There are some MMOs with similar mechanics. Cabal Online (some random F2P MMORPG) has a system where people can simply turn off PvP but you can override it by shift-clicking them to target them anyway. Problem: If you attack someone without having successfully invited them to PvP first you accumulate penalties and are also free for anyone to attack.
I didn't play long enough to see whether that system really works but it's there.
Yes, but how long will it take for this technology to permeate through most of the market? We're not just talking Apple devices here; Maemo and Android are two other big touch-operated platforms with web access. Depending on the licensing terms and the maturity of the technology we could be looking at two or three years until the first Apple device comes out and another two to five years until most manufacturers ship such screens.
Thr problem is that we're seeing various conflicting interface modalities here. For example, on the desktop top-level menus only respond after a click - but on the web, any interactive object is assumed to be a link. Therefore web menus have conflicting modalities: If a click pops it up it behaves unlike a link, which is what people don't expect. If a click loads another page it behaves unlike a menu, which can also confuse people. So far web designers tend to make it open on hover in order to preserve the "clicking loads another page" behavior.
This worked until touch devices came up. Now hover does nothing and we might well see a return to "click pops up" - however, that raises new questions such as "What if the menu's header is also a link?". We don't have satisfactory answers to that yet and it's not a problem we can easily fix on the web design side: HTML allows us to attach menus to anything we want and conventional wisdom holds that attaching it to a hyperlink is the way to go as there is no other clean way of having the menu send people to both a category page and individual subpages within that category.
On the other hand, fixing it on the device side is also clunky and possibly unreliable - there are various ways to implement popup menus, from CSS to JavaScript to Flash (although the latter ought to be banned) and the device might not catch them all. Also, how do you trigger the menu now without obstructing the link? One click opens, a second one activates the link? How do people tell whether the thing they just clicked is even a link? And how do they close the menu?
Touch interfaces are relatively young and this is one problem that simply hasn't been fully addressed yet. While we can argue that HTML menus/hover effects/touch interfaces simply shouldn't be used, the real issue is that touch interfaces and mouse interfaces require fundamentally different design approaches in some areas - which the Web simply doesn't allow unless you want to detect touch devices and code special versions of your website for them.
Disclaimer: My only claim to interface design knowledge is a usability course at the university. I do, however, do web development and occasionally GUI programming.
4) It assumes there is no way to do mouseover. Lots of touch devices actually do support mouseover. (Ex: Drawing tablets)
You are aware that drawing tablets are traditionally not touch devices? The stylus you use with a drawing tablet is more than an inert chunk of plastic. I know that some sort of hybrid has been announced recently but we can't expect that kind of technology to cover most or all of the market shortly - and hovering with your finger probably still wouldn't work.
Actually, many of the available apps could (and can!) be mimicked using HTML and JavaScript. Remember that this was the official method of implementing iPhone apps until the people pestered Apple into making Cocoa touch public. Apple originally didn't intend to sell apps and they're just fine with free apps - just look at the App Store. Yes, every developer (actually, every team of developers) needs to pay them 100 bucks but I doubt that 100 bucks per developer are going to be a significant part of Apple's handheld revenue.
And the apps you can't implement with HTML and JavaScript (usually games) are often heavily dependent on multitouch and tilt functionality, which means that they'd have to be written especially for the iPhone (if the iPhone's Flash plugin would even implement them) as there's neither a way of implementing traditional (mouse + keyboard) gaming controls on an iPhone, nor is there a way of properly porting multitouch + tilt to most PCs. So in the end theye Flash games would still provide people with an incentive to buy the iPhone, which would help Apple.
I don't see how Flash would threaten Apple's bottom line. Native apps are faster, don't require an internet connection and have proper control schemes for the device. Random Flash apps are unlikely to run properly; you'd have to look for iPhone-specific ones. Plus, most of the good developers are still going to stick to the App Store because that's where you can actually make money with your app.
"Don't know what to do on this webpage? Scan your pointer in a grid to feel the magic!"
Likewise, CSS should really go, for the very same reason. After all, without a uniform WWW theme people are completely unable to ever discern what a link is supposed to be.
