Interesting how people complain when something gets canned. Then, when it's brought back, they complain that it may not be as good as the original, without even watching it. Hey, mini-series or not, at least it's coming back for a while. Be happy for what they're giving you. They could've just done nothing.
You do know that they're bringing FarScape back, right? If you were watching the season premiere of StarGate SG-1 last Friday, you'd have seen the commercial for Farscape.
So nyah.
It was originally believed that the Antarctic Outpost was Atlantis. I also believe the original poster is playing off of a comment (or several) on the original Antarctic Lake news story.
There's something wrong with using the CLI? Users are spoiled with a GUI. Give them a Windows machine that walks them though everything and they'll think they're on top of the world when it comes to computing. GUIs have opened the world of computing up to the average person, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But they've made everything too easy. Computers are not a magical box that can do whatever (as most people seem to think...), they're machines just like your toaster and fridge that need maintanance and other things.
Plopping down a user at a Linux terminal and having them learn how to use a shell a little here or there is a very good thing. Hopefully, they may have an idea of what computers once used to be, fully command-line driven with no GUI whatsoever. While it may confuse Joe SixPack, or someone's Granny, they don't need to learn too much. Heck, they probably won't ever see the CLI, let alone install drivers. But for users that do want to use it, it'll be there. They'll be able to understand how the operating system works and see more than just/home (My Documents, anyone?).
I'm not saying that all users should be forced to use the CLI, but that it is certaintly NOT a bad thing.
Just for the record, I'm a sixteen year old male. While that may not seem relevant, I've been using computers for at least thirteen of those years (during the first three, obviously, I did nothing productive; just mashed keys to get results and played Sesame Street games, in DOS might I add). I've used DOS (some version), DOS 6.22, Win 3.1, Win95, Win98, WinNT, WinXP, Debian Linux, RedHat Linux, and Mandrake Linux. Back when all we had was DOS, I would mess around in the command line doing stupid, but entertaining things. It may just be the part of me that likes to tinker on a low level, but I was greatly disappointed in WinXP (and NT? I only used it a little bit) that pretty much got rid of the command line (yes, I know it's there, but it's pretty much useless now). When I first started using Linux, I was amazed by how much one still used the shell. While I didn't know any commands, I thought it was awesome and wanted to learn how to use this magnificent tool.
Who has to change names? Gamers that already have the names? Or the newer gamers that have ones similar to the older ones? Some gamers who have had the same nickname for almost 2 years are understandably upset leads me to believe that the gamers who've had their tags for the longer period of time are the ones getting boned.
The CD is just about 52x. I had a CD shatter in my lil bro's machine sometime last year. It shot pieces across the room onto his bed, and the CD-Rom door came clear off. The cd-rom has never been the same since, it has issues reading CDs and actually scratches some of them slightly.
The tech people at my local computer store said it was heat that did that, the people at another store said that it would've happened anyway. It left a nice mark on the side of my tower though, capacitor guts everywhere!
Ugh, I know what that's like. My school was filled with old Dell Pentium IIs. Just before this last school year, however, they bought about 32 new Dells, 2.5ghz systems with WinXP. They're pretty good, but 1) they're intel, and 2) they're windows. And what's worse: we still have some slowass iMacs in the science lab, and some of the teachers even have older PowerPCs!
Yea, but as said before, the PC users would have a huge advantage with a keyboard and a mouse. Plus if you're using a higher resolution (on a PC) than an Xbox owner can achive, you can seem them quite well before they see you. Then again, the insanely high system requirements of Halo 2 may bring it down to a fairer level for the Xbox owners...
Live for Windows won't (if released) do very well, at least I don't think it will. There's a ton of online games that don't require one to pay to use the online functions. There are three (or four) main situations that may happen:
1) Live is released, developers don't make games that support Live because they don't want to lose money from people not buying the game (users won't buy the game if they have to pay to play online most likely).
2) Live is released, developers DO make games that support Live AND still allow the user to go online for free and all is well (sorta).
3) Live is released, devs make games that support Live, but they don't sell well because people don't want to play online (affirmation of option 1).
Or
4) Live isn't released for Windows, all is well.
I want the computer online gaming scene to stay as free as possible (not counting the cost to buy the game, of course), Live for Windows may (or may not) hurt that. I also don't want the next version of Windows (or the one after Longhorn) to have Live built in. Then again, XP may be my last Windows OS.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting how people complain when something gets canned. Then, when it's brought back, they complain that it may not be as good as the original, without even watching it. Hey, mini-series or not, at least it's coming back for a while. Be happy for what they're giving you. They could've just done nothing.
