But does it all just come down to eye-candy for you?
The point about BR (at least for me) is that it was one of the last Sci-Fi movies that had a great plot, which meant the special effects were really secondary. Even without any special effects, its still a great story. It was also largely responsible for a whole new dark dystopian view of the future, which still feels infinitely more probable than the standard sterile white corridors and ray guns of nearly all the other Sci-Fi movies of the same period.
Its sad but it seems video games and most movies have all gone the same way of relying on ever-more dramatic graphics/CGI/effects to make up for the lack of a decent plot (or in the case of games, intellectually challenging gameplay).
I'm all for individual rights but even I feel these so-called crimes are pretty mild and reasonable given the CIA's mission to protect the state and its citizens. In fact these are so mild that it makes me wonder if this isn't all an exercise in disinformation as a way to make people believe that the CIA never does anything nastier.
you're missing my point. By 'see' I don't mean visibly. I mean that anything that takes an infinite amount of time to form will therefore never completely form, so therefore shouldn't ever exist in its entirety, yet black holes have been proven to have complete event horizons.
'from an external viewer's point it takes an infinite amount of time to form an event horizon and that the clock for the objects falling into the black hole appears to slow down to zero,'...so surely if it takes an infinite amount of time to form an event horizon then we shouldn't have seen any yet. But we have.
>> but, that's not what people will buy to drive to work and haul the kids to soccer practice.
True, but when you look at the vast majority of cars on the road, they are all single-occupant. Judging from rush-hour traffic, most people do most driving miles just commuting to and from work.
because you would be more likely to be clueless (i.e. the sort of person who would be a griefer) if you're paying $$ to play when there are good and free alternatives out there? Just an idea...
>> Others are looking to revolutionize the automobile's engine, not replace it.'"
The only justification for this is that it benefits the car and oil companies. There are massive disadvantages to internal combustion technology over pure electrical cars, such as pollution, maintenance & running costs and overall performance.
Yes this particular car costs $100k but its a one off. obviously if the same tech. got put into mass production it would be much less due to scales of economy.
I only play UT2004, no other online games, but I can say that voice chat is generally a benefit and does add a lot to the atmosphere of the game even if you don't have a mic. It usually turns out that someone with a mic suggests tactics and alerts which most people generally respond to, so it makes the team more cohesive.
Of course you do get the odd annoying whiney little moron, but its pretty rare. From other reports it sounds like UT generally attracts a better class of player comapred to games like Wow. Maybe because its 3 or 4 years old now and doesn't need a monthly subscription, it keeps the more braindead/annoying/younger players away.
that the RIAA is a USA organisztion so has no power overseas, and that in the UK free speech actually means what is says, unlike the USA where free speech means free until someone with power doesn't like it.
how it falls to an opensource software company to spot that the government would be paying licences for every computer, windows or not? It makes you wonder why the government and/or educational bodies themselves didn't say anything about such an obvious ploy.
The music industry are clutching at any straws possible to avoid having to face the reality that they have made themselves entirely redundant. Because of their greed, inflexibility, enforcement of DRM, and lack of innovation, their products are too expensive and unappealing. The music industry have never added value to anything. They are used to being the gatekeepers to the monopolised distribution channels that musicians need access too, hence they are just like a giant toll-booth.
They are now witnessing that when you make the toll too expensive and the road too polluted, people just build and use alternative routes instead. In this case, the alternative route is musicians selling directly to the public via the internet.
However like any structure of people, the fat cats are unwilling to give up their power even though they are now redundant, but because they have never added value to anything, they have no innovative skills to draw upon becuaes they have never needed any. The only option for them now is to force people to use their road through legislation against the others.
They take a recording then spend extra effort to distort it, which is not what their customers want. Furthermore, if you don't want them to spend the extra effort to mess it up, you have to give them more money. Is it just me or is this logic REALLY screwed?
Nothing but in linux/unix thats where the damage stops as user-apps can't do anything to the os. In windows you can wave goodbye to your whole os, as user-apps can modify the operating system files such as the regstry.
There are many many references all over the internet for why using auto_ptr (which is boost's shared_ptr) is philospohically a bad idea.
Ultimately it comes down to being careful when you write your code that you clean up. There are a few things you can do to help: 1) Use containers wherever possible rather than create clouds of dynamically created objects.
2) Don't expect the user of your function to know to clean up after you, even if the user of your function is you. (e.g. pass in an empty container as a parameter that the function fills, rather than dynamically create/populate memory in the function then return it). This approach also helps reduce the number of calls to malloc()/new() as the caller can statically create an empty container.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the thing that sticks in my mind most about Lord of the Rings was the great scenery, which I understand WAS real New Zealand landscape.
Actually I enjoyed the first 'Alien' movie the best.
I don't have single favourite movies, but if I did, Blade Runner would probably be it.
But does it all just come down to eye-candy for you?
The point about BR (at least for me) is that it was one of the last Sci-Fi movies that had a great plot, which meant the special effects were really secondary. Even without any special effects, its still a great story. It was also largely responsible for a whole new dark dystopian view of the future, which still feels infinitely more probable than the standard sterile white corridors and ray guns of nearly all the other Sci-Fi movies of the same period.
