That aside, am I the only person who remembers reading this "bomb" months back? The plan was that instead of checking for individual features (and coding around their lack case-by-case, like we will still get to do with OpenGL) the developer would check for a DirectX version, leaving fewer opportunities for wonky bugs from weird support combinations.
Seems like the DX way would be a good thing to me; your game will display more properly and you should have less support issues. The less exceptions you have in your code the easier it is to write, debug and maintain.
Didn't Bush spend 90% of his presidency up until 9/11 on vacation? And doesn't he also take quite a few vacations now? The "well deserved" part comes from EARNING the vacation, something Bush has never done.
One is that it is possible to be industrialized and not destroy the environment in the process. Its more expensive, but that research and expence will lead to more growth, not somehow throw us back to the stone age.
Second, if the third world modernizes enough its unlikely that we will have anymore major wars. Americans (and other first world nations) aren't typically willing to blow themselves up to destroy other nations, and I think that has a lot to do with the fact that our basic needs are easily met. Once everyone is on that level (which also means more economic growth, by the way), the world should be a safer place.
You only need to look at history to see why helping other nations get themselves going in the modern world is a good thing. WW2 was largely a result of WW1 and the German economy collasping under heavy war reperations.
. If mom and dad say "no porn," a kid is going to try to look for some anyway. If he's blocked, he'll probably think "damn" and find something else to do, instead. If he's motivated enough to circumvent the block, then perhaps another talk with the parents is in order.
Hmm.. I think if the parents say that to the kid, he'll be motiviated to find it just because they said not to. This sort of thing isn't limited to kids either by the way.
The internet is not the only place to find porn.. you forget about magazines and DVDs too (usually in the same house as the parents that want to shelter their kids).
Hmm, I didn't realize it was the governments job to enforce decency. I don't see that part anywhere in the US constitution... can someone point out where it is in the Australian one?
Dude chill. You know you can exclude stories posted by certain editors right? Just go exclude zonk. I think that's why Jon Katz went away; lots of people started ignoring him (as I did).
i don't have a problem with mysql closing off their enterprise version (provided they still obey the gpl properly) but i don't think it is a very bright idea, since they can't call back the older 'enterprise' releases, and someone out there will take it upon themselves to start improving it.
Don't they own the code though? Who would sue them for violating the GPL? It seems they can take the code thus far and say its not longer GPL if they want. What in the GPL prevents the actual copyright owner from doing whatever they want?
No, VS2005 is not a comparable product to DW. You can build websites from it, that's hardly its most used function. Programming is, not being an HTML editor.
And the other 10%? We just let then get away with it, right? I mean, 90% is good.
So what really happens to the 10%? They never do it again because of a fine? They stop driving if their license is supsended? If you think that, I have a bridge to sell you.
You'd certainly be satisfied if your car started 90% of the time, or if you took home 90% of your pay, right? (If this is true, I'll send you my address, and you can send me the other 10% each week, okay?)
Nice strawman. Its impossible to stop 100% of any kind of crime.
What TYPE of accidents?
Rear end collisions.
I can certainly see an increase in fender-benders when drivers slam on the brakes to stop (which means they were travaling too fast to begin with- again, poor driving), and get rear-ended. But I also see a reduction in FATAL 'T-bone' crashes.
The assumptions you make are staggering. Its not possible to be going the speed limit and be able to go through a yellow light? Yes, you reduce fatal accidents a little and increase rear end collisions quite a bit. The end result is that accident rates go up, meaning insurance rates go up, meaning it costs society quite a bit. Adding 1.5 seconds to yellow light time ALSO reduces fatal T-bone accidents and doesn't create other kinds of accidents. In other words, the total number of accidents is reduced, and we don't have to pay for cameras, some of which are rigged, and higher insurance premiums. Guess who also is the biggest supporter of red light cameras? Yes, insurance companies!
Nope- when drivers beleive they are no longer there, accidents go down. Whether or not the cameras are actually there makes no difference- it's the different actions the DRIVERS take, based on what they beleive that results on more/fewer accidents.