You do know that they're bringing FarScape back, right? If you were watching the season premiere of StarGate SG-1 last Friday, you'd have seen the commercial for Farscape. So nyah.
I laughed out loud when I saw that. But, my question is, why would they have the gate open during auditions?
It was originally believed that the Antarctic Outpost was Atlantis. I also believe the original poster is playing off of a comment (or several) on the original Antarctic Lake news story.
There's something wrong with using the CLI? Users are spoiled with a GUI. Give them a Windows machine that walks them though everything and they'll think they're on top of the world when it comes to computing. GUIs have opened the world of computing up to the average person, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But they've made everything too easy. Computers are not a magical box that can do whatever (as most people seem to think...), they're machines just like your toaster and fridge that need maintanance and other things.
/home (My Documents, anyone?).
Plopping down a user at a Linux terminal and having them learn how to use a shell a little here or there is a very good thing. Hopefully, they may have an idea of what computers once used to be, fully command-line driven with no GUI whatsoever. While it may confuse Joe SixPack, or someone's Granny, they don't need to learn too much. Heck, they probably won't ever see the CLI, let alone install drivers. But for users that do want to use it, it'll be there. They'll be able to understand how the operating system works and see more than just
I'm not saying that all users should be forced to use the CLI, but that it is certaintly NOT a bad thing.
Just for the record, I'm a sixteen year old male. While that may not seem relevant, I've been using computers for at least thirteen of those years (during the first three, obviously, I did nothing productive; just mashed keys to get results and played Sesame Street games, in DOS might I add). I've used DOS (some version), DOS 6.22, Win 3.1, Win95, Win98, WinNT, WinXP, Debian Linux, RedHat Linux, and Mandrake Linux. Back when all we had was DOS, I would mess around in the command line doing stupid, but entertaining things. It may just be the part of me that likes to tinker on a low level, but I was greatly disappointed in WinXP (and NT? I only used it a little bit) that pretty much got rid of the command line (yes, I know it's there, but it's pretty much useless now). When I first started using Linux, I was amazed by how much one still used the shell. While I didn't know any commands, I thought it was awesome and wanted to learn how to use this magnificent tool.
Who has to change names? Gamers that already have the names? Or the newer gamers that have ones similar to the older ones? Some gamers who have had the same nickname for almost 2 years are understandably upset leads me to believe that the gamers who've had their tags for the longer period of time are the ones getting boned.
This is why I love Slashdot: speed of light physics and videogaming all rolled up into one neat little package.
The CD is just about 52x. I had a CD shatter in my lil bro's machine sometime last year. It shot pieces across the room onto his bed, and the CD-Rom door came clear off. The cd-rom has never been the same since, it has issues reading CDs and actually scratches some of them slightly.
The tech people at my local computer store said it was heat that did that, the people at another store said that it would've happened anyway. It left a nice mark on the side of my tower though, capacitor guts everywhere!
Ugh, I know what that's like. My school was filled with old Dell Pentium IIs. Just before this last school year, however, they bought about 32 new Dells, 2.5ghz systems with WinXP. They're pretty good, but 1) they're intel, and 2) they're windows. And what's worse: we still have some slowass iMacs in the science lab, and some of the teachers even have older PowerPCs!
Yea, but as said before, the PC users would have a huge advantage with a keyboard and a mouse. Plus if you're using a higher resolution (on a PC) than an Xbox owner can achive, you can seem them quite well before they see you. Then again, the insanely high system requirements of Halo 2 may bring it down to a fairer level for the Xbox owners...
Live for Windows won't (if released) do very well, at least I don't think it will. There's a ton of online games that don't require one to pay to use the online functions. There are three (or four) main situations that may happen: 1) Live is released, developers don't make games that support Live because they don't want to lose money from people not buying the game (users won't buy the game if they have to pay to play online most likely). 2) Live is released, developers DO make games that support Live AND still allow the user to go online for free and all is well (sorta). 3) Live is released, devs make games that support Live, but they don't sell well because people don't want to play online (affirmation of option 1). Or 4) Live isn't released for Windows, all is well. I want the computer online gaming scene to stay as free as possible (not counting the cost to buy the game, of course), Live for Windows may (or may not) hurt that. I also don't want the next version of Windows (or the one after Longhorn) to have Live built in. Then again, XP may be my last Windows OS.
I still don't understand why people think debian is behind the times (let alone 4 years, a specific number). Would someone mind explaining this?