Except they aren't; most people are actually smart enough to recognize a link even if it's dark green and plain instead of light blue and underlined. They're also smart enough to recognize a navigation bar or menu, regardless of whether it has popup menus attached or not. Because hover states don't signal interactivity, they implement it; the object they're attached to has the job of signaling it.
Plus, hover menus are an intuitive way of offering many links without cluttering up the site by displaying the entire sitemap. While you could just present people with your entire sitemap or make them click their way through the site one logical (for you) step at a time, most users tend to get confused by having sixty links shoved in their face or by having to navigate fifteen pages to get where they want to.
If you have a fast, unobtrusive alternative to hover menus, feel free to enlighten me. I don't see any. (Yes, you could make people click on the menus to open them but then you need to somehow make it explicitly clear that your menu header is not a link, unlike everything else. Since menus with links as headers are already very common your interface would be less intuitive than one with a popup menu.)
"Why touchscreen devices?" would be the way to go. The problems TFA talks about are not just limited to Flash; modern websites also rely heavily on hover states and it's not always easy to simulate them by examining the JavaScript and CSS and then trying to fake hovering by reinterpreting clicks.
We need to figure out how to properly implement hovering on devices that physically don't allow you to hover. Otherwise it's going to take years until web development catches up with the reality of half the users not being able to access half the features.
Problem: What if I do a clean install of Windows and I don't have another computer nearby to download a browser? There needs to be something in the OS that lets me access the web, even if it's just a menu that allows me to choose between various browsers. Yes, in theory my computer vendor might have given me a CD with a browser on it but that's not a real alternative. Those things get tossed or lost or people install the three years old version of Firefox on them and never bother to update.
One of my colleagues once bought a cheap Chinese MP4 player but it had a Sony battery and got so hot it melted in his pocket. When the doctor cut away his pants to examine the damage it turned out that China had actually partially merged into his leg -- he now has a large chunk of Asia in his lower hip. Pretty disgusting but there are some great camping sites near his knee.
Now he's Chinaman, fighting against injustice by kicking evildoers with a leg that weighs several billion metric tons, which tends to hurt them a lot. His arch nemesis is every single Chinese citizen because they're not too thrilled about some random twit constantly tossing their entire country around. Also, the local tram company; fitting China into a tram is really difficult. He also can't fight injustice during Chinese New Year as his leg goes home to be with its family.
Okay, so I made that up. The tram company doesn't really hate him.
This is compounded by the fact that I called Vonn a Canadian when she's in fact from that funny country south of Canada. Which puts the United States on gold medal parity with Germany until the IOC has filed the paperwork to gain exclusive ownership of Madgalena Neuner.
These monsters were ACTUALLY RECORDING VIDEO AND AUDIO OF CHILDREN WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT!
Which shouldn't constitute child pornography. Otherwise any recording that at some point includes a minor can be construed as child porn. I'm not even constructing a slippery slopes here; you just defined child pornography as "video and[/or] audio of children without their consent". Even if we assume that children can give their consent (which they legally can't, only their parents can) we still have any video recording with a random child in the background wrongly classified as child pornography.
Yes, spying on people is wrong but please let's not take the stance of the child pornography fearmongers and assume that any depiction of a child is pornographic unless you have a signed and notarized voucher from the parents that states they're okay with the contents and swear it's not pornographic.
Yes, American law allows child porn charges to be brought against this school district if they happen to have filmed a child naked (I'm not going to debate whether or not that should actually qualify as pornography). American law doesn't and definitely shouldn't allow child porn charges just because they happened to film a child at all.
The plaintiffs' lawyers have already pointed out that they reserve the right to tack on child porn charges if they find any applicable material. Asking them to just tack them on and then advocate a very paranoid stance on child porn in court is neither good for their case nor for society as a whole.
I wasn't thinking of actually paying the eco-activists for their time. They're the ones complaining, so they need to volunteer for free. The only cost would be a little time to train the eco-activists in scuba (we're not going to make them experts), and the scuba equipment that gets destroyed by some of the bombs blowing up.
I was referring to the torrent of lawsuits you'd immediately run into. All the waivers in the world wouldn't save you from those.
However, any who die in the process will be remembered for their bravery, and will die with honor; this fact alone should attract many.
