Why doesn't anyone use water wheels anymore? They work on gravity alone, not water speed, right? (At least the "water goes into a bucket on the wheel from the top of the wheel" type.)
I felt the same way. Liked the first one, each subsequent half as much as the previous one. I could see where the asymptotic curve was heading and abandoned it by book 5 or so.
Found the complete unabridged audiobooks on bittorrent somewhere and briefly flirted with the idea of getting those, but realized that was silly; it's not like they'd get better with someone else's voice and me having grown older (and hopefully somewhat more discerning).
Serious question; different than what? What are you using for a basis?
I started with EQ and been around most of them since then and haven't found anything to keep me going. But, I'm old, and family and real life keeps me busy, so it might not be the games themselves so much as my context.
I love TED, but *THAT* talk was one of the most truly fascinating I've ever seen. I'm glad you brought it up (but I would have if someone else hadn't.) Great stuff.
I can't remember the formula, but I believe there is one that would give you a rate of transfer (and/or time taken) for the air to move from the Enterprise to space given some parameters; the pressure differential from inside to outside, the size of the hole, and some metric of the gas escaping (atomic weight; density? I've long since forgotten.)
Of course, as the gas escapes the pressure changes so there'd be some calculus involved.
> Assuming they wanted it to grab a significant share of the browser market, have they dropped the ball, or is this part of the plan?
That's a pretty big assumption, but let's run with that. Anyone who's used the web much understands that Chrome isn't anywhere close to being finished. It is clearly a "it runs well enough to not be embarassing *cough*Cuil*cough*, so let's release what we got" version. And google isn't dumb; they're going to release a lot more functionality on it over time.
So, and I'm not prescient nor even very smart, I believe that they have neither dropped the ball, because I don't think they're done, nor do I think this surge in usage was "part of their plan". Can one PLAN what users do, or how many users do it? Maybe; I sure can't. And it's not even relevant, really.
So, I believe the author's hypothesis is flawed; they AREN'T trying to grab a big market share. With this release. Yet. Right now. At the present time. ad nauseum.
Looking at their history, they have had a tendency to do these "point" releases of stuff that did a few core things, pretty well, then add more bells and whistles, each of which did their thing pretty well. Over time, you get a pretty damn nice product from them. THEN we'll see how market share goes.
But now, with this, is just not the right time. They're putting down the outriggers; eventually the crane will be steady, and then the BrowserWorldDomination building goes up.
I've read this a lot lately in car rags and while I have no legitimate reason to doubt it, I've wondered, Why does the engine not sound ANY different? If there's no fuel injection going on, there's no combustion, and that seems to me like it'd change the sound of the vehicle quite drastically. Yet it doesn't.
What am I missing here, since I obviously am missing something!
It can, but only in precious few circumstances. Generally in "soft" surfaces like gravel. When the tires are locked in these conditions, they tend to "dig in" the surface, and/or build up a wedge of debris ahead of them. With ABS, they roll over it.
> With the brakes locked, you slide almost as far on snow as you do on dry tarmac.
I'm not sure I'm reading your context here correctly, but with no ABS and locked tires, you will slide considerably further on snow than on dry tarmac/asphalt/cement.
I grew up and learned to drive in the US midwest before ABS was prevalent and where we did get considerable snow.
I don't know about "ripping off", but I'd heard this tale LONG before Windows (at least the 3.x, or 9x varieties) came on the scene.
Except I'd heard it was SunOS 4.x that would only use at least as much RAM as it had swap... I was transitioning from SunOS 4.x/NeWS/etc. to full on Solaris 2.x at the time, so I'm probably mis-remembering versions and such.
But it was definitely a unix that had this RAM/swap issue; not Windows.
I believe you are wrong on one point; the martyr card is played - his credibility among the only people who gave him any to begin with, has just soared.
(Most slashdotter's could shit better protocols in their sleep).
I appreciate your confidence in me, being a/.er, but I'd like to hope that most of us don't shit ANYTHING in our sleep. Why would we want to start with a protocol?
I might be misreading here*, but from what I read the carts had 128 bytes of RAM, but the ROMs could have somewhere on the order of 4KB, up to around 35KB with paging/bank switching.
So... yeah, the game had 128 bytes to store stuff once running, but the game CODE itself could be quite a bit bigger, and then burned to ROM.
Re:More than scientific learning
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
Amen. Although I would have no way of reflecting on the event, I'm rather hoping we eat ourselves with a strangelet or black hole. It would be supremely awesome, IMO.
Even better would be some other civilization witnessing it however many years later, and to be able to gauge their reactions. "DAMN, dude did you see THAT!?"
Re:More than scientific learning
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
Re:More than scientific learning
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
Doomsayers (other than the weird cultist ones) almost NEVER say "THIS IS IT!". They always give themselves an out by saying "THIS MIGHT BE IT!", and then have decent PR spin or the cunning to stay out of the limelight for awhile when this wasn't, in fact, it.
One day they'll be right of course, and it is for this eventuality that all progress should cease immediately.
Slashdot Mirror
Why doesn't anyone use water wheels anymore? They work on gravity alone, not water speed, right? (At least the "water goes into a bucket on the wheel from the top of the wheel" type.)
Are/were they just too inefficient?
Agree completely. I went back to EQ a couple times, but couldn't handle the lack of people in all the classic zones I remember so well. =(
I felt the same way. Liked the first one, each subsequent half as much as the previous one. I could see where the asymptotic curve was heading and abandoned it by book 5 or so.
