That's right and that means that the precise definition of the term is coupled to the local age of consent; 18-19 is only arguable because I'm not entirely certain what the highest age of consent in any USA federal state is. Whatever it is, I doubt it's above 20 or maybe 21.
Most prepubescent boys don't look that malnourished. Maybe it's more something like "if I don't find these women sexy, why should anyone else?". Or maybe fashion designers' tastes are just completely out of sync with those of most other people.
18-22 is ephebophilia? I doubt that. Ephebophilia covers only adolescents and I don't think you can call people aged 20+ adolescents. 18-19 can be argued as ephebophilia but 20-22 is, well, a preference for young adults.
But yeah, anyone who thinks that "teen" porn involves anyone under 18 is too busy knee-jerking to actually investigate the matter they're clamoring about.
It really depends on taste. For instance, I think that proportions are very important. If the breasts are out of proportion to the rest of the body the person becomes rather unattractive to me. If I see someone who isn't exceptionally tall with a D cup I'm going to find that repulsive rather than erotic.
Likewise people who are too thin. I admit I like slender people but that's a lower limit, not the ideal spot. Also, there's a reason why a German magazine has admitted they photoshop models to look heavier - the anorexic look isn't universally appealing.
Plus, "thin is good" isn't hardwired into our brain. We do have "universal" preferences but those are a cultural thing. If we stop pushing ultra-thin large-breasted models exclusively then our generation probbly won't change but future ones won't grow up expecting it to be the sole definition of beauty.
I'll see your anecdote and raise one of my own: Where I live, internet access is mostly stable but does have random outages. This is a problem that has developed only lately but is noticeable. Occasionally I want to do something on the internet only to find that there is an outage. If my data is local I can work on something else until my connection comes back up; if it isn't I can either wait or try to go to a place where I can get online - probably my university, which is an hour away.
Conversely, my computers are usually fairly solid. While I have of course encountered scenarios where hardware or software is defective and needs replacement, these are much rarer than internet outages. What do we learn from this? Only that your computer crashes a lot and that my internet connection is wonky. Different people will have different needs.
Of course there is another problem with a browser-only OS: You are limited to what is offered as a web service. Regular OSes are less limited; you get web apps, native/portable apps and stuff written in Java that runs anywhere you can find a JVM. Of course Chrome OS might run Java but I doubt that it will do much beyond applets.
So yes, if you have a reliable internet connection, use your computer mostly for basic office-type work and/or browsing and don't want to have to manage anything besides the battery charge, a browser-only device would seem an attractive choice. If you want something not covered by web apps, however, you're left with a device that simply fails to deliver.
I think the ultimate question is how expensive the appliance is. (I do think it's accurate to describe a Chrome OS device as an internet appliance.) If you get something iPad-sized with a decent resolution for 100, 150 bucks that sounds pretty attractive. If, on the other hand, the appliance is not much cheaper than a comparable laptop I'd pass - a low-maintenance browser is not worth that much to me.
Of course the iPad is not a laptop. I'm not certain if there are many UMPCs/keyboard-less tablets that allow you to easily replace the operating system. From what I've seen, those things are seen and marketed as versatile but limited appliances while laptops are marketed as full-fledged portable computers.
So yeah, it's unsurprising that you can dual-boot this and the iPad not.
No, you probably just set your computers to the same address. I suggest one of you changes the address or you'll get conflicts and disrupt each other's connection.
Especially as McDonald's isn't particularly cheap, even within the domain of fastfood "restaurants". Of course that doesn't stop people from eating there...
On the other hand, Proxima Centauri is stupendously far away and we managed to cover 0.05% of that. Yes, it took us three decades but it's still quite impressive.
I seem to remember that the console versions didn't work quite as well as the PC version but you're right; they did at one point release them.
And yes, Diablo 3 does look similar to Champions of Norrath. Unsurprisingly, given that Champions is a Diablo 2 clone.
I do concede that Blizzard could more actively pursue consoles if they wanted. However, they still don't, so they apparently don't see a reason to do so. Which would be an even stronger argument for the PC remaining a viable platform than "Blizzard can't move away".
Unlikely. See Blizzard. Do they cater to consoles? No (Lost Vikings nonwithstanding). Are they in peril? No. They know their games don't work on consoles so they don't even try to adapt Starcraft to gamepads. And they still make money.
