We don't all actually live in igloos. We just tell you we do to see if you'll believe it.
That said, I do live in an igloo, and after the first few years, you get used to it. Just a pointer--If you're seriously considering moving here, and you get a deal on an igloo, make sure there's no yellow snow on it. Nasty stuff to sleep near.
Give me somthing most of which would make the ancient sodomites cringe in disgust.
Seriously, if you think abortition, gay marraige, and a whole slew of "othewise non-existant" immoral acts are a problem, you obviously have too much time on your hands, or simply no fucking clue.
I'd also ask why murduring innocent citizensis a bigger problem than mudering innocent non-citizens, but I'm sure your rhetoric about it would bore me to tears.
May I suggest you take a long hard look at world hunger, pollution, or, if you simply MUST keep it closer to home, Cancer; the next time you wish to discover a problem.
I would think probably via an adaptive tesselation technique.
Its easy to add polys back in, and there's a number of good algorithms to tell you where and how your polys will be most useful.
If you're more interested in a brute force approach, modern 3d hardware can certainly tesselate for you. A good fragment shader will also help minimize the effects on lighting lighting of your poly drop over flat areas.
Getting rid of unneccessary polys in the first place is what's tough, putting them back in--not so much.
The JVM can be written in anything. You're assuming Java the language is incapable of running outside Java the machine.
This is a common mistake because most Java compilers compile for Java Machines, and the mistake is even more forgivable following an article that compares a native compiler to JVM bytecode inside a Java machine.
This is not, however, the only case.
The bottom line is that machine code generated from any language can interpret Java and run it just in time.
Is why they don't just ship you an original disk labelled "backup" when you buy the damned thing.
Its would inflate the price of it by what? $2? Probably less. Manufacturing is hardly the pricepoint for these things, and they have a pretty good way of pointing out your fair use has been exhausted when you decide to make a copy.
Firstly, most radio music gets played because a record company pushes it. Not because its popular.
If a station precieves a high enough demand for a song outside what is getting pushed, they'll play that too, becasue it will keep the listeners happy, but the thing about the sheep is they generally fall back in line with what gets pushed.
Having sheep call in and request what gets pushed, makes it easy to hide this fact, but try requesting something "just" outside of the current market segement of a station and see if it gets played. (try requesting #45 on a top 40 station or popular local independent musicians (the kind that can still sell a a few thousand tickets per show))
Payola is nothing new, and only in in its most obvious forms has it actually gone away. There's a reason stations give away free CDs, concert tickets, memerobelia and get exclusive interviews with artists when they come to town and its not because the station has payed any money (or, in lager markets, offered more money than a competetor) for it.
Billboard cares nothing about this form of pushing, why would they care about something more obvious or tangable?
Secondly, its not Billboard's job to filter in why a song gets a spin. If there was a sizable demand for the why a song gets spun by the sheep-driven market footing their bills, you can bet there would be a little asterisk or a non-advertisement version of the charts to coincide with what they have now. As it stands, its just more effort to produce and subtracts value from their outcome, becasue it complicates the sheep-ready simplicity of what they are reporting.
Can anyone here spot the poster or moderators here who didn't?
Let me save you all the increadible effort and paste the following from the first paragraph which is obviously too far for some of us to read:
A few companies, like Alienware and Toshiba, have recently introduced upgradeable notebooks, but they each use different standards. Alienware's parts can't be used in Toshiba's notebooks, and vice-versa.
The marketing model you've described is referred to as "multibranding."
Let me ramble please. Essentially, the idea is a company releases a number of "competing brands" in order to increase the number of brands in the market, thereby offering consumers alternatives to brands the company already owns. Good examples of this are Soap (Lever Bros vs. Colgate-Palmolive) and, to a lesser extent, Soft drinks (Coca-Cola vs PspsiCo -- there's some similarity between the drinks and automobiles, the drink companies create new brands to compete with themselves and their aquisitions, which the automobile companies generally don't).
Automobiles are slightly different beast however, because most of the car companies that fall under a parent's umbrella were simply aquired and not created as a new brand to compete with themselves (a notable and unique exception to this rule being Saturn).
