I didn't think that this joke would have turned into a coversation about the arrow. I love the arrow!
You are right the avro arrow was WAY ahead of it's time. I've done a bit of research into the plane, just because it's such a beautiful plane. It had many firsts.
The reason why Canada built the plane was because the Canadian Air Force created on paper a list of what they would want from a dream fighter plane. Something that they could use to launch from Toronto and gaurd the Arctic poles from those crazy russians, and those crazy russian nukes.
It was the first plane to fly by wire. All of the control surfaces were computer controlled, like the f117a. To go super sonic, it had a cooling system built into the leading edges of the wings so they wouldn't melt.
The A.V. Roe company built a wack load of sub companies to build exotic materials that didn't really exist. The plane used lots of composite materials and exotic alloys. In the 60's it was just way ahead of it's time.
But the demise of the Arrow is a lot more complex then that the just the "U.S. wanted it destroyed". There are many many many reasons. The first one is that the plane was grosely over budget. At first they were just going to build the air frame without the engine. They were going to buy somebody else's engine. Then when they realized that no one had the engine that they wanted, they decided to build their own, the Iroquos engine. This greatly greatly increased the budget.
They eventually did get the plane flying, and as you know it was a sight to see. Apparently they had it at the boundary of super sonic flight, or I think there is rumors that they did go supersonic. Anyway, they fudged the records to make it look like the plane was slower then it was. They wanted the world to see the true performance of the plane only when it was flying under the Canadian built iroquos engine, which was 30% stronger, and something like 20% lighter. The engine was built, they knew that it was going to be impressive, but the day that they were to test it in the air frame is the day they pulled the plug. The plane was on the air strip ready to go. The engineers were claiming even years later that if that plane had flew it would broken the sound barrier at will.
The other thing that the plane did suffer from was bad timing. The day that the plane had it's first air test(sucessful), was the day that North America found out about Sputnik. Everyone was starting to believe that planes were obsolete! Why would you need a plane to intercept other planes coming over the arctic when it was going to be missles coming over the poles.
Also the U.S. president at that time wanted a joint program of missle defence to shoot down the Russian missles. He wanted to put them North of the Canadian cities, and he said that if Canada didn't agree he would have to put them on U.S. soil where the missles would be shooting down other missles Over Canadian cities.
Also we do get to the U.S. military, but this is a double whammy. Parts of the U.S. air force wanted the plane destroyed, other parts of the U.S. air force wanted to BUY the planes. The parts that wanted to planes destroyed were connected to the U.S. industry that also makes planes. Apparently when the Canadian goverment wanted a report on how it's arrow project was doing they turned to the U.S. military. Where they gave them some kid to do the report, apparently this kid was bribed by the U.S. Industies to make the report look unfavoruable for A.V. Roe.
But when the day came, when the plug was pulled, The American Air Force made an offer to pay for the rest of the project. They were going to buy every single last plane on the assembly line, they were going to pay the Canadian government to keep the project.
But this gets to another point. The arrow project was started under a Conservative federal government, and then later switched to a Liberal goverment in the middle of the project. When the liberal goverment pulled the plu
Heck, if we ever attack a country, she's on the front line singing her heart out. After one of her Monster Ballots, we just walk in with our hockey sticks and Zambonies and clean up the enemies. We don't need fancy things like short range tactical missles, or ugh.. tanks, guns, ammunition.
Actually, on a serious note, I like it that we don't spend anything on military. In the simpson's they used the joke (excuse me if I get this wrong):
Scorpio: "What country do you like the least, Italy or France"
Homer: "France"
Scorpio: "No one ever says Italy"
Then Scorpio blows up France. Well I like it that to the rest of the world Canada = Italy. The U.S. = France.
I can just imagine terrorist meeting... "Guys what country do you like the least? Canada or the US?"
If you are building a site that you will never ever change again. Then I agree.
But with from what I've noticed with clients is that every couple of years they rebuild there site anyway. I've rebuilt sites that before were worrying about issues with a bug with frames in NS4.
Now we rebuild that site, and it's in line with the way things are done today. In a couple of years we will probably be building the site again, to a different tune.
We never build a site for what we think will be. Although we try to make everything work in IE and Mozilla. So anything we build can't be to far from w3c standards.