Consoles are taking up a large portion of the market but the PC ist still going strong. See Blizzard. See GSC (makers of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series). Plus, a lot of console games are available for the PC as well and not neccessarily as bad ports. Fallout 3/New Vegas springs to mind (and lets us hope that Bethesda really learned that the Oblivion GUI didn't work).
This is compounded by the fact that hardware doesn't move forward anymore due to consoles not moving forward. DirectX 9 is still the main target everyone is shooting for and even mid-range GPUs have enough power to play pretty much anything you can throw at them.
Plus, even though laptops are more popular then desktops, games still buy desktops; it's not like everyone's buying behavior is the same. And gamers always have been a minority of the PC market.
And no, not all gamers are going to ditch their PCs in favor of consoles, particularly not now when the next console generation might only be a year away. Certain kinds of games don't work well on consoles and people playing them aren't going to change their preferences just so they can like consoles more.
It's not a good gaming system - for people that will meticulously adjust timings on RAM to improve performance, a 20% performance cut to switch to Mac is just not logical.
People still do that? I thought everyone stopped doing that when two year old hardware was still powerful enough to play recent games at decent framerates.
Admittedly, I won't play the latest games right when they come out and I don't play framerate-dependent games competitively but my dedicated gaming rig uses the smallest quad-core Phenom I could find, four gigs of RAM and a Geforce 8800. And that's plenty for everything I can toss at it, right up to recent Fallouts.
Tweaking RAM timings and overclocking your CPU are to the late 90s/early 00s what optimizing your CONFIG.SYS was to the late 80s/early 90s. Except you can still technically do it. It might make sense if you play professionally but otherwise it's unlikely that those extra 0.3 FPS are going to do you much good.
That said, I don't doubt that Macs make mediocre gaming rigs - even though I think their 3D performance has been slightly increasing over time. Then again, I mostly play indie games on the Mac anyway so even my MBP's IGP is plenty fast.
Of course most movies have rather simple plots too... or rather, can be reduced to one.
For example Citizen Kane: A man dies and a reporter makes a documentation about him.
War of the worlds: Aliens attack Earth.
Pulp Fiction: Two hitmen have a variety of amusing misadventures, as has a boxer.
While I wouldn't say that, for instance, Mass Effect has the most complex of plots I would call it on par with what passes as a plot in your average Hollywood movie. (The ones above not neccessarily included.) While the plot ultimately boils down to "the bad guy wants to kill everyone", most of it is spent figuring out what's actually going on, with the focus being on the characters found along the way.
In a way, you could say it's a sci-fi adaptation of Indiana Jones: The good guys race with the bad guys for an ancient artifact of immense power in order to keep the bad guys from taking over/depopulating the world/galaxy, visiting a variety of interesting places in the process. We even have the same kind of smart-talking action hero as the lead, depending on how you play the game.
If they turned Mass Effect into Indiana Jones In Space, would that sacrifice a lot of the game? Not really, especially if they try to preserve Bioware's humor in the dialogues. Mass Effect is a game that would work with relatively little added; most of the work would be in cutting it down to size.
I agree that they do add a lot of unneccessary cruft to video game movies but it's not like all video games are Doom. A theoretical Monkey Island movie would very much not work if it was action-focused just like Alone in the Dark didn't work as a fast-paced action flick. What you can do with a game depends on how the game is in the first place. If you strongly deviate from the game's genre or change around the plot too much it's obvious that you lose whatever narrative qualities the game had. Unless your writing is good enough to carry the movie on its own you're going to end up with a mediocre result.
The main problem is not all video games lacking some narrative quality found in movies or not providing enough material, the problem is film makers who insist on adding completely new material that doesn't fit or focusing on something that only was a minor part of the original game. For instance, Mass Effect: The Movie would probably make the romance sideplot the main plot with everything else just used for backdrop. And then they'd wonder why nobody likes it.
FBI Agent A: "Decrypt their firewall."
FBI Agent B: "It's no use! She used a lockout code and quantum-encrypted the datagrams with 3000-bit MD5!"
FBI Agent A: "Damn. We'll have to hack all their IP addresses by hand. Start writing a GUI in Visual Basic."
Three months later...
fBI Agent B: "Success!"