It works better for GM to buy Pontiac, Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac and Saab because it not only adds a new brand for them (which does does happen, but isn't the the company's true motive), it also removes a market competetor, and moves someone else's innovations into the company. Over time, the aquired companies get integrated as divisions (which is why at first we saw Dodge, Plymoth and Chrysler all their own flavour of Neon, but recently only Dodge makes them).
Eventually, once whatever the aquisition offers the company aside from the brand, has been absorbed, the aquisition gets renamed and later closed or simply closed.
well in the US at least it's not labled so how do you tell.
Well, it seems to me you petition whatever branch of your american govenment that looks after this--to get off their fat asses and attach a simple sticker or label (not a "warning") about what is GM and what is not.
I think while Greenpeace and other activist groups may or may not be trying to get this lable in place on the grounds of frankenfood FUD, (which I don't buy into much,) I still support them on this issue for exactly YOUR OWN reason.
FUD aside, you should have a right to know what you're eating and be allowed to make choices about it and support what has more value to you. You should be allowed to take taste tests. You should be allowed to buy GM or non-GM food if that's what you want, and that's what you can afford.
I've noticed that metric is down in local bookstores too. (No Borders in Canada)
Part of the problem, is that in 7 years of programming in Java, I've never seen an EXCELLENT Java book. (I'd rate a few as good, mind you, but not enough to quickly cover all the bases of what learned from experience and Javadocs)
The churn of crappy books however, is immense.
Give it 6 months for 1.5 to stop being beta and with the wave of authors touting how to redo everthing in Java 1.5--you'll see a good 1/2 to full rack. Big Changes in the language itself--not just the libraries and so much room for people to update the crapload of fluff they've already written.
There's a commonly misheld conception that just because a language does garbage collection for you, you don't get memory leaks.
While the garbage collection does make generalized memory management easier (i.e. you don't have to worry about when or where to clean up memory you've allocated,) it doesn't really lend itself to the overlooked memory being cleaned up at all.
The sad fact of the matter is that bad programming combined with dynamically sized data structures make it all too easy to keep adding things to an object collection and never releasing them. (i.e. caching them or just being unaware that the referrenced objects are no longer needed)
The flipside is with modern envirnoments like Java and C#, even a crappy profiler will tell you what objects are sucking up your memory and why they're not being let go of.
Slashdot Mirror
Its not like the parent or ANYTHING in this thread is on topic, and frankly, its funny.
Oblig Simpsons quote: Ha-ha!
We don't all actually live in igloos. We just tell you we do to see if you'll believe it.
That said, I do live in an igloo, and after the first few years, you get used to it. Just a pointer--If you're seriously considering moving here, and you get a deal on an igloo, make sure there's no yellow snow on it. Nasty stuff to sleep near.
You show me a non-technical person running linux without X server, I'll show you someone who swtiches back to windows.
Sure, you can become Bob, but when the router/hub/swtich or Bob himeslf start complaining, the jig is up.
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
Seriously, if you think abortition, gay marraige, and a whole slew of "othewise non-existant" immoral acts are a problem, you obviously have too much time on your hands, or simply no fucking clue.
I'd also ask why murduring innocent citizensis a bigger problem than mudering innocent non-citizens, but I'm sure your rhetoric about it would bore me to tears.
May I suggest you take a long hard look at world hunger, pollution, or, if you simply MUST keep it closer to home, Cancer; the next time you wish to discover a problem.
Its easy to add polys back in, and there's a number of good algorithms to tell you where and how your polys will be most useful.
If you're more interested in a brute force approach, modern 3d hardware can certainly tesselate for you.
A good fragment shader will also help minimize the effects on lighting lighting of your poly drop over flat areas.
Getting rid of unneccessary polys in the first place is what's tough, putting them back in--not so much.
This is not, however, the only case.
The bottom line is that machine code generated from any language can interpret Java and run it just in time.
Is why they don't just ship you an original disk labelled "backup" when you buy the damned thing. Its would inflate the price of it by what? $2? Probably less. Manufacturing is hardly the pricepoint for these things, and they have a pretty good way of pointing out your fair use has been exhausted when you decide to make a copy.