I absolutely agree with you that there are quirks for every flavour of IE.
Althought most IEs are more the same then different, but there is always exception.
What is a real bitch is having a project manager that goes through all your work and uses IE on a mac. IE for the mac is in no way at all the same browser for windows. It acts completely different. It's not just little quirks here and there.
I think I have a good understanding of the text spewing from my fingers.
You are right. These are specific IE things, but with most of the world is using an IE browser, they are pretty much a standard.
Should people develop for just for IE?: No. People should never turn away a potential audience or customer, when you can easily avoid it.
Will people develop just for IE?: Yes.
Why?: It's the reality of the situation.
But let's take a look at the software industy. Let's compare linux and windows, and your quote.
"Everyone uses Windows!!! Linux is teh suck!"
Apparently lots of companies are saying just that. You can't get a copy of Adobe Photoshop that is designed to run natively on linux. While I agree that this should not be the case. I also agree that this will hopefully not be the case for much longer. It is the reality of the situation right now. The companies do not think that linux is worth there time to develop for. They don't think they are going to get a return on there investment. Although there are companies that are pushing linux, which I do love, but I'm talking about the majority.
-asoap
ps: no offence intended to linux. I love it. I AM pro linux. It's better to be realistic then optimistic or pestimistic.
"Once again, I regret posting in this discussion, as I would have loved to mod you down for being blatantly wrong."
ouch baby... that hurt.
I was participating in a creative discussion. The parent post asked for an example of IE being better then Mozilla, which I attempted to provide. I actually do believe that Mozilla is the better browser. So ease up on the anger.
BUT the issue is that most of the world DOESN'T USE MOZILLA, they use IE. Will you make a website that looks wrong but is still works with w3c standards... But that 95% of the world will not see properly!?!?!
When I develop, I mainly develop in IE, because that's what most people use, yet I do keep mozilla open to make sure stuff works in there. But I do IE as a default, because if I'm in a rush, there is a chance it might not work in moz.. But I will still feel safe knowing that 95% of the people will be able to see it. BUT if I used Moz as my default ( as I would actually like to ) and was rushed, and made a mistake that I wouldn't notice unless I loaded it in IE to find out it was busted. I would run into trouble because almost everybody that viewed it woudldn't be able to!
But yeah, we've run into that "position fixed" issue also, and I totally agree with you. I would much rather that everything was the exact same. Although, no matter what, it doesn't look like that is going to happen. That style border, is an exact reference. It's a w3 standard, and both browser's support it. It's just that ie messed up and made it apply to the inside rather then the outside. We will always have those kinds of differences.
One of the things that I noticed when I was trying to develop one of those funky text fields that scroll with a total custom scroll bar. So basically it would be a div with some text in it. With a bunch of other divs that make up the scroll bar.
When I was making it, I started to try to find out the best way to do it. I quickly found a way in IE to build it extremely easily. I could take advantage of some IE style property that would let me make the div act like a scroll box kind of thing. Where I could very easily scroll up and down.
Then I found out that this was only a IE style, and not w3 compatible. So then I had to resort to a nasty way of making the div act like a mask, and that as you scrolled down the mask would move down and then the div would have to move up. This is accetable, but it just nasty.
Anyway, my point is that, IE's addition to w3 style properites was actually easier to use then a w3 method.
Another point where there is discrepincies, is if you have a table cell with the style: style="border: 1 solid #000000; width:100px;" In IE that cell will have a width of 100px, and a border. While in mozilla it will put the border on the outside of the cell. So it's actual width will be 102px;.
ok.... now I'm ready for hate mail.
-asoap
Ps: I do prefer firefox to IE. I just have to develop for what most of the world uses.
Disclaimer: I'm not a hippie. I do believe in all that "save the environment" tree hugging BS, but I don't think issues like these are as simple as people would like to believe.
It's kind of weird seeing this article on/. considering that I just watched "The fog of war" on the weekend. I highly reccommend everyone watch it.
Anyway, the movie is 11 lessons from Robert S. McNamara. He was the secretary of defence for Kennedy, and was there for the cuban missle crisis. He also participated in fire bombing japan during WWII. It's interesting wisdom right from the horse's mouth.
