once Microsoft bought Bungie and shut down Halo as an OS X game.
Erm, Halo was originally going to be released on Mac OS *and* Windows at the same time (also, this announcement also came at least year before OSX was available on non-server machines). It's not like they intended to screw Mac users, they just wanted it *only* on their shiny new console. As a PC gamer, I was pretty disappointed after I heard the switch from computer to console that Halo made.
First, Whistler != XP, and Longhorn != Vista. Whistler and Longhorn were pre-release code names.
Second, Feisty Fawn *is* Ubuntu 7.04.
"In contrast, the Microsoft OSes contain no official mention of their codenames after public release"
Just go to http://www.msdn.com/ and search for "longhorn".
Is this a ridiculous argument? Sure. I'm not against having silly names for Ubuntu releases, even more so because they're not given by a marketing team intending to boost sales or PR. Nor am I against any of the MS code names; I would've been happy as a clam if they had kept the Whistler name.
The difference between the Ubuntu code names and the Windows ones lies with their intention and use after release.
The Ubuntu names are branded and visible in the OS after release, and are considered 'official' names.
In contrast, the Microsoft OSes contain no official mention of their codenames after public release, nor are they intended to be used in any official capacity.
Apples to oranges, my friend; Longhorn, Whistler, and Blackcomb were all internal project names for unreleased software, and aren't officially used on release versions (though I think I remember there being some Whistler references still present in XP).
So, an updated contract was signed without your company having thoroughly read it? I'm not sure you could blame that solely on a document format.
Re:One of the biggest flame wars in internet histo
on
MST3K is Back, Sort Of
·
· Score: 1
But they could never come close to that first season.
Eh... the first season has its moments, but feels largely unwatchable at times. It suffers severely from cable-access-showitis, which they grew out by the third season.
The majority of people also don't need/care about having a static IP, nor do their machines tend to move from one location or ISP to another a whole lot.
Erm, sure, a MAC isn't broadcast to the internet, but it wouldn't be too difficult for the WoW client software to send your MAC upon logging in and check it against 'banned MACs' on their end.
They don't have to ban you from connecting to the server at the network layer, just simply need to refuse to allow your client to *stay* connected to the server in order to play.
This isn't a bandwidth cap but a consequence of the way cable internet works. The cable company doesn't promise so much bandwidth per customer, but so much per segment of cable.
Technically it's not a bandwidth cap, no, but it often effectively is. And, really, it's not directly a consequence of how cable works, but rather how the providers choose to distribute their service. If Cox/Charter/etc wished to provide a minimum bandwidth, they certainly could, but it'd be more expensive on their end. Besides, it's a lot more impressive in marketing to give the maximum bandwidth.
The concept of providing a theoretical maximum (and no minimum) in a contract is a little odd: "Pay me this money and I'll promise my service will only be this good. It could be a lot worse, even, but don't worry... at least it won't be any better!" It really doesn't seem fair... would it be feasible from a business standpoint for ISPs to change this practice?
I don't have TV reception at home, but I happened to be traveling in the US most of Tuesday, where that video was alllll over the the major news networks (at least the ones that were playing in the various airports).
Well most languages have these things called functions, you can use them to do your own string functions.
Yay! Let's reinvent the wheel by writing 10, 20, or more lines of code for something regular expressions would be able to handle in one. Furthermore, let's claim this is done for the sake of keeping the code 'pretty,' because it's far too embarrassing to admit that we don't really understand how to use regular expressions!
Other Languages have a bunch of well performing string functions so I don't need to program them myself.
Hmm, like string functions that allow the use of regular expressions to make your string manipulation quick, efficient, and useful?
Yes, regex can be an odd concept to deal with at first, as they tend to be quite a bit more succinct than the languages you're more familiar with. Are you aware, however, that regular expressions can contain comments and extra whitespace?
Maybe you're paid by the line of code, or am attempting to squeeze in every extraneous hour of programming to inflate your consultant fee. If that's the case, I would certainly recommend avoiding regular expressions; they save far too much time and work entirely too well.
ASL still has a grammar right? Parts of speech (so to speak, er say, er... you know) and all that?
Of course ASL has grammar; do you understand the concept of language?
Can you not explain in ASL what the letter a looks like? That it's vowel? that it's the first letter of the English alphabet? etc...?
How do you think 5 yr olds are taught to write and read?
You learned English phonetically, as do most hearing children. What does a vowel signify to someone who neither hears nor speaks English (or French or any other spoken language)?
It's like music, you'd think explaining something like a trell [sp?] or grace notes would leave the audience mystified, but it can be done. Even though English has no concept of a grace note, or staccato, or accented (forte), or lagato, or etc...