That will not entice them. Eco-activists are humans, therefor all the honor would go to humans and not animals so it's just more animal oppression. Expect PETA to protest that among other things.
Ok, then how about we use inflatable sailboats? That way, there's no fuel at all used to transport these mines around (1 mine per boat, of course).
Which leaves us with the choice between "we'll just stick a mine on an unguided sailboat and hope it goes in the right direction" and "we'll put a sailor on an inflatable sailboat with an explosive that could go off at any moment in the middle of the open sea". Neither are likely to be very popular. And no, most eco-activists aren't even capable of maneuvering a real sailboat on the open sea.
Again, the alternative being discussed is to blow up ALL the mines. If, say, 1/4 of the mines blow up when the divers try to move them, that's 75% of the mines which we've now prevented from blowing up underwater and scattering pollution, at the expense of a few expendable divers.
It turns out that most people think that the seafloor in the most heavily contaminated sea in the world is more expendable than human lives. In addition, you are aware that randomly sending highly trained divers to their deaths is a few orders of magnitude more expensive than developing a special underwater demolitions vehicle? Eco-activists aren't capable of even getting there; they'll get lost and drown before that. And are still stupidly expensive.
Maybe you could put them in some kind of building and blow them up there, or try to disassemble them. Either way, it seems like it'd be easier to clean up the mess on dry land than dealing with it underwater.
Again, just getting them on dry land is almost certain to blow up part of the dock or slope you use. Old explosives can be VERY touchy and ARE utterly unpredictable. Disassembly is pretty much equivalent to remote detonation, except you kill more people and wreck more expensive equipment.
Yes, but that's usually because human safety is a big concern. Here, we're not worried about that, because we have plenty of expendable volunteers who are whining about blowing them up underwater, so we're just looking for the most environmentally-safe way of disposing of these things possible, without any regard to human safety. And if these whiners don't volunteer for this duty, regardless of the danger involved, they're hypocrites.
Unfortunately I think that it doesn't get any more eco-friendly. All schemes to get them on dry land end up with the mines blowing up on or in the sea (nothing gained) or making impressive holes in the landscape near the shore (so most of the dirt still goes into the sea) in addition to ruining equipment which still needs to be disposed of.
So unless they find a way to turn whining into negative contamination it's unlikely that any plan involving eco-activists is going to make things greener.
The problem is that you can't transport many mines on those rafts due to the chance of two of them colliding just a tad too hard. Thus you need to have the mine disposal boat make one full trip per mine. Very ecological. Also, if the raft blows up you still have shrapnel gaily flying through the air, potentially making jolly little holes in the real boat's hull. So you still face the danger of potentially sinking your boat in mine-infested waters, which might set off even more mines.
Then there's the whole issue with retrieving the mines in the first place. Many mines, including some WWII sea mines, are designed to explode when someone tries to remove them. And even those that aren't might pop simply because the pressure differential or the force of moving upwards is enough to set them off. So you'll have some mines go off underwater anyway simply because that's what they were designed to do. No gain there apart from the shreds of mostly biodegradable diver you potentially add to the environment.
Also, what do you do with them once you have them on the surface? Getting them on dry land is almost certainly enough to set some off; old explosives can be very sensitive and are usually detonated onsite because the alternative is much more dangerous. And it's not like they magically become eco-friendly when detonated outside of the water. And trying to crack them open to remove the explosives is just an invitation for tragedy: Even if you get rid of all the triggers the explosive itself is usually unstable and might explode on its own.
Once again it's a case of people "knowing everything" about something they have never heard anything about. Anyone who actually lives in a country where old explosives are occasionally surfaced knows that anything besides an onsite detonation is highly unusual and usually only done if the bomb expert is really sure the bomb is stable and doing it onsite would cause unacceptable amounts of damage.
This procedure (evacuate the vincinity, then blow up the bomb/mine with a trigger charge) is exactly how buried bombs in residential areas are handled; this should please environmentalists as it shows that the marine fauna is put on a similar level as humans. There's most likely no more environmentally friendly way to go about it.