One of the interesting lessons he has is that "There must be proportionality to war". In one night they had killed 100,000 people by firebombing bombing Tokyo. He addmitted that if the U.S. had lost WWII, he would have been charged and convicted of war crimes. Well, they then went on to firbomb 66 other japanese cities. In the end of it, they had killed more japanese civilians then the atomic bombs.
So after watching the movie. I was trying to figure out more depth to this lesson. As you point out they could have saved lives by killing hundreds (millions?) of thousands of people. It could easily be millions, remember 1 attack on Tokyo killed 100,000 people. With 66 more attacks, they could have reached the million people mark. I think his point is that if you're willing to drop a massive bomb and kill a shit load of people, you better be ready to have it done to you. It's the basis of Mutually Assured Destruction. If you kill a shit load of people you actually raise the bar of acceptable behavior in war.
So if it was acceptable to drop the bomb and firebomb japan. Would it have been acceptable to that being done to the U.S.?
I think it's an addiction. Personally I think everyone should be playing Enemy Territory.
It's 100% Free. You just download, install, and play. You don't need no steam engine, or anything else. You DON'T need to have a copy of Wolfenstein.
The graphics are a bit dated by today's standards, but they still do look amaizing in my opinion. They are deffinately leaps and bounds better then CS.
The gameplay in ET is just amaizing. With all the classes, and the large scale maps. There is so many differnt things to do, and different stratigies. I've been playing the game regularly for over half a year and I'm still learning a lot.
The game is so damn impressive, it is hard to get me to play any other game. I guess that's how people are with their counter strike.
Then isn't it great when you respawn, you have to get into your car to drive across town to die again?! Then respawn and drive across town to die again1?!!!?!??!
There is so much needless annoying things in that game.
When you can't figure out the stupid little annoying thing that you have to do, they punish you. Then when you can't figure it out the next time, they punish you again.
This is where we don't see eye to eye. Because real motorsports are as you say a "TECHNOLOGY formula". This idea of making all the cars equal, so that it's driver vs. driver is new. In the old days they didn't all say "Ok, drumb brakes and carburated engines is all we need. Let's draw the line here and not develop cars any further." That's like saying "8k is all you need for an OS." Carol Shelby built the cobra because he thought he could build a car better then the competition. He didn't want to build the exact same car as someone else.
Personally I think if you want to make all the cars equal, and have it driver vs. driver. Everyone should get John Deere riding mowers, and race those.
This is the old argument of "how fast do you want to go?" "How much money do you have?".
The real question you should be asking is. How do you stop it? Nascar seems like the one organization that tries to make everything equal. But it totally fails. The same rule applies. Whoever has the most money has the best shot at winning. In Nascar all of the cars are the same. The exact same bodies, and most of the settings are the same. The only difference is the motors, but those are more similar than different. They use technology that went out of the style in the mid 70's mixed with modern technology. For what? It's still not even. The team with the most money will have the best driver. The team with the most money will hire the best mechanics to setup the car the best.
So if it's not even in the first place, then why try to make all the cars even also? That is how you get F1.
Dynamic Suspension (the suspension changing automatically via electronics) and also changing settings of the car automatically from the pits has been outlawed in f1. So when you see the driver pressing buttons he can be doing stuff like changing fuel maps, suspension damping, viewing differnt informatio. They also have a 'turbo' button. Which has nothing do with a turbocharger. But it works like this. If you are at the last few laps of a race, and you want to catch the guy ahead of you, you press this button which lets you raise the rpms of the motor another 500 rpms, which gives you a little extra boost. But you also sacrifice the health of the motor.
Years ago, when a driver crashed, you would see him get out and throw his steering wheel against something. That doesn't happen any more because those steering wheels cost $50,000.
This is both not as bad and much worse on Slashdot. It's not as bad because there's more diversity of opinion here, but it's much worse because Slashdot's "moderation" system makes it possible for unpopular opinions to be literally silenced, pushing them down below the threshold of visibility.
You are right that there is a lot of diverse opinions here, which can also cause those unpopular views to be brought to forefront due to the "moderation" system. There are enough people with unpopular views, that also have the ability to mod up.
Whenever I read the comments of an article, I always get the ideas of both sides of an argument/converstion. Regardless if the unpopular view has been moderated down, because the people flaming the unpopular view are usually modded up. Also the people flaming the unpopular view usually quote the unpopular view, letting you get a peek at the.... *drum roll*... unpopular view.