Research shows otherwise. Go ahead read it. If no one knows the cameras are there, then the t-bone you're so worried about will remain the same. Wasn't that the point of your camera system?
And a Good Driver will not change the way they drive just because a camera is pointed at them, just like a Good Citizen will not change the way they act if a camera is pointed at them. The only people who change their actions are people who are afraid of getting caught. In other words, people who were doing something wrong to begin with. Hence my 'poor drivers' comment.
A good driver that has heard stories about cameras sending tickets for yellow lights will be much more likely to stop on yellow (thus increasing risk of rear end collisions). You assume that usually safe drivers aren't affected by cameras, but they are. Almost everyone changes their behavior when they are being watched regardless of whether or not what they are doing is wrong. Take for example couples in Britain not kissing each other good bye when there's a camera that can see them.
Now, an obvious exception exists where other conditions are changed- such as Yellow Lights being shortened, etc. But if that has happened, it's trivial to prove- sit there with a video camera thru one cycle of the traffic light.
Yellows don't need to be shortened to cause a rise in accidents when RL cameras are installed. Even lights that are properly timed show an increase in accidents. Its also not trivial to prove the light was rigged; it takes signficant time and expense to do so.
You're the one plugging your ears and yelling 'NA NA NA NA I wanna get away with poor driving!!!'
Hmm, well I pointed you to research and you ignore it. You also claim I want to get away with bad driving, which is amusing because my suggestion doesn't make anything already illegal legal, and its more effective than red light cameras. Cameras increase accident rates regardless of the yellow light time. But of course you'll just dismiss any facts that get in the way of your world view. Neo-con by any chance?
Secondly before you get angry and JnJ for being monsters, remember that (in the US) if you don't defend your trademark you lose it.
You know what, I don't give a shit. When a huge multination company uses an entity who's ONLY purpose is to help those in need, they are monsters. I could give a damn if J&J loses their trade mark... though shit for them for picking a mark created by the Red Cross years before.
Well I guess you conside that it does matter to careful drivers.
Nevermind that a citizen should not have to be harrased by government when living their everyday lives. How about we just go with much suggestion that doesn't put the burden on innocent people to get one intersection fixed at a time?
And let those that break the law get away with it. Good job!
Did you even read my post? I'm not going to both asking if you read the links, its obvious you didn't. We don't need the cameras at all, because increasing yellow light time will stop 90% of the violations. As in 90% of cars that previously were running the light no longer are.
Is the law supposed to serve some purpose, or is it there to follow no matter how stupid?
Ignore the research if you want, but when RLC go onto an intersection the number of accidents increase. Its a direct corolation, because when they're removed, accident rates go down.
Could be because people slam on their brakes as soon as the light turns yellow for fear of being ticketed. That fear is increased as knowledge that cameras purposely ticket people for driving through a yellow light spreads.
But go ahead, plug your ears and yell NA NA NA NA You're just a bunch of lawbreakers!!!
Re:"The silent majority" is uninformed.
on
Storm Worm Rising
·
· Score: 1
The usual stuff. Clippy, Outlook, "you appear to be writing a letter", Word's grammar checker... that sort of thing. Nip over to annoyances.org and you'll find a hundred or so examples.
None of those things are with Windows itself though. Annoyances.org isn't the collection of old ladies you discussed, and I'm willing to be quite a bit of/.ers post over there, so I doubt its unbiased. Annoying things are hardly a reason to HATE MS though.
Oh do behave. That argument might fly for specialist drafting or accountancy software, but not here. For the market segment under discussion, all people want is a browser, a word processor, something to check their email. Maybe an instant messenger if they're a bit advanced.
All of the Linux distros I've seen pack in much more than that, which seems like overkill to me. I'd also have to think that the group would find a whole new slew of anoyances with Linux as well. Especially if they can't playback music or watch videos (does YouTube work w/Linux?).
No. They are ACCUSING the person who pays for the internet service of (mis-)using that service to commit Copyright violations. If the person who pays for the connection can show they are not the ones who did it, then the RIAA will move on to the real perpetrators. Otherwise, it's completely reasonable to hold the 'owner' responsible for damage done by his property.
