According to hallflife2.net, which styles itself as "the definitive source for Half Life 2", the requirements for the game are as follows:
Minimum Requirements
1.2 GHz Processor
256MB RAM
DirectX 7 level graphics card
Windows 2000/XP/ME/98
Recommended System
2.4 GHz Processor
512MB RAM
DirectX 9 level graphics card
Windows 2000/XP
So the answer to that would be a big fat no. Unless the box says anything different then a) Micheal was 100% relevant with his editorial comment; b) Valve/Vivendi (whoever's behind the draconian copy protection/spyware mechanisms) have been very underhand in their dealings with the public; and c) there are going to be a lot of people out there who don't have an Internet connection and find, when they get the box home, they don't have a game either!
Point being of course, people have paid for it but it won't work. Don't you read even the headlines to these articles before posting ill-informed asinine comments?
Your argument does nothing but support my point of view. It's a geek site with a geek readership. Someone who's written their own browser, or is using a text browser, will not get much out of Slashdot unless they have implemented some horrendously complex markup-parse-'n'-fix to get round the fact that there is no specification which Slashdot conforms to.
Parsing software is written in the first-hand from *language* *specifications*. Not with the aim of viewing particular instances of crude and broken code. If that were the aim we'd all use 'Slashbrowse' to view/.
"Last time I looked tables were still in the current HTML spec..."
Which spec in particular is Slashdot aiming at here? Because its aim is pretty poor whatever standard you use.
On a further note, I just checked Slashdot in lynx and the result is gruesome and impractical.
Yeah, news for nerds. Possibly the kind of nerds that could handle HTML's abbbr tag to explain in an unobtrusive fashion what this particular LSB stands for. Especially as the side they link to is currently a melted pile of slag.
But my question is, "why are they still producing large table-driven pages"?
Does/. publish browser usage statistics? Is it just laziness on the part of the slashcode team that they haven't joined us in the 21st century; or are they really catering to *all* of the remaining NS4 browsers? That is, both of them.
If you're using KDE that might swap you between desktops.
What definitely works is Ctrl-PgUp/PgDn to move left/right through the tabs, and Ctrl-n where 'n' is a keypad number from 1 upwards. The tabs are numbered correspondingly although this is a bit unintuitive as they don't have the numbers printed on the tab bars. You have to count...
Quite, does anyone know why they don't? I had a look at the slashcode website FAQ and they said "do it yourself" with respect to HTML spec compliance. What's the big problem? Slashcode's HTML, if we can call it that, was last considered cutting edge in the 14th century. Monks have illuminated manuscripts with more up-to-date HTML.
For now, I'm pondering buying an USB2 card, because gnomad2 refuses to work with usb1.1 it seems.
I don't think that'll solve your problems. I use Gnomad2 to connect to my (USB 1.1/IEEE 1394) Nomad Zen and it works fine. So, you're problem shouldn't be the USB version in use...
That's absurd. The connection between between the coca plant and crack is as remote as iron ore and a bullet. Should we start a war on metals because people can be killed with metal implements?
Well, lions and tigers and bears are stronger and have better claws and teeth. Even a baboon could easily rip a grown man to shreds. I guess because there are animals that are better than humans out there in some aspects, that this whole God thing is a farce. You have me convinced.
But, we're talking about design and structure here, not scale. Do lions/tigers/bears (Oh my!) actually have better teeth and claws, or just bigger?
Saying something is more advanced in design just because there's more of it is absurd. I don't know the biology of it but I imagine that if a human canine grew to the equivalent size of a bear's it would be just as strong. So where does your argument lie now?
In truth you're arguing something else entirely.
And I just used irony, or the intentional arguing of your opponent's argument to make your opponent sound stupid.
Well, you may think yourself a fine proponent of the art of Socratic irony, but that does not make it so. What you're doing instead is closer to a straw-man approach to winning the argument. (Is it just me or are there an extraordinary high number of Wizard of Oz references in this post?) You see, your statements first have to be relevant to the situation at hand. Which they aren't.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong... but I learnt somewhere that not only are octopus eyes as complex as human eyes they are actually better "designed" since they do not have blind spots. I've always thought that was as compelling argument as any against creationism. God may think you're the bees knees, but he gave the good eyes to the celaphopods...