Having sheep call in and request what gets pushed, makes it easy to hide this fact, but try requesting something "just" outside of the current market segement of a station and see if it gets played. (try requesting #45 on a top 40 station or popular local independent musicians (the kind that can still sell a a few thousand tickets per show))
Payola is nothing new, and only in in its most obvious forms has it actually gone away. There's a reason stations give away free CDs, concert tickets, memerobelia and get exclusive interviews with artists when they come to town and its not because the station has payed any money (or, in lager markets, offered more money than a competetor) for it.
Billboard cares nothing about this form of pushing, why would they care about something more obvious or tangable?
Secondly, its not Billboard's job to filter in why a song gets a spin. If there was a sizable demand for the why a song gets spun by the sheep-driven market footing their bills, you can bet there would be a little asterisk or a non-advertisement version of the charts to coincide with what they have now. As it stands, its just more effort to produce and subtracts value from their outcome, becasue it complicates the sheep-ready simplicity of what they are reporting.
Its a quote from Arthur C Clarke, who, at the time of posting is still alive.
Let me save you all the increadible effort and paste the following from the first paragraph which is obviously too far for some of us to read:
Let me ramble please. Essentially, the idea is a company releases a number of "competing brands" in order to increase the number of brands in the market, thereby offering consumers alternatives to brands the company already owns. Good examples of this are Soap (Lever Bros vs. Colgate-Palmolive) and, to a lesser extent, Soft drinks (Coca-Cola vs PspsiCo -- there's some similarity between the drinks and automobiles, the drink companies create new brands to compete with themselves and their aquisitions, which the automobile companies generally don't).
Automobiles are slightly different beast however, because most of the car companies that fall under a parent's umbrella were simply aquired and not created as a new brand to compete with themselves (a notable and unique exception to this rule being Saturn).
It works better for GM to buy Pontiac, Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac and Saab because it not only adds a new brand for them (which does does happen, but isn't the the company's true motive), it also removes a market competetor, and moves someone else's innovations into the company. Over time, the aquired companies get integrated as divisions (which is why at first we saw Dodge, Plymoth and Chrysler all their own flavour of Neon, but recently only Dodge makes them).
Eventually, once whatever the aquisition offers the company aside from the brand, has been absorbed, the aquisition gets renamed and later closed or simply closed.
the GNUmato
Well, it seems to me you petition whatever branch of your american govenment that looks after this--to get off their fat asses and attach a simple sticker or label (not a "warning") about what is GM and what is not.
I think while Greenpeace and other activist groups may or may not be trying to get this lable in place on the grounds of frankenfood FUD, (which I don't buy into much,) I still support them on this issue for exactly YOUR OWN reason.
FUD aside, you should have a right to know what you're eating and be allowed to make choices about it and support what has more value to you. You should be allowed to take taste tests. You should be allowed to buy GM or non-GM food if that's what you want, and that's what you can afford.
But it kept breaking every time I moved.
The reason for this, is that by not locking your door, you've assumed some degree of responsiblity for the theft.
This falls under "the world is not black and white"
I haven't had 5 beers, and your spelling still looks horrible.
01
10
Part of the problem, is that in 7 years of programming in Java, I've never seen an EXCELLENT Java book. (I'd rate a few as good, mind you, but not enough to quickly cover all the bases of what learned from experience and Javadocs)
The churn of crappy books however, is immense.
Give it 6 months for 1.5 to stop being beta and with the wave of authors touting how to redo everthing in Java 1.5--you'll see a good 1/2 to full rack. Big Changes in the language itself--not just the libraries and so much room for people to update the crapload of fluff they've already written.
Ironically, the 4th entry on msn goes here
While the garbage collection does make generalized memory management easier (i.e. you don't have to worry about when or where to clean up memory you've allocated,) it doesn't really lend itself to the overlooked memory being cleaned up at all.
The sad fact of the matter is that bad programming combined with dynamically sized data structures make it all too easy to keep adding things to an object collection and never releasing them. (i.e. caching them or just being unaware that the referrenced objects are no longer needed)
The flipside is with modern envirnoments like Java and C#, even a crappy profiler will tell you what objects are sucking up your memory and why they're not being let go of.
Let the Mexican food-eating begin!