No, its not reasonable at all.
If I worked for 'Joe's Autoshop', and downloaded kiddy pron on Joe's DSL line, the cops sure as hell would come for Joe. Then he'd offer evidence that he was out of town when it happened, and that _I_ was working at that time and had access to the computer. Then the cops would release him and come for me. See? Simple.
And if Joe isn't out of town? See, that's the problem, just because it COULD be you doesn't mean it was, and more often than not you won't be able to prove it wasn't you. Hence the reason we have a presumption of innocence.
Again, the cops would come to me (as the owner of the computer) first. I can then show them the broken window, provide an alibi, and they'll let me go about my business.
What do you suggest the cops do? Arrest random people off the street rather than start with the owner of the computer?
And if your window wasn't broken? Its possible that the person that commited the crime left no evidence, this is especially true in the case of computers. I suggest the cops try to gather more evidence that will lead them to the criminal, instead of showing their total lack of logical reasoning.
I have indeed heard of towns shortening the Yellow period in order to 'catch' more people running the red. Of course... if you are a careful driver, it shouldn't matter.
What does being careful have to do with proceeding through a yellow light? What about lights that are illegally set to less than three seconds of yellow time (violation of FEDERAL law)?
How about that red light cameras increase the number of accidents? Or that making yellows 1.5 seconds longer can REDUCE red light violations by 90%?
I guess none of the matters, because its the governments right to make laws to find new ways to generate revenue.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh, because if PC World says so, it must be true.
I'm sure games will run REALLY well in that setup...
What exactly does that have to do with things from a game developers perspective? My point is that things should be better now on the PC.
That aside, am I the only person who remembers reading this "bomb" months back? The plan was that instead of checking for individual features (and coding around their lack case-by-case, like we will still get to do with OpenGL) the developer would check for a DirectX version, leaving fewer opportunities for wonky bugs from weird support combinations.
Seems like the DX way would be a good thing to me; your game will display more properly and you should have less support issues. The less exceptions you have in your code the easier it is to write, debug and maintain.
Didn't Bush spend 90% of his presidency up until 9/11 on vacation? And doesn't he also take quite a few vacations now? The "well deserved" part comes from EARNING the vacation, something Bush has never done.
A few things.
One is that it is possible to be industrialized and not destroy the environment in the process. Its more expensive, but that research and expence will lead to more growth, not somehow throw us back to the stone age.
Second, if the third world modernizes enough its unlikely that we will have anymore major wars. Americans (and other first world nations) aren't typically willing to blow themselves up to destroy other nations, and I think that has a lot to do with the fact that our basic needs are easily met. Once everyone is on that level (which also means more economic growth, by the way), the world should be a safer place.
You only need to look at history to see why helping other nations get themselves going in the modern world is a good thing. WW2 was largely a result of WW1 and the German economy collasping under heavy war reperations.
And for the record, Christians are after the Truth as well, and we're glad you capitalized it. :)
What if the Truth is shown to not include god or a son of god, that JC was just a nice guy?
America's founding fathers are considered philosophers, as were the men that they borrowed ideas from (Keyes, et. al.).
No, but it sure sounds like everyone there is being forced to pay for it.
I don't see why this is needed at all; parents can already buy filtering products if they are worried.
. If mom and dad say "no porn," a kid is going to try to look for some anyway. If he's blocked, he'll probably think "damn" and find something else to do, instead. If he's motivated enough to circumvent the block, then perhaps another talk with the parents is in order.
Hmm.. I think if the parents say that to the kid, he'll be motiviated to find it just because they said not to. This sort of thing isn't limited to kids either by the way.
The internet is not the only place to find porn.. you forget about magazines and DVDs too (usually in the same house as the parents that want to shelter their kids).
Hmm.. I wonder if people in East Berlin a few years ago though 1984 was a work of fiction.
Free market has nothing to do with censorship policies. I'm sure you can find plenty of free market nations that censored ideas.
Hmm, I didn't realize it was the governments job to enforce decency. I don't see that part anywhere in the US constitution... can someone point out where it is in the Australian one?