Could at least have gone to the effort of cutting out the adverts when you posted the article. It's actually harder to read here than it is on the original page, where at least the adverts were in a different colour.
Re:Disturbing Experiment: Who is "I"?
on
Flying By Brain
·
· Score: 1
Cloning human beings like there's no tomorrow and killing Tibetan nuns are perfectly acceptable in China. Let's know the difference between a Chinese bigot and a Western person.
How do you know this to be the case?
Have you actually done a survey of the Chinese people to find their opinions on the matter. Or are you, as I would guess, just making shit up?
I'm loathe to do this so early in the discussion but I believe it is directly pertinent to the example you gave, so forgive me. I will now invoke Godwin's Law (gulp):
If we assume for the moment that both Communist China and Nazi Germany are/were dictatorships, what's the difference between annexing Tibet and annexing Poland? Nothing. They are both reprehensible acts deplored by the outside world but enforced by military rule within the relevant states.
Re:Disturbing Experiment: Who is "I"?
on
Flying By Brain
·
· Score: 1
Are you an Indian bigot? You smell like one.
Mmm, tasty troll... munch, munch. (For the record I am Scots.)
The grandparent article is not referring to Western ethics in 1591. The article is referring to Western ethics in 2004.
And neither was I referring to 16C Western ethics. But if you truly believe that Western society has one homogeneous set of beliefs you must not ever leave the house. Or turn on the telly. Or read a newspaper. Or even browse the net.
But as you're obviously doing the latter, you must just be a fool.
The Chinese bigots are fond of setting the date back to 10th century AD. Then, they compare Chinese ethics and Western ethics. The Chinese also compare standards of living between China and the West in 10 A.D.
What has any of this got to do with the existence of a unified and definable system of Western ethics? Nowt. Care to explain? Or would you prefer to just cast aspersions?
Only a bigot would act in this way.
What way would that be? Would that be the way of someone who sees nationality as a reason to denigrate people? If anyone is a bigot in this conversation it is you. You assume that everyone has your viewpoint in the Western world. However, it would appear that by arguing to the contrary I am in fact proving you wrong.
I know many people in my day to day life with a wide set of views of ethical conduct. The local minister, the Wee Frees, the noisy neighbours, the neds, thieves, Tories and Liberals, Greens and UKIP freaks. The world is full of conflicting opinions and the vast majority of that conflict comes down to ethics: a set of principles of right conduct.
I'm willing to compromise. Shut the door to Chinese immigration into the USA. Why? Well, the standard of living in 10th century China was much higher than that of the Apache Indian "nation" on the Western plains of North America. There is no reason to allow a Chinese bigot into the USA since the Chinese are doing so well.
You do realise you're ranting, don't you? We weren't discussing Chinese immigration into the United States of America. In fact, I believe the exact point of discussion was whether Western society has an ethical code which the rest of the world lacks, particularly on medical/biological grounds.
Instead you've turned it into a rant about Chinese immigrants into (I presume) your home country. Which kind of makes you out to be a bit racist, doesn't it? Can someone who makes remarks like that about fellow human beings on something as arbitrary as skin colour or place of birth really be taken seriously in a discussion of morality?
Re:Disturbing Experiment: Who is "I"?
on
Flying By Brain
·
· Score: 1
I don't believe it. Are you serious? Are you actually suggesting that a) there is such a thing as "Western" ethics and b) that it differs in any meaningful way from any other points of the compass?
Your Western ethical ideal is not in the remotest bit definable. Study the history of European philosophy if you are under any illusions that there is a single ideal.
You're right about the voltage levels... UK used to use 240V and mainland Europe something else, I'm not sure what. But we standardised on 230V at least 5 years ago.
And in fact I can confirm this much, having had cause in the past to test a mains supply with a multimeter. Not exact, but the nearest round number is definitely 230V AC.
Been doing a CS degree for three years before I decided that enough was enough and I needed to learn C (my uni's language of choice to teach with is Java).