That's what written music is for. Written music (like English) is a non-verbal representation of sounds and phonetics. Besides, English *does* have have some of those concepts: accents exist and are used extensively in other written languages (didn't you say you knew French...?). We even have ways of manipulating cadence in speech!
Heck, what if we tacked of all of the symbols used in music to the end of our alphabet? We already have phonetic representations of those symbols (go ahead; try saying "coda" or "clef" aloud), much like parts of our alphabet ("double-u," anyone?).
Most people learn music by a combination of verbal explanation and hearing (along with actually playing it).
Congrats! You just identified the largest difficulty a deaf person has learning a phonetic language!
If you wished to learn ASL or another signed language (which I urge you to do; you might understand this discussion more), you would have the benefit of being able to experience the language in its natural form. Those who are deaf do not have that luxury of spoken languages.
I think you're missing the point about ASL being a completely different language. It, unlike most spoken languages, does not have a written component. For someone who grows up in a completely deaf family and culture, it's more than just a language barrier.
You had the benefit of growing up with a language that was easily expressed in two ways, something those with ASL as a first language do not always have.
Case in point: The guy at the door at Wally-World/Target/K-Mart/whatever that tells you to stop so he can check your bags. I just keep right on walking. The most they can do is ask you to stop. They can't force you to do anything.
Pretty sure they'd then have the right to call the police who would escort you from the premises, eh?
So, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get across here. Do you feel that 30% of Americans must constitute a minority? Or, are you claiming that a non-devout Christian is not Christian?
First, the whole 'minority' thing, in terms of traditional racial majority/minority. According to the 2000 census (PDF):
Percentage of US population:
White - 75%
Hispanic or Latino - 12.5%
Black or African American - 12.3%
Now, a look at religious statistics. According to 1998 data (PDF) (couldn't find anything newer, and the Census Bureau doesn't typically collect religious data):
Percentage of US population:
Protestant - 59%
Catholic - 27%
None - 7%
Other - 5%
Jewish - 2%
If you're still hard set on only 30% of Americans being 'real Christians,' I'll point out that Wikipedia notes that "[a] sociological minority is not necessarily a numerical minority -- it may include any group that is disadvantaged with respect to a dominant group in terms of social status, education, employment, wealth and political power." In my opinion, I don't believe that describes the group of people you allude to.
Second, I'd get deeper into your insinuation that the not practicing one's religion to a full extent would invalidate their belief, but it appears that other posters have already responded regarding that. When it comes to defining a 'real Christian,' StoatBringermakes a good point:
it seems hard to find two Christians who could agree on what those rules actually are. The rulebook itself is not exactly clear on a number of issues."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing just *inbound* port 80 traffic? ;)
Would be kinda amusing if they blocked all outbound connections on 80.
Erm, Halo was originally going to be released on Mac OS *and* Windows at the same time (also, this announcement also came at least year before OSX was available on non-server machines). It's not like they intended to screw Mac users, they just wanted it *only* on their shiny new console. As a PC gamer, I was pretty disappointed after I heard the switch from computer to console that Halo made.
Wait... is that because he sucks, or because he's supermassive?
HL3? Pretty sure that'll be released shortly after Half Life 2: Episode 5, SP2, Director's-cut, Headcrab-edition.
First, Whistler != XP, and Longhorn != Vista. Whistler and Longhorn were pre-release code names.
Second, Feisty Fawn *is* Ubuntu 7.04.
Wait, MSDN is part of the OS? Fine, then go to wiki.ubuntu.com and search for "feisty fawn".
Is this a ridiculous argument? Sure. I'm not against having silly names for Ubuntu releases, even more so because they're not given by a marketing team intending to boost sales or PR. Nor am I against any of the MS code names; I would've been happy as a clam if they had kept the Whistler name.
The difference between the Ubuntu code names and the Windows ones lies with their intention and use after release.
The Ubuntu names are branded and visible in the OS after release, and are considered 'official' names.
In contrast, the Microsoft OSes contain no official mention of their codenames after public release, nor are they intended to be used in any official capacity.
Apples to oranges, my friend; Longhorn, Whistler, and Blackcomb were all internal project names for unreleased software, and aren't officially used on release versions (though I think I remember there being some Whistler references still present in XP).
So, an updated contract was signed without your company having thoroughly read it? I'm not sure you could blame that solely on a document format.
Eh... the first season has its moments, but feels largely unwatchable at times. It suffers severely from cable-access-showitis, which they grew out by the third season.
The majority of people also don't need/care about having a static IP, nor do their machines tend to move from one location or ISP to another a whole lot.
Wake me up when they've gone plaid.