FBI Agent A: "How did you get past that firewall? Did you spoof the ARP cache in order to cure the DNS root poisoning?"
FBI Agent B: "No, we took the machine off the network and replaced it with a new one."
FBI Agent A: *looks at Agent B baffled*
FBI Agent B: "We cut the binary stream on the physical level and installed a dummy firewall using authorized intrusion methods."
FBI Agent A: "Why didn't you say so? Learn to express yourself properly, boy."
FBI Agent B: "Yes, sir."
True. When I look at the games I have bought or otherwise legally obtained in the last one or two years there is a noticeable trend: Most of them don't have multiplayer but instead focus solely on single-player experience. In fact, the only multiplayer-enabled game I picked up lately would be Mechwarrior 4: Mercenaries and that one's free.
When I buy a game I expect good entertainment for a suitably long time. Let's say five hours per Euro invested are great; two hours are okay. Multiplayer doesn't count; I'm not a very competitive person and the majority of people I met on open multiplayer servers were assholes so if I do play MP it's usually not very enjoyable for me - LAN games with friends excluded.
Thus, when you look at my game library you'll find titles like the first three X-Com games, Escape Velocity: Nova, System Shock 2 or Recettear. Or Disgaea on the console side. Stuff with solid singleplayer that makes you want to sink several dozen hours into it every few years (or, in the case of X-Com, at least once per year).
Coincidentally, this "multiplayerization" seems to go hand in hand with the "haloization" we can observe already: Games tend to go for streamlined gameplay, simplifying everything as far as possible. Thus we go from System Shock to Bioshock or from Enemy Unknown to *shudder* Enforder to *choke* "X-COM". Oh well, if the big publishers now decide that pimped-out Quake 3 Arena clones are the way to go I guess I'll stick to the indie market where one can still occasionally find a game that dares to be complex.
Re:That's one heck of a "long goodbye"
on
Goodbye, VGA
·
· Score: 1
Actually, more than one or two ports usually don't make much sense on a keyboard as even two regular HID devices can end up drawing more power than an unpowered hub can provide - all depending on your devices, of course.
Except we have a lead time and electricity providers who are very interested in not losing their expensive transformers. The space agencies provide space weather warnings including CME warnings. If a very large CME is inbound most of the affected transformers are going to be disconnected.
Plus, with CMEs on the scale we have seen so far, large-scale generator damage would only occur in certain areas, not worldwide, allowing functioning generators to be imported to rebuild at least part of the network in much less than several months.
Note that the last severe geomagnetic storm that caused a lot of damage... cut off six million people in North America for about nine hours.
That's why I likened them to 4chan: What they do overlaps with/b/'s sense of humor but is firmly in an area which most people would describe as tasteless.
I mean, look at the Super Tofu Boy backstory. It's pretty much just 0.49 kilobytes of how much Meat Boy sucks and has only negative qualities. Parodying a work under Fair Use is one thing but doing so and having your "parody" bluntly bad-mouth the original is pretty low.
Then again, this is PETA, the organization where both the dump and primary stats are Charisma.
So your'e saying that Tofu is presented as a complete replacement for Meat but is neither as tasteful (cf. the STB backstory) nor as satisfying? How deliciously ironic.
I think the statement stands if you amend it to "militant vegetarians" or even "evangelizing vegetarians" but then again evangelizing anything tends to be rather annoying.
That's one of the reasons why nobody takes PETA seriously: They operate on the same level as 4chan trolling Habbo Hotel. I mean, I've seen some fairly grown-up actions from Anonymous but PETA consistently acts like an antisocial teenager.
Plus, whenever they want to "parody" something it's always mean-spirited and extremely badly researched, ending up carrying a lot of unfortunate implications - such as Super Tofu Boy, which manages to casually describe eating animals as being identical to cannibalism. Way to go, PETA.
Of course this means that every other website you visit now depends on four or five different servers which may or may not respond in a timely manner (and some go overboard and use ten different tracking services). This can be very frustrating.
I now block all advertising/tracking/social networking-related domains I am aware of (with the trackers being handled by a regularly-updated Firefox extension) because the internet is much faster if your browser never loads content from notoriously slow domains like facebook.com or google-analytics.com.
I would actually be more receptive toward tracking if it didn't mean that every once in a while a page will load unbearably slowly.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's one browser, isn't it? It's not ten.