My God is it a breath of fresh air. I don't know if there's an equivalent of The C Programming Language for Java -- but if there isn't then anyone who starts programming in a C-like language should read K&R. I feel like I've learned so much recently and I couldn't even tell you why.
Science is a method, not a religion. Its fundamental principle is one of constant refinement towards some unachievable truth; and has nothing to do wit finding the simplest answer, but the answer that fits.
Slashdot Mirror
Minimum Requirements
- 1.2 GHz Processor
- 256MB RAM
- DirectX 7 level graphics card
- Windows 2000/XP/ME/98
Recommended System- 2.4 GHz Processor
- 512MB RAM
- DirectX 9 level graphics card
- Windows 2000/XP
So the answer to that would be a big fat no. Unless the box says anything different then a) Micheal was 100% relevant with his editorial comment; b) Valve/Vivendi (whoever's behind the draconian copy protection/spyware mechanisms) have been very underhand in their dealings with the public; and c) there are going to be a lot of people out there who don't have an Internet connection and find, when they get the box home, they don't have a game either!Point being of course, people have paid for it but it won't work. Don't you read even the headlines to these articles before posting ill-informed asinine comments?
Haven't watched the original or L&O:Special Vicitims Unit, but Criminal Intent is fantastic. I can't wait 'til five get the next season.
;)
Vincent rules. He just sniffs the guy and knows where he did, and how, and when, and...
And he seems to speak at least a dozen languages.
Your argument does nothing but support my point of view. It's a geek site with a geek readership. Someone who's written their own browser, or is using a text browser, will not get much out of Slashdot unless they have implemented some horrendously complex markup-parse-'n'-fix to get round the fact that there is no specification which Slashdot conforms to.
/.
Parsing software is written in the first-hand from *language* *specifications*. Not with the aim of viewing particular instances of crude and broken code. If that were the aim we'd all use 'Slashbrowse' to view
"Last time I looked tables were still in the current HTML spec..."
Which spec in particular is Slashdot aiming at here? Because its aim is pretty poor whatever standard you use.
On a further note, I just checked Slashdot in lynx and the result is gruesome and impractical.
Yeah, news for nerds. Possibly the kind of nerds that could handle HTML's abbbr tag to explain in an unobtrusive fashion what this particular LSB stands for. Especially as the side they link to is currently a melted pile of slag.
But my question is, "why are they still producing large table-driven pages"?
/. publish browser usage statistics? Is it just laziness on the part of the slashcode team that they haven't joined us in the 21st century; or are they really catering to *all* of the remaining NS4 browsers? That is, both of them.
Does
If you're using KDE that might swap you between desktops.
What definitely works is Ctrl-PgUp/PgDn to move left/right through the tabs, and Ctrl-n where 'n' is a keypad number from 1 upwards. The tabs are numbered correspondingly although this is a bit unintuitive as they don't have the numbers printed on the tab bars. You have to count...
Quite, does anyone know why they don't? I had a look at the slashcode website FAQ and they said "do it yourself" with respect to HTML spec compliance. What's the big problem? Slashcode's HTML, if we can call it that, was last considered cutting edge in the 14th century. Monks have illuminated manuscripts with more up-to-date HTML.
Why??
That's absurd. The connection between between the coca plant and crack is as remote as iron ore and a bullet. Should we start a war on metals because people can be killed with metal implements?
And you are sooooo stupid you can't even do basic reading comprehension. The word used was 'has' not 'had'; only the latter implies it was done.
But, we're talking about design and structure here, not scale. Do lions/tigers/bears (Oh my!) actually have better teeth and claws, or just bigger?
Saying something is more advanced in design just because there's more of it is absurd. I don't know the biology of it but I imagine that if a human canine grew to the equivalent size of a bear's it would be just as strong. So where does your argument lie now?
In truth you're arguing something else entirely.
And I just used irony, or the intentional arguing of your opponent's argument to make your opponent sound stupid.
Well, you may think yourself a fine proponent of the art of Socratic irony, but that does not make it so. What you're doing instead is closer to a straw-man approach to winning the argument. (Is it just me or are there an extraordinary high number of Wizard of Oz references in this post?) You see, your statements first have to be relevant to the situation at hand. Which they aren't.