It was some years ago though. Before any attack on Afghanistan. They showed how the military does a drop. Where they dump soldiers, cannons, humvees, etc... out of a plane. They actually pack hard cardboard under the humvees and stuff, so that when they hit the ground. The springs on the humvee collapse, and crush the cardboard, thus preventing damage to the truck.
What was suprising was that the guys working the artillery pulled out paper and a calculator and started to do trajectories by hand. It seemed that the military was worried about electronics falling out of a plane.
It makes sense, but then again, I don't see how a person would survive, and a hand held computer wouldn't.
Then again, this was probably more then a few years ago, that I saw this.
I kind of agree with you, and also don't agree with you.
It's not vital in the sense, that you need nice graphics to make an application run faster, or the os to boot up faster. That's obvious.
But for getting Linux a bigger piece of the desktop pie, I think that graphic design is extremely vital.
I'm a graphic designer, that works on websites. My project manager and I create the way that a user interacts with the website. Although while working or even just talking about a project, our progammer does come up with a brilliant ideas. I have to take his ideas and make it work for the whole project.
Graphic designers don't worry about arrays, hashes, apis, pointers, compilers, or any of that stuff. Our world revolves around one thing: Designing that layer between the user and the gears doing the work behind the curtain.
That's why I think that alot of the small details that will seperate the linux desktop from being good or great will come from graphic designers.
Can they claim that all of there documents is there "Intelectual Property?" Therefore then they can not release any of there IP in court, because it could harm them?
Kinda like how SCO can't show which code is infringing upon there IP?
It seems like SCO had no problem doing BS like this. How come they can't do the same?
Hahaha... I bought the Indiana Jones' dvd box set, because I loved the movies when I was younger. I still love the original, and I also still love the last crusade. But when I watched temple of doom again, I was almost sick.
You are totally right, it's a horrible children's movie. The best part is when Indie is fighting the bad guy on that conveyor machine. And the leading lady is playing shadow boxing, mimicing Indie's moves. She's just punching the air. "GO INDIE! KICK HIS ASS!!!"
Which is the exact same thing a 6 year old kid would do.
How do people read the script, and not say.. "Ugh... George, what is this garbage?" Are they that blind? Are they in fear of loosing there job?
I think I have it figured out. I think I know how these movies are made. I'm totally making this up, but this must be true, because it's the simplest answer possible:
Lucas' is the only person that has a full copy of script. Whenever they film a scene, then and only then are the actors given the lines for the scene, no doubt by George Himself. He can't trust anybody else with a copy of the script. That explains the horrible acting. You would act horrible too if you were just given the lines 5 minutes before taping. All of the special effects crew are never given any part of script. They are just given something that barely passes as a description of what happens in the scene, so then they can do there job. But when they have questions, George just yells "FASTER, and MORE INTENSE!!!" Thus, by using this method, the only way people know that the movie is a horrible piece of trash, is when it's completed, and then it's to late.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get it.. where is the break through? What am I missing?
-asoap
I'll give it a try.
I assume you then use your pinky for a & z.
-asoap
While you do make a very good point about the xbox and the money issue, you are still spreading BLASPHEMY!!!
Personally, I'm buying a new machine this week or next week. I might even buy 2 mice just because I'll probably brake one in the first week.
-asoap
You are right the avro arrow was WAY ahead of it's time. I've done a bit of research into the plane, just because it's such a beautiful plane. It had many firsts.
The reason why Canada built the plane was because the Canadian Air Force created on paper a list of what they would want from a dream fighter plane. Something that they could use to launch from Toronto and gaurd the Arctic poles from those crazy russians, and those crazy russian nukes.
It was the first plane to fly by wire. All of the control surfaces were computer controlled, like the f117a. To go super sonic, it had a cooling system built into the leading edges of the wings so they wouldn't melt.
The A.V. Roe company built a wack load of sub companies to build exotic materials that didn't really exist. The plane used lots of composite materials and exotic alloys. In the 60's it was just way ahead of it's time.
But the demise of the Arrow is a lot more complex then that the just the "U.S. wanted it destroyed". There are many many many reasons. The first one is that the plane was grosely over budget. At first they were just going to build the air frame without the engine. They were going to buy somebody else's engine. Then when they realized that no one had the engine that they wanted, they decided to build their own, the Iroquos engine. This greatly greatly increased the budget.