I think they flew to the wrong moon and ended up photographing the UESC Marathon instead. I just hope that they don't try to go LCROSS on it; if a large bomb is allowed to detonate in the Engineering Section, the Marathon would be ^&2``~
They made one - well, one that had lower consumption. The 970FX did have a low enough power consumption and TDP for laptop use... Unfortunately, it wasn't faster than the fastest G4s at the time and all compatible northbridges needed more power than those available for the G4.
The "G6" would simply have been the next major PPC family, possibly derived from POWER6; the G4 was the 7xxx series and the G5 was the POWER5-derived 970 series. The closest thing to a G6 would probably be the Cell or the upcoming PowerPC A2. However, the Cell is sufficiently different from vanilla PPC that Apple would've had to rewrite the entire OS from scratch and it's unlikely they would've gone with it.
Again, I'm not saying that the entire PPC line was a failure. I'm just of the opinion that it became bad with, not after, the G5. The G5 simply didn't match the efficiency gains seen elsewhere and scaled neither up nor down well, making it too inflexible to drive an entire market.
You might want to stop stalking him on the toilet then.
If you want a tip: As far as toilet-stalking is concerned, Jeff Bezos is where it's at at the moment. ittoiletstalking.net gave his shit top marks in consistency and fragrance and the toilets he frequents are reported to be fairly accessible.
I'm fairly happy with three buttons and a scroll wheel. I'll have to look at the Magic Mouse, though; two-dimensional scrolling is very nice and I don't think "tilt the scroll wheel" is a particularly good way of implementing it. The Magic might be the first mouse that gets scrolling really right.
PowerPC really went bad with the G5 - while adequate for normal desktop systems, it was too power-hungry for use in laptops, restricting PowerPC laptops to the G4; also, IBM couldn't acheive the high clock speeds the high-end market demanded. I'd qualify the G5 as decent if they ever got the power usage down and/or the clock speed up.
I'm not sure whether the G6 would have fixed those problems but Apple couldn't afford to wait: Their laptops were performance-starved and the G6 would probably have made them both extraordinarily expensive and extraordinarily late - and they had no guarantee it was going to be laptop-ready anyway. Another round of G4 laptops would have made Apple look positively ridiculous.
PowerPC was a sensible choice in the days of the 601 but Intel was an equally sensible choice when the G5 failed to deliver and the G6 was failed to deliver.
That won't be a problem. The rest of the world already deals with some the equipment using metric bolts, screws etc. and some using imperial ones. Even if we switched to metric manufacturing all the way we'd still keep manufacturing imperial stuff for decades as a legacy tech.
At least completely originally write (and there's nothing wrong with it if someone happened to have come up with those exact words before) the entire thing.
It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.
Slashdot Mirror
There are some MMOs with similar mechanics. Cabal Online (some random F2P MMORPG) has a system where people can simply turn off PvP but you can override it by shift-clicking them to target them anyway. Problem: If you attack someone without having successfully invited them to PvP first you accumulate penalties and are also free for anyone to attack.
I didn't play long enough to see whether that system really works but it's there.
Yes, but how long will it take for this technology to permeate through most of the market? We're not just talking Apple devices here; Maemo and Android are two other big touch-operated platforms with web access. Depending on the licensing terms and the maturity of the technology we could be looking at two or three years until the first Apple device comes out and another two to five years until most manufacturers ship such screens.
Thr problem is that we're seeing various conflicting interface modalities here. For example, on the desktop top-level menus only respond after a click - but on the web, any interactive object is assumed to be a link. Therefore web menus have conflicting modalities: If a click pops it up it behaves unlike a link, which is what people don't expect. If a click loads another page it behaves unlike a menu, which can also confuse people. So far web designers tend to make it open on hover in order to preserve the "clicking loads another page" behavior.
This worked until touch devices came up. Now hover does nothing and we might well see a return to "click pops up" - however, that raises new questions such as "What if the menu's header is also a link?". We don't have satisfactory answers to that yet and it's not a problem we can easily fix on the web design side: HTML allows us to attach menus to anything we want and conventional wisdom holds that attaching it to a hyperlink is the way to go as there is no other clean way of having the menu send people to both a category page and individual subpages within that category.