That's right and that means that the precise definition of the term is coupled to the local age of consent; 18-19 is only arguable because I'm not entirely certain what the highest age of consent in any USA federal state is. Whatever it is, I doubt it's above 20 or maybe 21.
Most prepubescent boys don't look that malnourished. Maybe it's more something like "if I don't find these women sexy, why should anyone else?". Or maybe fashion designers' tastes are just completely out of sync with those of most other people.
18-22 is ephebophilia? I doubt that. Ephebophilia covers only adolescents and I don't think you can call people aged 20+ adolescents. 18-19 can be argued as ephebophilia but 20-22 is, well, a preference for young adults.
But yeah, anyone who thinks that "teen" porn involves anyone under 18 is too busy knee-jerking to actually investigate the matter they're clamoring about.
It really depends on taste. For instance, I think that proportions are very important. If the breasts are out of proportion to the rest of the body the person becomes rather unattractive to me. If I see someone who isn't exceptionally tall with a D cup I'm going to find that repulsive rather than erotic.
Likewise people who are too thin. I admit I like slender people but that's a lower limit, not the ideal spot. Also, there's a reason why a German magazine has admitted they photoshop models to look heavier - the anorexic look isn't universally appealing.
Plus, "thin is good" isn't hardwired into our brain. We do have "universal" preferences but those are a cultural thing. If we stop pushing ultra-thin large-breasted models exclusively then our generation probbly won't change but future ones won't grow up expecting it to be the sole definition of beauty.
I'll see your anecdote and raise one of my own: Where I live, internet access is mostly stable but does have random outages. This is a problem that has developed only lately but is noticeable. Occasionally I want to do something on the internet only to find that there is an outage. If my data is local I can work on something else until my connection comes back up; if it isn't I can either wait or try to go to a place where I can get online - probably my university, which is an hour away.
Conversely, my computers are usually fairly solid. While I have of course encountered scenarios where hardware or software is defective and needs replacement, these are much rarer than internet outages. What do we learn from this? Only that your computer crashes a lot and that my internet connection is wonky. Different people will have different needs.
Of course there is another problem with a browser-only OS: You are limited to what is offered as a web service. Regular OSes are less limited; you get web apps, native/portable apps and stuff written in Java that runs anywhere you can find a JVM. Of course Chrome OS might run Java but I doubt that it will do much beyond applets.
So yes, if you have a reliable internet connection, use your computer mostly for basic office-type work and/or browsing and don't want to have to manage anything besides the battery charge, a browser-only device would seem an attractive choice. If you want something not covered by web apps, however, you're left with a device that simply fails to deliver.
I think the ultimate question is how expensive the appliance is. (I do think it's accurate to describe a Chrome OS device as an internet appliance.) If you get something iPad-sized with a decent resolution for 100, 150 bucks that sounds pretty attractive. If, on the other hand, the appliance is not much cheaper than a comparable laptop I'd pass - a low-maintenance browser is not worth that much to me.
Of course the iPad is not a laptop. I'm not certain if there are many UMPCs/keyboard-less tablets that allow you to easily replace the operating system. From what I've seen, those things are seen and marketed as versatile but limited appliances while laptops are marketed as full-fledged portable computers.
So yeah, it's unsurprising that you can dual-boot this and the iPad not.
No, you probably just set your computers to the same address. I suggest one of you changes the address or you'll get conflicts and disrupt each other's connection.
Especially as McDonald's isn't particularly cheap, even within the domain of fastfood "restaurants". Of course that doesn't stop people from eating there...
Well, at least this isn't The Media, where the summary would have mentioned "the accompanying ancient hackers". ;)
On the other hand, Proxima Centauri is stupendously far away and we managed to cover 0.05% of that. Yes, it took us three decades but it's still quite impressive.
I seem to remember that the console versions didn't work quite as well as the PC version but you're right; they did at one point release them.
And yes, Diablo 3 does look similar to Champions of Norrath. Unsurprisingly, given that Champions is a Diablo 2 clone.
I do concede that Blizzard could more actively pursue consoles if they wanted. However, they still don't, so they apparently don't see a reason to do so. Which would be an even stronger argument for the PC remaining a viable platform than "Blizzard can't move away".