Roll up, roll up!
Buy a copy of my revolutionary new Reduced Christianity, in ten easy-to-follow rules ;)
That's probably the explanation I've been looking for all these years ;)
(chuckles)
I like the sig.
I'm still trying to work out if it fits in with the ol' Russel catalogue paradox. (brain fizzing)
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong ... but I learnt somewhere that not only are octopus eyes as complex as human eyes they are actually better "designed" since they do not have blind spots. I've always thought that was as compelling argument as any against creationism. God may think you're the bees knees, but he gave the good eyes to the celaphopods...
Could at least have gone to the effort of cutting out the adverts when you posted the article. It's actually harder to read here than it is on the original page, where at least the adverts were in a different colour.
How do you know this to be the case?
Have you actually done a survey of the Chinese people to find their opinions on the matter. Or are you, as I would guess, just making shit up?
I'm loathe to do this so early in the discussion but I believe it is directly pertinent to the example you gave, so forgive me. I will now invoke Godwin's Law (gulp):
If we assume for the moment that both Communist China and Nazi Germany are/were dictatorships, what's the difference between annexing Tibet and annexing Poland? Nothing. They are both reprehensible acts deplored by the outside world but enforced by military rule within the relevant states.
Mmm, tasty troll... munch, munch. (For the record I am Scots.)
And neither was I referring to 16C Western ethics. But if you truly believe that Western society has one homogeneous set of beliefs you must not ever leave the house. Or turn on the telly. Or read a newspaper. Or even browse the net.But as you're obviously doing the latter, you must just be a fool.
What has any of this got to do with the existence of a unified and definable system of Western ethics? Nowt. Care to explain? Or would you prefer to just cast aspersions?
What way would that be? Would that be the way of someone who sees nationality as a reason to denigrate people? If anyone is a bigot in this conversation it is you. You assume that everyone has your viewpoint in the Western world. However, it would appear that by arguing to the contrary I am in fact proving you wrong.
I know many people in my day to day life with a wide set of views of ethical conduct. The local minister, the Wee Frees, the noisy neighbours, the neds, thieves, Tories and Liberals, Greens and UKIP freaks. The world is full of conflicting opinions and the vast majority of that conflict comes down to ethics: a set of principles of right conduct.
You do realise you're ranting, don't you? We weren't discussing Chinese immigration into the United States of America. In fact, I believe the exact point of discussion was whether Western society has an ethical code which the rest of the world lacks, particularly on medical/biological grounds.
Instead you've turned it into a rant about Chinese immigrants into (I presume) your home country. Which kind of makes you out to be a bit racist, doesn't it? Can someone who makes remarks like that about fellow human beings on something as arbitrary as skin colour or place of birth really be taken seriously in a discussion of morality?
I don't believe it. Are you serious? Are you actually suggesting that a) there is such a thing as "Western" ethics and b) that it differs in any meaningful way from any other points of the compass?
Your Western ethical ideal is not in the remotest bit definable. Study the history of European philosophy if you are under any illusions that there is a single ideal.
You're right about the voltage levels... UK used to use 240V and mainland Europe something else, I'm not sure what. But we standardised on 230V at least 5 years ago.
And in fact I can confirm this much, having had cause in the past to test a mains supply with a multimeter. Not exact, but the nearest round number is definitely 230V AC.
Yes, you could complain that you're giving to a for-profit organisation. But you'd be wrong.
Been doing a CS degree for three years before I decided that enough was enough and I needed to learn C (my uni's language of choice to teach with is Java).
My God is it a breath of fresh air. I don't know if there's an equivalent of The C Programming Language for Java -- but if there isn't then anyone who starts programming in a C-like language should read K&R. I feel like I've learned so much recently and I couldn't even tell you why.
So what you're saying is that:
a) Linux != GNU
b) GNU != Unix
therefore
c) Linux != Unix
What??
Science is a method, not a religion. Its fundamental principle is one of constant refinement towards some unachievable truth; and has nothing to do wit finding the simplest answer, but the answer that fits.