Dude chill. You know you can exclude stories posted by certain editors right? Just go exclude zonk. I think that's why Jon Katz went away; lots of people started ignoring him (as I did).
i don't have a problem with mysql closing off their enterprise version (provided they still obey the gpl properly) but i don't think it is a very bright idea, since they can't call back the older 'enterprise' releases, and someone out there will take it upon themselves to start improving it.
Don't they own the code though? Who would sue them for violating the GPL? It seems they can take the code thus far and say its not longer GPL if they want. What in the GPL prevents the actual copyright owner from doing whatever they want?
No, VS2005 is not a comparable product to DW. You can build websites from it, that's hardly its most used function. Programming is, not being an HTML editor.
And the other 10%? We just let then get away with it, right? I mean, 90% is good.
So what really happens to the 10%? They never do it again because of a fine? They stop driving if their license is supsended? If you think that, I have a bridge to sell you.
You'd certainly be satisfied if your car started 90% of the time, or if you took home 90% of your pay, right? (If this is true, I'll send you my address, and you can send me the other 10% each week, okay?)
Nice strawman. Its impossible to stop 100% of any kind of crime.
What TYPE of accidents?
Rear end collisions.
I can certainly see an increase in fender-benders when drivers slam on the brakes to stop (which means they were travaling too fast to begin with- again, poor driving), and get rear-ended. But I also see a reduction in FATAL 'T-bone' crashes.
The assumptions you make are staggering. Its not possible to be going the speed limit and be able to go through a yellow light? Yes, you reduce fatal accidents a little and increase rear end collisions quite a bit. The end result is that accident rates go up, meaning insurance rates go up, meaning it costs society quite a bit. Adding 1.5 seconds to yellow light time ALSO reduces fatal T-bone accidents and doesn't create other kinds of accidents. In other words, the total number of accidents is reduced, and we don't have to pay for cameras, some of which are rigged, and higher insurance premiums. Guess who also is the biggest supporter of red light cameras? Yes, insurance companies!
Nope- when drivers beleive they are no longer there, accidents go down. Whether or not the cameras are actually there makes no difference- it's the different actions the DRIVERS take, based on what they beleive that results on more/fewer accidents.
Research shows otherwise. Go ahead read it. If no one knows the cameras are there, then the t-bone you're so worried about will remain the same. Wasn't that the point of your camera system?
And a Good Driver will not change the way they drive just because a camera is pointed at them, just like a Good Citizen will not change the way they act if a camera is pointed at them. The only people who change their actions are people who are afraid of getting caught. In other words, people who were doing something wrong to begin with. Hence my 'poor drivers' comment.
A good driver that has heard stories about cameras sending tickets for yellow lights will be much more likely to stop on yellow (thus increasing risk of rear end collisions). You assume that usually safe drivers aren't affected by cameras, but they are. Almost everyone changes their behavior when they are being watched regardless of whether or not what they are doing is wrong. Take for example couples in Britain not kissing each other good bye when there's a camera that can see them.
Now, an obvious exception exists where other conditions are changed- such as Yellow Lights being shortened, etc. But if that has happened, it's trivial to prove- sit there with a video camera thru one cycle of the traffic light.
Yellows don't need to be shortened to cause a rise in accidents when RL cameras are installed. Even lights that are properly timed show an increase in accidents.
Its also not trivial to prove the light was rigged; it takes signficant time and expense to do so.
You're the one plugging your ears and yelling 'NA NA NA NA I wanna get away with poor driving!!!'
Hmm, well I pointed you to research and you ignore it. You also claim I want to get away with bad driving, which is amusing because my suggestion doesn't make anything already illegal legal, and its more effective than red light cameras. Cameras increase accident rates regardless of the yellow light time. But of course you'll just dismiss any facts that get in the way of your world view. Neo-con by any chance?
Does that mean you're OK with doctors shooting people in the street? After all, they save so many other lives.
Nice attempt at a straw man. Trademark infringment is not the same as killing people.
Laws are not designed to protect the "greater good."
Might want to re-read the constitution.
Heh...opps.. thanks for making my laugh at my mistake.