Unlikely. See Blizzard. Do they cater to consoles? No (Lost Vikings nonwithstanding). Are they in peril? No. They know their games don't work on consoles so they don't even try to adapt Starcraft to gamepads. And they still make money.
Consoles are taking up a large portion of the market but the PC ist still going strong. See Blizzard. See GSC (makers of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series). Plus, a lot of console games are available for the PC as well and not neccessarily as bad ports. Fallout 3/New Vegas springs to mind (and lets us hope that Bethesda really learned that the Oblivion GUI didn't work).
This is compounded by the fact that hardware doesn't move forward anymore due to consoles not moving forward. DirectX 9 is still the main target everyone is shooting for and even mid-range GPUs have enough power to play pretty much anything you can throw at them.
Plus, even though laptops are more popular then desktops, games still buy desktops; it's not like everyone's buying behavior is the same. And gamers always have been a minority of the PC market.
And no, not all gamers are going to ditch their PCs in favor of consoles, particularly not now when the next console generation might only be a year away. Certain kinds of games don't work well on consoles and people playing them aren't going to change their preferences just so they can like consoles more.
It's not a good gaming system - for people that will meticulously adjust timings on RAM to improve performance, a 20% performance cut to switch to Mac is just not logical.
People still do that? I thought everyone stopped doing that when two year old hardware was still powerful enough to play recent games at decent framerates.
Admittedly, I won't play the latest games right when they come out and I don't play framerate-dependent games competitively but my dedicated gaming rig uses the smallest quad-core Phenom I could find, four gigs of RAM and a Geforce 8800. And that's plenty for everything I can toss at it, right up to recent Fallouts.
Tweaking RAM timings and overclocking your CPU are to the late 90s/early 00s what optimizing your CONFIG.SYS was to the late 80s/early 90s. Except you can still technically do it. It might make sense if you play professionally but otherwise it's unlikely that those extra 0.3 FPS are going to do you much good.
That said, I don't doubt that Macs make mediocre gaming rigs - even though I think their 3D performance has been slightly increasing over time. Then again, I mostly play indie games on the Mac anyway so even my MBP's IGP is plenty fast.
Of course most movies have rather simple plots too... or rather, can be reduced to one.
For example Citizen Kane: A man dies and a reporter makes a documentation about him.
War of the worlds: Aliens attack Earth.
Pulp Fiction: Two hitmen have a variety of amusing misadventures, as has a boxer.
While I wouldn't say that, for instance, Mass Effect has the most complex of plots I would call it on par with what passes as a plot in your average Hollywood movie. (The ones above not neccessarily included.) While the plot ultimately boils down to "the bad guy wants to kill everyone", most of it is spent figuring out what's actually going on, with the focus being on the characters found along the way.
In a way, you could say it's a sci-fi adaptation of Indiana Jones: The good guys race with the bad guys for an ancient artifact of immense power in order to keep the bad guys from taking over/depopulating the world/galaxy, visiting a variety of interesting places in the process. We even have the same kind of smart-talking action hero as the lead, depending on how you play the game.
If they turned Mass Effect into Indiana Jones In Space, would that sacrifice a lot of the game? Not really, especially if they try to preserve Bioware's humor in the dialogues. Mass Effect is a game that would work with relatively little added; most of the work would be in cutting it down to size.
I agree that they do add a lot of unneccessary cruft to video game movies but it's not like all video games are Doom. A theoretical Monkey Island movie would very much not work if it was action-focused just like Alone in the Dark didn't work as a fast-paced action flick. What you can do with a game depends on how the game is in the first place. If you strongly deviate from the game's genre or change around the plot too much it's obvious that you lose whatever narrative qualities the game had. Unless your writing is good enough to carry the movie on its own you're going to end up with a mediocre result.
The main problem is not all video games lacking some narrative quality found in movies or not providing enough material, the problem is film makers who insist on adding completely new material that doesn't fit or focusing on something that only was a minor part of the original game. For instance, Mass Effect: The Movie would probably make the romance sideplot the main plot with everything else just used for backdrop. And then they'd wonder why nobody likes it.
FBI Agent A: "Decrypt their firewall."
FBI Agent B: "It's no use! She used a lockout code and quantum-encrypted the datagrams with 3000-bit MD5!"
FBI Agent A: "Damn. We'll have to hack all their IP addresses by hand. Start writing a GUI in Visual Basic."