They eventually did get the plane flying, and as you know it was a sight to see. Apparently they had it at the boundary of super sonic flight, or I think there is rumors that they did go supersonic. Anyway, they fudged the records to make it look like the plane was slower then it was. They wanted the world to see the true performance of the plane only when it was flying under the Canadian built iroquos engine, which was 30% stronger, and something like 20% lighter. The engine was built, they knew that it was going to be impressive, but the day that they were to test it in the air frame is the day they pulled the plug. The plane was on the air strip ready to go. The engineers were claiming even years later that if that plane had flew it would broken the sound barrier at will.
The other thing that the plane did suffer from was bad timing. The day that the plane had it's first air test(sucessful), was the day that North America found out about Sputnik. Everyone was starting to believe that planes were obsolete! Why would you need a plane to intercept other planes coming over the arctic when it was going to be missles coming over the poles.
Also the U.S. president at that time wanted a joint program of missle defence to shoot down the Russian missles. He wanted to put them North of the Canadian cities, and he said that if Canada didn't agree he would have to put them on U.S. soil where the missles would be shooting down other missles Over Canadian cities.
Also we do get to the U.S. military, but this is a double whammy. Parts of the U.S. air force wanted the plane destroyed, other parts of the U.S. air force wanted to BUY the planes. The parts that wanted to planes destroyed were connected to the U.S. industry that also makes planes. Apparently when the Canadian goverment wanted a report on how it's arrow project was doing they turned to the U.S. military. Where they gave them some kid to do the report, apparently this kid was bribed by the U.S. Industies to make the report look unfavoruable for A.V. Roe.
But when the day came, when the plug was pulled, The American Air Force made an offer to pay for the rest of the project. They were going to buy every single last plane on the assembly line, they were going to pay the Canadian government to keep the project.
But this gets to another point. The arrow project was started under a Conservative federal government, and then later switched to a Liberal goverment in the middle of the project. When the liberal goverment pulled the plu
-asoap
Celine Dion is our weapon of mass destruction!
Heck, if we ever attack a country, she's on the front line singing her heart out. After one of her Monster Ballots, we just walk in with our hockey sticks and Zambonies and clean up the enemies. We don't need fancy things like short range tactical missles, or ugh.. tanks, guns, ammunition.
Actually, on a serious note, I like it that we don't spend anything on military. In the simpson's they used the joke (excuse me if I get this wrong):
Scorpio: "What country do you like the least, Italy or France"
Homer: "France"
Scorpio: "No one ever says Italy"
Then Scorpio blows up France. Well I like it that to the rest of the world Canada = Italy. The U.S. = France.
I can just imagine terrorist meeting... "Guys what country do you like the least? Canada or the US?"
-asoap
If you are building a site that you will never ever change again. Then I agree.
But with from what I've noticed with clients is that every couple of years they rebuild there site anyway. I've rebuilt sites that before were worrying about issues with a bug with frames in NS4.
Now we rebuild that site, and it's in line with the way things are done today. In a couple of years we will probably be building the site again, to a different tune.
We never build a site for what we think will be. Although we try to make everything work in IE and Mozilla. So anything we build can't be to far from w3c standards.
-asoap
Althought most IEs are more the same then different, but there is always exception.
What is a real bitch is having a project manager that goes through all your work and uses IE on a mac. IE for the mac is in no way at all the same browser for windows. It acts completely different. It's not just little quirks here and there.
I hate that bloody browser.
-asoap
You are right. These are specific IE things, but with most of the world is using an IE browser, they are pretty much a standard.
Should people develop for just for IE?: No. People should never turn away a potential audience or customer, when you can easily avoid it.
Will people develop just for IE?: Yes.
Why?: It's the reality of the situation.
But let's take a look at the software industy. Let's compare linux and windows, and your quote.
Apparently lots of companies are saying just that. You can't get a copy of Adobe Photoshop that is designed to run natively on linux. While I agree that this should not be the case. I also agree that this will hopefully not be the case for much longer. It is the reality of the situation right now. The companies do not think that linux is worth there time to develop for. They don't think they are going to get a return on there investment. Although there are companies that are pushing linux, which I do love, but I'm talking about the majority.