On the other hand, fixing it on the device side is also clunky and possibly unreliable - there are various ways to implement popup menus, from CSS to JavaScript to Flash (although the latter ought to be banned) and the device might not catch them all. Also, how do you trigger the menu now without obstructing the link? One click opens, a second one activates the link? How do people tell whether the thing they just clicked is even a link? And how do they close the menu?
Touch interfaces are relatively young and this is one problem that simply hasn't been fully addressed yet. While we can argue that HTML menus/hover effects/touch interfaces simply shouldn't be used, the real issue is that touch interfaces and mouse interfaces require fundamentally different design approaches in some areas - which the Web simply doesn't allow unless you want to detect touch devices and code special versions of your website for them.
Disclaimer: My only claim to interface design knowledge is a usability course at the university. I do, however, do web development and occasionally GUI programming.
You are aware that drawing tablets are traditionally not touch devices? The stylus you use with a drawing tablet is more than an inert chunk of plastic. I know that some sort of hybrid has been announced recently but we can't expect that kind of technology to cover most or all of the market shortly - and hovering with your finger probably still wouldn't work.
Actually, many of the available apps could (and can!) be mimicked using HTML and JavaScript. Remember that this was the official method of implementing iPhone apps until the people pestered Apple into making Cocoa touch public. Apple originally didn't intend to sell apps and they're just fine with free apps - just look at the App Store. Yes, every developer (actually, every team of developers) needs to pay them 100 bucks but I doubt that 100 bucks per developer are going to be a significant part of Apple's handheld revenue.
And the apps you can't implement with HTML and JavaScript (usually games) are often heavily dependent on multitouch and tilt functionality, which means that they'd have to be written especially for the iPhone (if the iPhone's Flash plugin would even implement them) as there's neither a way of implementing traditional (mouse + keyboard) gaming controls on an iPhone, nor is there a way of properly porting multitouch + tilt to most PCs. So in the end theye Flash games would still provide people with an incentive to buy the iPhone, which would help Apple.
I don't see how Flash would threaten Apple's bottom line. Native apps are faster, don't require an internet connection and have proper control schemes for the device. Random Flash apps are unlikely to run properly; you'd have to look for iPhone-specific ones. Plus, most of the good developers are still going to stick to the App Store because that's where you can actually make money with your app.
Likewise, CSS should really go, for the very same reason. After all, without a uniform WWW theme people are completely unable to ever discern what a link is supposed to be.
Except they aren't; most people are actually smart enough to recognize a link even if it's dark green and plain instead of light blue and underlined. They're also smart enough to recognize a navigation bar or menu, regardless of whether it has popup menus attached or not. Because hover states don't signal interactivity, they implement it; the object they're attached to has the job of signaling it.
Plus, hover menus are an intuitive way of offering many links without cluttering up the site by displaying the entire sitemap. While you could just present people with your entire sitemap or make them click their way through the site one logical (for you) step at a time, most users tend to get confused by having sixty links shoved in their face or by having to navigate fifteen pages to get where they want to.
If you have a fast, unobtrusive alternative to hover menus, feel free to enlighten me. I don't see any. (Yes, you could make people click on the menus to open them but then you need to somehow make it explicitly clear that your menu header is not a link, unlike everything else. Since menus with links as headers are already very common your interface would be less intuitive than one with a popup menu.)
"Why touchscreen devices?" would be the way to go. The problems TFA talks about are not just limited to Flash; modern websites also rely heavily on hover states and it's not always easy to simulate them by examining the JavaScript and CSS and then trying to fake hovering by reinterpreting clicks.
We need to figure out how to properly implement hovering on devices that physically don't allow you to hover. Otherwise it's going to take years until web development catches up with the reality of half the users not being able to access half the features.
Problem: What if I do a clean install of Windows and I don't have another computer nearby to download a browser? There needs to be something in the OS that lets me access the web, even if it's just a menu that allows me to choose between various browsers. Yes, in theory my computer vendor might have given me a CD with a browser on it but that's not a real alternative. Those things get tossed or lost or people install the three years old version of Firefox on them and never bother to update.
One of my colleagues once bought a cheap Chinese MP4 player but it had a Sony battery and got so hot it melted in his pocket. When the doctor cut away his pants to examine the damage it turned out that China had actually partially merged into his leg -- he now has a large chunk of Asia in his lower hip. Pretty disgusting but there are some great camping sites near his knee.