Three months later...
fBI Agent B: "Success!"
FBI Agent A: "How did you get past that firewall? Did you spoof the ARP cache in order to cure the DNS root poisoning?"
FBI Agent B: "No, we took the machine off the network and replaced it with a new one."
FBI Agent A: *looks at Agent B baffled*
FBI Agent B: "We cut the binary stream on the physical level and installed a dummy firewall using authorized intrusion methods."
FBI Agent A: "Why didn't you say so? Learn to express yourself properly, boy."
FBI Agent B: "Yes, sir."
True. When I look at the games I have bought or otherwise legally obtained in the last one or two years there is a noticeable trend: Most of them don't have multiplayer but instead focus solely on single-player experience. In fact, the only multiplayer-enabled game I picked up lately would be Mechwarrior 4: Mercenaries and that one's free.
When I buy a game I expect good entertainment for a suitably long time. Let's say five hours per Euro invested are great; two hours are okay. Multiplayer doesn't count; I'm not a very competitive person and the majority of people I met on open multiplayer servers were assholes so if I do play MP it's usually not very enjoyable for me - LAN games with friends excluded.
Thus, when you look at my game library you'll find titles like the first three X-Com games, Escape Velocity: Nova, System Shock 2 or Recettear. Or Disgaea on the console side. Stuff with solid singleplayer that makes you want to sink several dozen hours into it every few years (or, in the case of X-Com, at least once per year).
Coincidentally, this "multiplayerization" seems to go hand in hand with the "haloization" we can observe already: Games tend to go for streamlined gameplay, simplifying everything as far as possible. Thus we go from System Shock to Bioshock or from Enemy Unknown to *shudder* Enforder to *choke* "X-COM". Oh well, if the big publishers now decide that pimped-out Quake 3 Arena clones are the way to go I guess I'll stick to the indie market where one can still occasionally find a game that dares to be complex.
Actually, more than one or two ports usually don't make much sense on a keyboard as even two regular HID devices can end up drawing more power than an unpowered hub can provide - all depending on your devices, of course.
Wasn't "grid" the short form of "we have no idea how large our cluster is"?
Except we have a lead time and electricity providers who are very interested in not losing their expensive transformers. The space agencies provide space weather warnings including CME warnings. If a very large CME is inbound most of the affected transformers are going to be disconnected.
Plus, with CMEs on the scale we have seen so far, large-scale generator damage would only occur in certain areas, not worldwide, allowing functioning generators to be imported to rebuild at least part of the network in much less than several months.
Note that the last severe geomagnetic storm that caused a lot of damage... cut off six million people in North America for about nine hours.
That's why I likened them to 4chan: What they do overlaps with /b/'s sense of humor but is firmly in an area which most people would describe as tasteless.
I mean, look at the Super Tofu Boy backstory. It's pretty much just 0.49 kilobytes of how much Meat Boy sucks and has only negative qualities. Parodying a work under Fair Use is one thing but doing so and having your "parody" bluntly bad-mouth the original is pretty low.
Then again, this is PETA, the organization where both the dump and primary stats are Charisma.
So your'e saying that Tofu is presented as a complete replacement for Meat but is neither as tasteful (cf. the STB backstory) nor as satisfying? How deliciously ironic.
I think the statement stands if you amend it to "militant vegetarians" or even "evangelizing vegetarians" but then again evangelizing anything tends to be rather annoying.
That's one of the reasons why nobody takes PETA seriously: They operate on the same level as 4chan trolling Habbo Hotel. I mean, I've seen some fairly grown-up actions from Anonymous but PETA consistently acts like an antisocial teenager.
Plus, whenever they want to "parody" something it's always mean-spirited and extremely badly researched, ending up carrying a lot of unfortunate implications - such as Super Tofu Boy, which manages to casually describe eating animals as being identical to cannibalism. Way to go, PETA.
Of course this means that every other website you visit now depends on four or five different servers which may or may not respond in a timely manner (and some go overboard and use ten different tracking services). This can be very frustrating.
I now block all advertising/tracking/social networking-related domains I am aware of (with the trackers being handled by a regularly-updated Firefox extension) because the internet is much faster if your browser never loads content from notoriously slow domains like facebook.com or google-analytics.com.
I would actually be more receptive toward tracking if it didn't mean that every once in a while a page will load unbearably slowly.