-asoap
ps: no offence intended to linux. I love it. I AM pro linux. It's better to be realistic then optimistic or pestimistic.
ouch baby... that hurt.
I was participating in a creative discussion. The parent post asked for an example of IE being better then Mozilla, which I attempted to provide. I actually do believe that Mozilla is the better browser. So ease up on the anger.
BUT the issue is that most of the world DOESN'T USE MOZILLA, they use IE. Will you make a website that looks wrong but is still works with w3c standards... But that 95% of the world will not see properly!?!?!
When I develop, I mainly develop in IE, because that's what most people use, yet I do keep mozilla open to make sure stuff works in there. But I do IE as a default, because if I'm in a rush, there is a chance it might not work in moz.. But I will still feel safe knowing that 95% of the people will be able to see it. BUT if I used Moz as my default ( as I would actually like to ) and was rushed, and made a mistake that I wouldn't notice unless I loaded it in IE to find out it was busted. I would run into trouble because almost everybody that viewed it woudldn't be able to!
But yeah, we've run into that "position fixed" issue also, and I totally agree with you. I would much rather that everything was the exact same. Although, no matter what, it doesn't look like that is going to happen. That style border, is an exact reference. It's a w3 standard, and both browser's support it. It's just that ie messed up and made it apply to the inside rather then the outside. We will always have those kinds of differences.
-asoap
When I was making it, I started to try to find out the best way to do it. I quickly found a way in IE to build it extremely easily. I could take advantage of some IE style property that would let me make the div act like a scroll box kind of thing. Where I could very easily scroll up and down.
Then I found out that this was only a IE style, and not w3 compatible. So then I had to resort to a nasty way of making the div act like a mask, and that as you scrolled down the mask would move down and then the div would have to move up. This is accetable, but it just nasty.
Anyway, my point is that, IE's addition to w3 style properites was actually easier to use then a w3 method.
Another point where there is discrepincies, is if you have a table cell with the style: style="border: 1 solid #000000; width:100px;" In IE that cell will have a width of 100px, and a border. While in mozilla it will put the border on the outside of the cell. So it's actual width will be 102px;.
ok.... now I'm ready for hate mail.
-asoap
Ps: I do prefer firefox to IE. I just have to develop for what most of the world uses.
It's kind of weird seeing this article on /. considering that I just watched "The fog of war" on the weekend. I highly reccommend everyone watch it.
Anyway, the movie is 11 lessons from Robert S. McNamara. He was the secretary of defence for Kennedy, and was there for the cuban missle crisis. He also participated in fire bombing japan during WWII. It's interesting wisdom right from the horse's mouth.
One of the interesting lessons he has is that "There must be proportionality to war". In one night they had killed 100,000 people by firebombing bombing Tokyo. He addmitted that if the U.S. had lost WWII, he would have been charged and convicted of war crimes. Well, they then went on to firbomb 66 other japanese cities. In the end of it, they had killed more japanese civilians then the atomic bombs.
So after watching the movie. I was trying to figure out more depth to this lesson. As you point out they could have saved lives by killing hundreds (millions?) of thousands of people. It could easily be millions, remember 1 attack on Tokyo killed 100,000 people. With 66 more attacks, they could have reached the million people mark. I think his point is that if you're willing to drop a massive bomb and kill a shit load of people, you better be ready to have it done to you. It's the basis of Mutually Assured Destruction. If you kill a shit load of people you actually raise the bar of acceptable behavior in war.
So if it was acceptable to drop the bomb and firebomb japan. Would it have been acceptable to that being done to the U.S.?
-asoap
It's 100% Free. You just download, install, and play. You don't need no steam engine, or anything else. You DON'T need to have a copy of Wolfenstein.
The graphics are a bit dated by today's standards, but they still do look amaizing in my opinion. They are deffinately leaps and bounds better then CS.
The gameplay in ET is just amaizing. With all the classes, and the large scale maps. There is so many differnt things to do, and different stratigies. I've been playing the game regularly for over half a year and I'm still learning a lot.
The game is so damn impressive, it is hard to get me to play any other game. I guess that's how people are with their counter strike.
Although, I can't wait for doom3.
-asoap
There is so much needless annoying things in that game.