Now he's Chinaman, fighting against injustice by kicking evildoers with a leg that weighs several billion metric tons, which tends to hurt them a lot. His arch nemesis is every single Chinese citizen because they're not too thrilled about some random twit constantly tossing their entire country around. Also, the local tram company; fitting China into a tram is really difficult. He also can't fight injustice during Chinese New Year as his leg goes home to be with its family.
Okay, so I made that up. The tram company doesn't really hate him.
How about Squeak? That's a child-friendly Smalltalk environment for educational use. I think you have fairly little overhead there as well.
Or, of course, you use a Linux-compatible BASIC dialect.
This is compounded by the fact that I called Vonn a Canadian when she's in fact from that funny country south of Canada. Which puts the United States on gold medal parity with Germany until the IOC has filed the paperwork to gain exclusive ownership of Madgalena Neuner.
Two gold medals. The women's downhill medal was won by Lindsey Vonn who competed for the IOC. At least the IOC say so and they're the experts.
Which shouldn't constitute child pornography. Otherwise any recording that at some point includes a minor can be construed as child porn. I'm not even constructing a slippery slopes here; you just defined child pornography as "video and[/or] audio of children without their consent". Even if we assume that children can give their consent (which they legally can't, only their parents can) we still have any video recording with a random child in the background wrongly classified as child pornography.
Yes, spying on people is wrong but please let's not take the stance of the child pornography fearmongers and assume that any depiction of a child is pornographic unless you have a signed and notarized voucher from the parents that states they're okay with the contents and swear it's not pornographic.
Yes, American law allows child porn charges to be brought against this school district if they happen to have filmed a child naked (I'm not going to debate whether or not that should actually qualify as pornography). American law doesn't and definitely shouldn't allow child porn charges just because they happened to film a child at all.
The plaintiffs' lawyers have already pointed out that they reserve the right to tack on child porn charges if they find any applicable material. Asking them to just tack them on and then advocate a very paranoid stance on child porn in court is neither good for their case nor for society as a whole.
I was referring to the torrent of lawsuits you'd immediately run into. All the waivers in the world wouldn't save you from those.
That will not entice them. Eco-activists are humans, therefor all the honor would go to humans and not animals so it's just more animal oppression. Expect PETA to protest that among other things.
Which leaves us with the choice between "we'll just stick a mine on an unguided sailboat and hope it goes in the right direction" and "we'll put a sailor on an inflatable sailboat with an explosive that could go off at any moment in the middle of the open sea". Neither are likely to be very popular. And no, most eco-activists aren't even capable of maneuvering a real sailboat on the open sea.
It turns out that most people think that the seafloor in the most heavily contaminated sea in the world is more expendable than human lives. In addition, you are aware that randomly sending highly trained divers to their deaths is a few orders of magnitude more expensive than developing a special underwater demolitions vehicle? Eco-activists aren't capable of even getting there; they'll get lost and drown before that. And are still stupidly expensive.
Again, just getting them on dry land is almost certain to blow up part of the dock or slope you use. Old explosives can be VERY touchy and ARE utterly unpredictable. Disassembly is pretty much equivalent to remote detonation, except you kill more people and wreck more expensive equipment.
Unfortunately I think that it doesn't get any more eco-friendly. All schemes to get them on dry land end up with the mines blowing up on or in the sea (nothing gained) or making impressive holes in the landscape near the shore (so most of the dirt still goes into the sea) in addition to ruining equipment which still needs to be disposed of.
So unless they find a way to turn whining into negative contamination it's unlikely that any plan involving eco-activists is going to make things greener.
Hitler clearly regretted having put those mines there. I mean, the man committed suicide when he realized the full scope of WWII's outcome.
The problem is that you can't transport many mines on those rafts due to the chance of two of them colliding just a tad too hard. Thus you need to have the mine disposal boat make one full trip per mine. Very ecological. Also, if the raft blows up you still have shrapnel gaily flying through the air, potentially making jolly little holes in the real boat's hull. So you still face the danger of potentially sinking your boat in mine-infested waters, which might set off even more mines.