Its still non profit; the proceeds from the kids sold by the ARC go to disaster relief funds.
I really don't care if some company is harmed by an entity that is honestly helping those in need.
Secondly before you get angry and JnJ for being monsters, remember that (in the US) if you don't defend your trademark you lose it.
You know what, I don't give a shit. When a huge multination company uses an entity who's ONLY purpose is to help those in need, they are monsters. I could give a damn if J&J loses their trade mark... though shit for them for picking a mark created by the Red Cross years before.
J&J can rot in hell for all I care.
Well I guess you conside that it does matter to careful drivers.
Nevermind that a citizen should not have to be harrased by government when living their everyday lives. How about we just go with much suggestion that doesn't put the burden on innocent people to get one intersection fixed at a time?
And let those that break the law get away with it. Good job!
Did you even read my post? I'm not going to both asking if you read the links, its obvious you didn't. We don't need the cameras at all, because increasing yellow light time will stop 90% of the violations. As in 90% of cars that previously were running the light no longer are.
Is the law supposed to serve some purpose, or is it there to follow no matter how stupid?
No- poor driving (and possibly shortened yellow lights) increases accidents.
Ignore the research if you want, but when RLC go onto an intersection the number of accidents increase. Its a direct corolation, because when they're removed, accident rates go down.
Could be because people slam on their brakes as soon as the light turns yellow for fear of being ticketed. That fear is increased as knowledge that cameras purposely ticket people for driving through a yellow light spreads.
But go ahead, plug your ears and yell NA NA NA NA You're just a bunch of lawbreakers!!!
The usual stuff. Clippy, Outlook, "you appear to be writing a letter", Word's grammar checker... that sort of thing. Nip over to annoyances.org and you'll find a hundred or so examples.
/.ers post over there, so I doubt its unbiased. Annoying things are hardly a reason to HATE MS though.
None of those things are with Windows itself though. Annoyances.org isn't the collection of old ladies you discussed, and I'm willing to be quite a bit of
Oh do behave. That argument might fly for specialist drafting or accountancy software, but not here. For the market segment under discussion, all people want is a browser, a word processor, something to check their email. Maybe an instant messenger if they're a bit advanced.
All of the Linux distros I've seen pack in much more than that, which seems like overkill to me. I'd also have to think that the group would find a whole new slew of anoyances with Linux as well. Especially if they can't playback music or watch videos (does YouTube work w/Linux?).
No. They are ACCUSING the person who pays for the internet service of (mis-)using that service to commit Copyright violations.
If the person who pays for the connection can show they are not the ones who did it, then the RIAA will move on to the real perpetrators. Otherwise, it's completely reasonable to hold the 'owner' responsible for damage done by his property.
No, its not reasonable at all.
If I worked for 'Joe's Autoshop', and downloaded kiddy pron on Joe's DSL line, the cops sure as hell would come for Joe. Then he'd offer evidence that he was out of town when it happened, and that _I_ was working at that time and had access to the computer. Then the cops would release him and come for me. See? Simple.
And if Joe isn't out of town? See, that's the problem, just because it COULD be you doesn't mean it was, and more often than not you won't be able to prove it wasn't you. Hence the reason we have a presumption of innocence.
Again, the cops would come to me (as the owner of the computer) first. I can then show them the broken window, provide an alibi, and they'll let me go about my business.
What do you suggest the cops do? Arrest random people off the street rather than start with the owner of the computer?
And if your window wasn't broken? Its possible that the person that commited the crime left no evidence, this is especially true in the case of computers. I suggest the cops try to gather more evidence that will lead them to the criminal, instead of showing their total lack of logical reasoning.
I have indeed heard of towns shortening the Yellow period in order to 'catch' more people running the red. Of course... if you are a careful driver, it shouldn't matter.
What does being careful have to do with proceeding through a yellow light? What about lights that are illegally set to less than three seconds of yellow time (violation of FEDERAL law)?
How about that red light cameras increase the number of accidents? Or that making yellows 1.5 seconds longer can REDUCE red light violations by 90%?
I guess none of the matters, because its the governments right to make laws to find new ways to generate revenue.