almost all other cases, you are purchasing a peak speed, not a bandwidth.
When you purchase 6Mbit DSL for example, you're paying for the ability to go up to 6Mbits. There's no guarantee that you'll download/anything/ at that speed, only that its technically possible. If you don't like the service, don't pay for it. If you want guaranteed service, ask for a business account with guarantees and a service level agreement and then check how many digits get added to your bill each month for those guarantees.
Home mass-market ISPs are all going to oversell bandwidth because that's how they make their money, and it always has been.
Knowing a number of scientists myself, and having several in my family, yes, they tend to read slightly different media sources. They also tend to have a different bias when listening to or reading those stories than the general public does. That doesn't make the agreement between them in the least bit educational outside sociology.
Some people liked the Blair Witch Project, for example, which is the reason I included my exception in the first place.
There are video games out there that look worse than home movies shot by amateurs -- camera angles facing the wrong people, video quality that makes things hard to see, bad focus, etc.
You failed at fundamental logic in those arguments, since none of your examples are examples of what I stated at all.
Better quality film & camera is completely orthogonal to colour vs. b&w and even CGI.
That aside, even if you'd made a relevant point, which you didn't, I covered that with 'in most cases' which I'm pretty sure precludes any subset of two or three movies you'd prefer on lower quality film, filmed with lower quality cameras. Think home-video.
Do a survey on how many of those surveyed have read any of the actual research on the subject and did their own work on the logic therein. I can guestimate the answer is very close to zero.
So the people in question haven't played any of the Ratchet & Clank series? Those have some great humour in them -- some low brow, some more sophisticated.
The problem in a lot of games is just bad writers, like poor comedies on TV.
No private individual paid for anything here -- this is a product of the taxpayer, intended for public consumption, based on works that are in the public domain.
Nobody's potential profit is being usurped, no unintended effects are being felt.
Personally I think its a more psychological effect, like those air fresheners that switch fragrances so you notice the effect more. If you leave the same person, party or attitude in office long enough, you stop noticing what they're doing in any positive light so you switch it up. After a while, the positive attributes of the new leader or party become cloudy and unnoticed and you do it again.
The research for these types of stories is horrible.
What do I care if 84% of scientists believe the earth is getting warmer from human activity? My father's a scientist who studies product safety. His opinion on global warming is no more educated than the rest of the public's but he's a "scientist." A marine biologist might observe changes in habitat and deserve an opinion, but a chemist at a drug research lab probably doesn't rank above my own knowledge of global warming.
Polling groups of people with a similar job title in totally different fields is misleading at best.
However, in the same Genre, compare Super Mario 64 with Super Mario Galaxies. Both are 3D platformers. Now tell me the latter would be just as fun with the former's graphics.
Super Mario 64 was a horribly ugly looking game with terrible camera angles making it nearly impossible to play at good old Mario speeds.
Slashdot Mirror
You've obviously never been a minority or a woman.
Most such statements are greeted with jeers and ignorance (like yours) that somehow the person shouldn't be offended.
I'm quite certain that any comments made about being offended were greeted the way they always are "quit taking things so seriously" or "its not personal" or "its just a joke, lighten up" or worse.
More importantly perhaps, the media would never have reported on those situations, and that's the only reason you haven't heard about it happening. You can't say it didn't.
More importantly, it appears to be a well-known behaviour on the part of multiple officers. Are you going to sue all the officers involved, or their employer for not disciplining them?
... and having a voting column to show how many users play which games how often and/or what they've rated each game would be hard why?
Sort the games into categories like "new this week" or "popular this week" and "most popular of all time" and you won't have a problem.
Blah blah blah, theoretically and all that.
There's no benefit to a micro-kernel in these so-called ring -1 attacks. None.
Feel free to read the debate, or the previous Slashdot discussions or consider Linus' previous famous quote: Microkernels are like masturbation, it feels good but it doesn't accomplish anything.
If the police are reading my private Facebook events without a warrant, they're getting sued.
Again, this is a moronic comment unless you're actually willing to brandish a weapon on the police when they break up your party and think it will do you any good at all.
If a man goes to a private website like say, Playboy in private and then discusses it in front of female co-workers, they may be charged with harassment. Guess what, just because its a private website, magazine, or bar doesn't mean you should repeat those thoughts or experiences or stories in front of your co-workers who could most obviously be offended.
No offence, but from all the people I know with PhDs, I've learned it means you have an ability to focus and personal discipline. An ability to apply the knowledge gained in a specific field to any other on the other hand? Not necessarily any different from the general public.