When you can't figure out the stupid little annoying thing that you have to do, they punish you. Then when you can't figure it out the next time, they punish you again.
-asoap
Personally I think if you want to make all the cars equal, and have it driver vs. driver. Everyone should get John Deere riding mowers, and race those.
-asoap
The real question you should be asking is. How do you stop it? Nascar seems like the one organization that tries to make everything equal. But it totally fails. The same rule applies. Whoever has the most money has the best shot at winning. In Nascar all of the cars are the same. The exact same bodies, and most of the settings are the same. The only difference is the motors, but those are more similar than different. They use technology that went out of the style in the mid 70's mixed with modern technology. For what? It's still not even. The team with the most money will have the best driver. The team with the most money will hire the best mechanics to setup the car the best.
So if it's not even in the first place, then why try to make all the cars even also? That is how you get F1.
-asoap
Years ago, when a driver crashed, you would see him get out and throw his steering wheel against something. That doesn't happen any more because those steering wheels cost $50,000.
-asoap
Sounds like the perfect opportunity to use a Segway!
-asoap
You are right that there is a lot of diverse opinions here, which can also cause those unpopular views to be brought to forefront due to the "moderation" system. There are enough people with unpopular views, that also have the ability to mod up.
Whenever I read the comments of an article, I always get the ideas of both sides of an argument/converstion. Regardless if the unpopular view has been moderated down, because the people flaming the unpopular view are usually modded up. Also the people flaming the unpopular view usually quote the unpopular view, letting you get a peek at the.... *drum roll*... unpopular view.
-asoap
You know... bust out the good o'l long division.
-asoap
It was some years ago though. Before any attack on Afghanistan. They showed how the military does a drop. Where they dump soldiers, cannons, humvees, etc... out of a plane. They actually pack hard cardboard under the humvees and stuff, so that when they hit the ground. The springs on the humvee collapse, and crush the cardboard, thus preventing damage to the truck.
What was suprising was that the guys working the artillery pulled out paper and a calculator and started to do trajectories by hand. It seemed that the military was worried about electronics falling out of a plane.
It makes sense, but then again, I don't see how a person would survive, and a hand held computer wouldn't.
Then again, this was probably more then a few years ago, that I saw this.
-asoap
It's not vital in the sense, that you need nice graphics to make an application run faster, or the os to boot up faster. That's obvious.
But for getting Linux a bigger piece of the desktop pie, I think that graphic design is extremely vital.
I'm a graphic designer, that works on websites. My project manager and I create the way that a user interacts with the website. Although while working or even just talking about a project, our progammer does come up with a brilliant ideas. I have to take his ideas and make it work for the whole project.
Graphic designers don't worry about arrays, hashes, apis, pointers, compilers, or any of that stuff. Our world revolves around one thing: Designing that layer between the user and the gears doing the work behind the curtain.
That's why I think that alot of the small details that will seperate the linux desktop from being good or great will come from graphic designers.
-asoap
Now I feel a little more dead inside.
-asoap
Kinda like how SCO can't show which code is infringing upon there IP?
It seems like SCO had no problem doing BS like this. How come they can't do the same?
-asoap
You are totally right, it's a horrible children's movie. The best part is when Indie is fighting the bad guy on that conveyor machine. And the leading lady is playing shadow boxing, mimicing Indie's moves. She's just punching the air. "GO INDIE! KICK HIS ASS!!!"
Which is the exact same thing a 6 year old kid would do.
How do people read the script, and not say.. "Ugh... George, what is this garbage?" Are they that blind? Are they in fear of loosing there job?
I think I have it figured out. I think I know how these movies are made. I'm totally making this up, but this must be true, because it's the simplest answer possible: Lucas' is the only person that has a full copy of script. Whenever they film a scene, then and only then are the actors given the lines for the scene, no doubt by George Himself. He can't trust anybody else with a copy of the script. That explains the horrible acting. You would act horrible too if you were just given the lines 5 minutes before taping. All of the special effects crew are never given any part of script. They are just given something that barely passes as a description of what happens in the scene, so then they can do there job. But when they have questions, George just yells "FASTER, and MORE INTENSE!!!" Thus, by using this method, the only way people know that the movie is a horrible piece of trash, is when it's completed, and then it's to late.
Damn, I'm good.
-asoap