Then there's the whole issue with retrieving the mines in the first place. Many mines, including some WWII sea mines, are designed to explode when someone tries to remove them. And even those that aren't might pop simply because the pressure differential or the force of moving upwards is enough to set them off. So you'll have some mines go off underwater anyway simply because that's what they were designed to do. No gain there apart from the shreds of mostly biodegradable diver you potentially add to the environment.
Also, what do you do with them once you have them on the surface? Getting them on dry land is almost certainly enough to set some off; old explosives can be very sensitive and are usually detonated onsite because the alternative is much more dangerous. And it's not like they magically become eco-friendly when detonated outside of the water. And trying to crack them open to remove the explosives is just an invitation for tragedy: Even if you get rid of all the triggers the explosive itself is usually unstable and might explode on its own.
Once again it's a case of people "knowing everything" about something they have never heard anything about. Anyone who actually lives in a country where old explosives are occasionally surfaced knows that anything besides an onsite detonation is highly unusual and usually only done if the bomb expert is really sure the bomb is stable and doing it onsite would cause unacceptable amounts of damage.
This procedure (evacuate the vincinity, then blow up the bomb/mine with a trigger charge) is exactly how buried bombs in residential areas are handled; this should please environmentalists as it shows that the marine fauna is put on a similar level as humans. There's most likely no more environmentally friendly way to go about it.
I think they flew to the wrong moon and ended up photographing the UESC Marathon instead. I just hope that they don't try to go LCROSS on it; if a large bomb is allowed to detonate in the Engineering Section, the Marathon would be ^&2``~
~[p[]]*kc3sla/.U
***MESSAGE INTERRUPTED***
The previous release was the omega version of the 63-bit plugin.
They made one - well, one that had lower consumption. The 970FX did have a low enough power consumption and TDP for laptop use... Unfortunately, it wasn't faster than the fastest G4s at the time and all compatible northbridges needed more power than those available for the G4.
The "G6" would simply have been the next major PPC family, possibly derived from POWER6; the G4 was the 7xxx series and the G5 was the POWER5-derived 970 series. The closest thing to a G6 would probably be the Cell or the upcoming PowerPC A2. However, the Cell is sufficiently different from vanilla PPC that Apple would've had to rewrite the entire OS from scratch and it's unlikely they would've gone with it.
Again, I'm not saying that the entire PPC line was a failure. I'm just of the opinion that it became bad with, not after, the G5. The G5 simply didn't match the efficiency gains seen elsewhere and scaled neither up nor down well, making it too inflexible to drive an entire market.
You might want to stop stalking him on the toilet then.
If you want a tip: As far as toilet-stalking is concerned, Jeff Bezos is where it's at at the moment. ittoiletstalking.net gave his shit top marks in consistency and fragrance and the toilets he frequents are reported to be fairly accessible.
I'm fairly happy with three buttons and a scroll wheel. I'll have to look at the Magic Mouse, though; two-dimensional scrolling is very nice and I don't think "tilt the scroll wheel" is a particularly good way of implementing it. The Magic might be the first mouse that gets scrolling really right.
PowerPC really went bad with the G5 - while adequate for normal desktop systems, it was too power-hungry for use in laptops, restricting PowerPC laptops to the G4; also, IBM couldn't acheive the high clock speeds the high-end market demanded. I'd qualify the G5 as decent if they ever got the power usage down and/or the clock speed up.
I'm not sure whether the G6 would have fixed those problems but Apple couldn't afford to wait: Their laptops were performance-starved and the G6 would probably have made them both extraordinarily expensive and extraordinarily late - and they had no guarantee it was going to be laptop-ready anyway. Another round of G4 laptops would have made Apple look positively ridiculous.
PowerPC was a sensible choice in the days of the 601 but Intel was an equally sensible choice when the G5 failed to deliver and the G6 was failed to deliver.
That won't be a problem. The rest of the world already deals with some the equipment using metric bolts, screws etc. and some using imperial ones. Even if we switched to metric manufacturing all the way we'd still keep manufacturing imperial stuff for decades as a legacy tech.
At least completely originally write (and there's nothing wrong with it if someone happened to have come up with those exact words before) the entire thing.
It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.