That's not true at all. Logically speaking, scientists are no different in brain function from most any other educated person other than in their field of study.
Therefore, do me a survey on educated people vs. uneducated peoples' perspectives, but specifying 'scientists' is silly. You may as well survey 'doctors' about the use of Lorazapan. Most of them don't know anything beyond what they're told in a drug company pamphlet, and a select few actually have good first-hand research knowledge.
JPEG is pretty efficient at compressing images -- the only way they get smaller on average is by increasing the quality loss. Therefore, the larger of the two images in bytes is probably the better looking copy.
Actually as an intelligent man, he'd probably be the first to point out his inability to assess such a thing.
One of the first clues of true intellect is the ability to assess one's limitations.
No offence, but that's not insightful at all, that's just ignorant.
There are high cost service agreements or peering arrangements that will guarantee you some percentage of the service you've purchased, but in almost all other cases, you are purchasing a peak speed, not a bandwidth.
When you purchase 6Mbit DSL for example, you're paying for the ability to go up to 6Mbits. There's no guarantee that you'll download /anything/ at that speed, only that its technically possible. If you don't like the service, don't pay for it. If you want guaranteed service, ask for a business account with guarantees and a service level agreement and then check how many digits get added to your bill each month for those guarantees.
Home mass-market ISPs are all going to oversell bandwidth because that's how they make their money, and it always has been.
Knowing a number of scientists myself, and having several in my family, yes, they tend to read slightly different media sources. They also tend to have a different bias when listening to or reading those stories than the general public does. That doesn't make the agreement between them in the least bit educational outside sociology.
Some people liked the Blair Witch Project, for example, which is the reason I included my exception in the first place.
There are video games out there that look worse than home movies shot by amateurs -- camera angles facing the wrong people, video quality that makes things hard to see, bad focus, etc.
You failed at fundamental logic in those arguments, since none of your examples are examples of what I stated at all.
Better quality film & camera is completely orthogonal to colour vs. b&w and even CGI.
That aside, even if you'd made a relevant point, which you didn't, I covered that with 'in most cases' which I'm pretty sure precludes any subset of two or three movies you'd prefer on lower quality film, filmed with lower quality cameras. Think home-video.
Your common base is media coverage, period.
Do a survey on how many of those surveyed have read any of the actual research on the subject and did their own work on the logic therein. I can guestimate the answer is very close to zero.
So the people in question haven't played any of the Ratchet & Clank series? Those have some great humour in them -- some low brow, some more sophisticated.
The problem in a lot of games is just bad writers, like poor comedies on TV.
No private individual paid for anything here -- this is a product of the taxpayer, intended for public consumption, based on works that are in the public domain.
Nobody's potential profit is being usurped, no unintended effects are being felt.
Personally I think its a more psychological effect, like those air fresheners that switch fragrances so you notice the effect more. If you leave the same person, party or attitude in office long enough, you stop noticing what they're doing in any positive light so you switch it up. After a while, the positive attributes of the new leader or party become cloudy and unnoticed and you do it again.
The research for these types of stories is horrible.
What do I care if 84% of scientists believe the earth is getting warmer from human activity? My father's a scientist who studies product safety. His opinion on global warming is no more educated than the rest of the public's but he's a "scientist." A marine biologist might observe changes in habitat and deserve an opinion, but a chemist at a drug research lab probably doesn't rank above my own knowledge of global warming.
Polling groups of people with a similar job title in totally different fields is misleading at best.
However, in the same Genre, compare Super Mario 64 with Super Mario Galaxies. Both are 3D platformers. Now tell me the latter would be just as fun with the former's graphics.
Super Mario 64 was a horribly ugly looking game with terrible camera angles making it nearly impossible to play at good old Mario speeds.
Audio! Audio audio audio!
Good sound is much scarier than good graphics.
Proper use of 3D sound, with good samples and dynamic reflections to really mess with your head when judging directions ... now that's scary.
So few games put a real effort into sound (and I quite enjoy the ones that do).
I really enjoy Nethack.
I really enjoy watching things explode in Killzone 2.
I really enjoy convincing someone I didn't throw a fireball at them five seconds ago in Oblivion.
I really enjoy a good game of r/l Pinball too.
Fun and graphics are not orthogonal. They are however sometimes interrelated. Your argument made no sense.
There are people who are incapable of self-directed play. There are many people who are incapable of imaginative play.
As a side-note, these abilities are becoming harder and harder to find in children because of adult-directed and supervised play time.
If the subject interests you, have a look at the Free Range Kids blog (and associated book) and some of her research.