Found the complete unabridged audiobooks on bittorrent somewhere and briefly flirted with the idea of getting those, but realized that was silly; it's not like they'd get better with someone else's voice and me having grown older (and hopefully somewhat more discerning).
Serious question; different than what? What are you using for a basis?
I started with EQ and been around most of them since then and haven't found anything to keep me going. But, I'm old, and family and real life keeps me busy, so it might not be the games themselves so much as my context.
I, like you it seems, keep looking however.
I love TED, but *THAT* talk was one of the most truly fascinating I've ever seen. I'm glad you brought it up (but I would have if someone else hadn't.) Great stuff.
Yup. Amazing in that, and despite the rabid anti-popularity, I still like him.
Hated "Gangs of New York" though. I just didn't get it at all.
I can't remember the formula, but I believe there is one that would give you a rate of transfer (and/or time taken) for the air to move from the Enterprise to space given some parameters; the pressure differential from inside to outside, the size of the hole, and some metric of the gas escaping (atomic weight; density? I've long since forgotten.)
Of course, as the gas escapes the pressure changes so there'd be some calculus involved.
> Assuming they wanted it to grab a significant share of the browser market, have they dropped the ball, or is this part of the plan?
That's a pretty big assumption, but let's run with that. Anyone who's used the web much understands that Chrome isn't anywhere close to being finished. It is clearly a "it runs well enough to not be embarassing *cough*Cuil*cough*, so let's release what we got" version. And google isn't dumb; they're going to release a lot more functionality on it over time.
So, and I'm not prescient nor even very smart, I believe that they have neither dropped the ball, because I don't think they're done, nor do I think this surge in usage was "part of their plan". Can one PLAN what users do, or how many users do it? Maybe; I sure can't. And it's not even relevant, really.
So, I believe the author's hypothesis is flawed; they AREN'T trying to grab a big market share. With this release. Yet. Right now. At the present time. ad nauseum.
Looking at their history, they have had a tendency to do these "point" releases of stuff that did a few core things, pretty well, then add more bells and whistles, each of which did their thing pretty well. Over time, you get a pretty damn nice product from them. THEN we'll see how market share goes.
But now, with this, is just not the right time. They're putting down the outriggers; eventually the crane will be steady, and then the BrowserWorldDomination building goes up.
Good point; thanks.
I work for a company that buys me MS Office. Given that I am out $0.00 for either OO or MSO, is it worth giving this a try?
> ...then the fuel injectors shut off.
I've read this a lot lately in car rags and while I have no legitimate reason to doubt it, I've wondered, Why does the engine not sound ANY different? If there's no fuel injection going on, there's no combustion, and that seems to me like it'd change the sound of the vehicle quite drastically. Yet it doesn't.
What am I missing here, since I obviously am missing something!
> ABS increases your stopping distance?
It can, but only in precious few circumstances. Generally in "soft" surfaces like gravel. When the tires are locked in these conditions, they tend to "dig in" the surface, and/or build up a wedge of debris ahead of them. With ABS, they roll over it.
> With the brakes locked, you slide almost as far on snow as you do on dry tarmac.
I'm not sure I'm reading your context here correctly, but with no ABS and locked tires, you will slide considerably further on snow than on dry tarmac/asphalt/cement.
I grew up and learned to drive in the US midwest before ABS was prevalent and where we did get considerable snow.
I don't know about "ripping off", but I'd heard this tale LONG before Windows (at least the 3.x, or 9x varieties) came on the scene.
Except I'd heard it was SunOS 4.x that would only use at least as much RAM as it had swap... I was transitioning from SunOS 4.x/NeWS/etc. to full on Solaris 2.x at the time, so I'm probably mis-remembering versions and such.
But it was definitely a unix that had this RAM/swap issue; not Windows.
I believe you are wrong on one point; the martyr card is played - his credibility among the only people who gave him any to begin with, has just soared.
SNMP. The least "S" "P" out there that I've ever had to deal with, anyway.
You're lucky then. There are other protocols that are FAR more complex than SMTP.
Perhaps I am, but I said SNMP, not SMTP.
SNMP. The least "S" "P" out there that I've ever had to deal with, anyway.
(Most slashdotter's could shit better protocols in their sleep).
I appreciate your confidence in me, being a /.er, but I'd like to hope that most of us don't shit ANYTHING in our sleep. Why would we want to start with a protocol?
I might be misreading here*, but from what I read the carts had 128 bytes of RAM, but the ROMs could have somewhere on the order of 4KB, up to around 35KB with paging/bank switching.
So... yeah, the game had 128 bytes to store stuff once running, but the game CODE itself could be quite a bit bigger, and then burned to ROM.
Or not? I really don't know.
* http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/01856/pastAtari.htm
Amen. Although I would have no way of reflecting on the event, I'm rather hoping we eat ourselves with a strangelet or black hole. It would be supremely awesome, IMO.
Even better would be some other civilization witnessing it however many years later, and to be able to gauge their reactions. "DAMN, dude did you see THAT!?"
http://www.answers.com/joke
Doomsayers (other than the weird cultist ones) almost NEVER say "THIS IS IT!". They always give themselves an out by saying "THIS MIGHT BE IT!", and then have decent PR spin or the cunning to stay out of the limelight for awhile when this wasn't, in fact, it.
One day they'll be right of course, and it is for this eventuality that all progress should cease immediately.
This is right after it rubs lotion on its skin. It does this whenever it is told.
Oh, don't be so sure. I'm sure I've seen that "i++;" line somewhere before...
Actually, this and cases like it have nothing to do with American prisons' overpopulation.
The "War on Drugs", now that's a different matter.