Its sad but it seems video games and most movies have all gone the same way of relying on ever-more dramatic graphics/CGI/effects to make up for the lack of a decent plot (or in the case of games, intellectually challenging gameplay).
I'm all for individual rights but even I feel these so-called crimes are pretty mild and reasonable given the CIA's mission to protect the state and its citizens.
In fact these are so mild that it makes me wonder if this isn't all an exercise in disinformation as a way to make people believe that the CIA never does anything nastier.
the judge didn't just automatically award her costs, and some punitive damages against RIAA for her massive stress and inconvenice too.
you're missing my point.
By 'see' I don't mean visibly. I mean that anything that takes an infinite amount of time to form will therefore never completely form, so therefore shouldn't ever exist in its entirety, yet black holes have been proven to have complete event horizons.
'from an external viewer's point it takes an infinite amount of time to form an event horizon and that the clock for the objects falling into the black hole appears to slow down to zero,' ...so surely if it takes an infinite amount of time to form an event horizon then we shouldn't have seen any yet. But we have.
You know you're big when Microsoft becomes your bitch.
No but seriously, they'd just steamroller anyone else.
>> but, that's not what people will buy to drive to work and haul the kids to soccer practice.
True, but when you look at the vast majority of cars on the road, they are all single-occupant. Judging from rush-hour traffic, most people do most driving miles just commuting to and from work.
because you would be more likely to be clueless (i.e. the sort of person who would be a griefer) if you're paying $$ to play when there are good and free alternatives out there? Just an idea...
>> Others are looking to revolutionize the automobile's engine, not replace it.'"
= ariel%20atom
The only justification for this is that it benefits the car and oil companies.
There are massive disadvantages to internal combustion technology over pure electrical cars, such as pollution, maintenance & running costs and overall performance.
Check this if you don't believe me about performance (electric car eating a ferrari and a porche alive):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2DGfisAndI&search
Yes this particular car costs $100k but its a one off. obviously if the same tech. got put into mass production it would be much less due to scales of economy.
I only play UT2004, no other online games, but I can say that voice chat is generally a benefit and does add a lot to the atmosphere of the game even if you don't have a mic. It usually turns out that someone with a mic suggests tactics and alerts which most people generally respond to, so it makes the team more cohesive.
Of course you do get the odd annoying whiney little moron, but its pretty rare. From other reports it sounds like UT generally attracts a better class of player comapred to games like Wow. Maybe because its 3 or 4 years old now and doesn't need a monthly subscription, it keeps the more braindead/annoying/younger players away.
that the RIAA is a USA organisztion so has no power overseas, and that in the UK free speech actually means what is says, unlike the USA where free speech means free until someone with power doesn't like it.
how it falls to an opensource software company to spot that the government would be paying licences for every computer, windows or not?
It makes you wonder why the government and/or educational bodies themselves didn't say anything about such an obvious ploy.
The music industry are clutching at any straws possible to avoid having to face the reality that they have made themselves entirely redundant. Because of their greed, inflexibility, enforcement of DRM, and lack of innovation, their products are too expensive and unappealing. The music industry have never added value to anything. They are used to being the gatekeepers to the monopolised distribution channels that musicians need access too, hence they are just like a giant toll-booth.
They are now witnessing that when you make the toll too expensive and the road too polluted, people just build and use alternative routes instead. In this case, the alternative route is musicians selling directly to the public via the internet.
However like any structure of people, the fat cats are unwilling to give up their power even though they are now redundant, but because they have never added value to anything, they have no innovative skills to draw upon becuaes they have never needed any. The only option for them now is to force people to use their road through legislation against the others.
I hope they handle the RAM with rubber gloves and masks to avoid possible cross-contamination of computer virusses.
I wonder if its floppy or hard ram?
They could claim that they lost all the information because it was stored in ram, which they unplugged to comply with the court order.
They must have known and someone must have authorized it. Why aren't we reading about that person being fired or better yet pulled up in court?
why not blame everything on videogames? Is there any actual proof that this school shooting was even realted to video games?
They take a recording then spend extra effort to distort it, which is not what their customers want.
Furthermore, if you don't want them to spend the extra effort to mess it up, you have to give them more money.
Is it just me or is this logic REALLY screwed?
What I see out of the window is whats there, therefore its a fact.
Nothing but in linux/unix thats where the damage stops as user-apps can't do anything to the os. In windows you can wave goodbye to your whole os, as user-apps can modify the operating system files such as the regstry.
all that energy in the air won't cause any health side-effects to us humans at all, no sir...
There are many many references all over the internet for why using auto_ptr (which is boost's shared_ptr) is philospohically a bad idea.
Ultimately it comes down to being careful when you write your code that you clean up. There are a few things you can do to help:
1) Use containers wherever possible rather than create clouds of dynamically created objects.
2) Don't expect the user of your function to know to clean up after you, even if the user of your function is you. (e.g. pass in an empty container as a parameter that the function fills, rather than dynamically create/populate memory in the function then return it). This approach also helps reduce the number of calls to malloc()/new() as the caller can statically create an empty container.