Really? Never had this problem before, in either FC5 (with both yum and a manual install) or WinXP.
Erm, sure, a MAC isn't broadcast to the internet, but it wouldn't be too difficult for the WoW client software to send your MAC upon logging in and check it against 'banned MACs' on their end.
They don't have to ban you from connecting to the server at the network layer, just simply need to refuse to allow your client to *stay* connected to the server in order to play.
Technically it's not a bandwidth cap, no, but it often effectively is. And, really, it's not directly a consequence of how cable works, but rather how the providers choose to distribute their service. If Cox/Charter/etc wished to provide a minimum bandwidth, they certainly could, but it'd be more expensive on their end. Besides, it's a lot more impressive in marketing to give the maximum bandwidth.
The concept of providing a theoretical maximum (and no minimum) in a contract is a little odd: "Pay me this money and I'll promise my service will only be this good. It could be a lot worse, even, but don't worry... at least it won't be any better!" It really doesn't seem fair... would it be feasible from a business standpoint for ISPs to change this practice?
Why not sell the phone now, though, with 3G support, to help further the technology?
Didn't it kinda work that way with USB (ie, wasn't really popular until Apple started including it with their machines, after which it took off)?
I think it's fourth series/season of the *modern* Dr. Who (featuring the 9th and 10th Doctors, so far).
I don't have TV reception at home, but I happened to be traveling in the US most of Tuesday, where that video was alllll over the the major news networks (at least the ones that were playing in the various airports).
It was a little more widespread than Slashdot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gti6TClHx0w
I'd argue that death is an effective way to quit.
Yay! Let's reinvent the wheel by writing 10, 20, or more lines of code for something regular expressions would be able to handle in one. Furthermore, let's claim this is done for the sake of keeping the code 'pretty,' because it's far too embarrassing to admit that we don't really understand how to use regular expressions!
Hmm, like string functions that allow the use of regular expressions to make your string manipulation quick, efficient, and useful?
Yes, regex can be an odd concept to deal with at first, as they tend to be quite a bit more succinct than the languages you're more familiar with. Are you aware, however, that regular expressions can contain comments and extra whitespace?
Maybe you're paid by the line of code, or am attempting to squeeze in every extraneous hour of programming to inflate your consultant fee. If that's the case, I would certainly recommend avoiding regular expressions; they save far too much time and work entirely too well.
Sigh... I'll continue to feed the trolls...
Of course ASL has grammar; do you understand the concept of language?
You learned English phonetically, as do most hearing children. What does a vowel signify to someone who neither hears nor speaks English (or French or any other spoken language)?
That's what written music is for. Written music (like English) is a non-verbal representation of sounds and phonetics. Besides, English *does* have have some of those concepts: accents exist and are used extensively in other written languages (didn't you say you knew French...?). We even have ways of manipulating cadence in speech!
Heck, what if we tacked of all of the symbols used in music to the end of our alphabet? We already have phonetic representations of those symbols (go ahead; try saying "coda" or "clef" aloud), much like parts of our alphabet ("double-u," anyone?).
Congrats! You just identified the largest difficulty a deaf person has learning a phonetic language!
If you wished to learn ASL or another signed language (which I urge you to do; you might understand this discussion more), you would have the benefit of being able to experience the language in its natural form. Those who are deaf do not have that luxury of spoken languages.
I think you're missing the point about ASL being a completely different language. It, unlike most spoken languages, does not have a written component. For someone who grows up in a completely deaf family and culture, it's more than just a language barrier.
You had the benefit of growing up with a language that was easily expressed in two ways, something those with ASL as a first language do not always have.
Pretty sure they'd then have the right to call the police who would escort you from the premises, eh?
So, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get across here. Do you feel that 30% of Americans must constitute a minority? Or, are you claiming that a non-devout Christian is not Christian?
First, the whole 'minority' thing, in terms of traditional racial majority/minority. According to the 2000 census (PDF):
Now, a look at religious statistics. According to 1998 data (PDF) (couldn't find anything newer, and the Census Bureau doesn't typically collect religious data):
If you're still hard set on only 30% of Americans being 'real Christians,' I'll point out that Wikipedia notes that "[a] sociological minority is not necessarily a numerical minority -- it may include any group that is disadvantaged with respect to a dominant group in terms of social status, education, employment, wealth and political power." In my opinion, I don't believe that describes the group of people you allude to.
Second, I'd get deeper into your insinuation that the not practicing one's religion to a full extent would invalidate their belief, but it appears that other posters have already responded regarding that. When it comes to defining a 'real Christian,' StoatBringer makes a good point:
Send me your computer and $500, and I'll make sure your network adapter is configured ;)