Well... We all know how those translators work. Says the man who uses the worst one available as an example. Somehow I don't think you actually know how those work.
Just imagine: Now that evil, evil, evil Google will, in addition to all the other compromising information it has collected about you, know that you are a furry!
Justification is included in morality for some people, but I try not to think that way, as (in my mind) it blurs the edges in places it shouldn't necessarily blur them. Blurs the edges between what, though? Don't answer "justification and morality" - what I am wondering is, what does "morality" means to you?
a choice and an action is either moral or immoral at it's root. But a choice is not made and an action is not taken in a moral vaccuum. Why are you arbitarily considering some factors involved in making a choice, but disregarding others?
I see justification and morality as separate issues. If justification is a separate issue from morality, what is actually left of morality?
That is a highly misleading statement. It's only the one process which is 100% efficient. There are many other inefficiencies elsewhere in the system, giving you a net efficiency in the single digits. First and foremost, a large part of the solar spectrum goes entirely unused - why do you think plants are bright green? All that green light they reflect is entirely wasted.
Programmers could no longer be limited by BSP trees, visibility trees, polygon count, and other requirements imposed on traditional engines. Indeed. They would instead be limited by the other kinds of data structures and algorithms you need to make raytracing in realtime feasible.
There is absolutely nothing in the article you linked about not being able to slow down. It seems infeasible for a number of reasons, but that is not one of them.
Or perhaps you have some information indicating otherwise?
You're entirely right about simplicity, and the fact that most Linux users and developers don't understand this is most likely why it's not yet the Year of Linux on the Desktop.
The fact is, in a vast majority of cases, there is usually a best way to do things, which does the job for pretty much everyone. However, most programmers are too lazy to try and figure this out, and instead pick several inferior ways to do something, and force the user to pick one of them in the settings. This is not how good and usable programs are designed.
No, no, the subject was "Interesting..." so obviously the correct moderation is "Interesting", as demonstrated by the previous "Interesting" moderation.
And how many of them have nine-letter names starting with "M"? Pretty damning, if you ask me!
No end user wants them to be in the system. I think most end users want their video playback smooth.
Here's a workable definition for you:
Art is the word we use when we refer to that creative activity or its result, when images and objects, sights and sounds, drawings and carvings, convey the beauty and splendor of the world, or realize the imagination of the artist, for the purpose of self-expression or the shared enjoyment of its creation. Art is that which elevates our interpretation of the world and of ourselves from mere description or narrative, to the sublime. By that definition, a few games do easily pass, while many others fail.
Quickly moving away from? It's sitting exactly where it always was. Perhaps Doom was a bit more accessible, but most games since have pretty much just been Quake over and over again.
I find it highly unlikely that they can fix this. After all, if they could, why ship with the reduced performance in the first place Yeah, because nobody ever shipped half-finished code! All code ever shipped (by anybody but Micro$oft, of course) has always be optimal and entirely free of bugs and kludges!
Slashdot Mirror
Those 67% and 43% do not refer to different people, genius.
Just imagine: Now that evil, evil, evil Google will, in addition to all the other compromising information it has collected about you, know that you are a furry!
The party has registered your unwavering support, comrade. You are a shining example to us all.
That is a highly misleading statement. It's only the one process which is 100% efficient. There are many other inefficiencies elsewhere in the system, giving you a net efficiency in the single digits. First and foremost, a large part of the solar spectrum goes entirely unused - why do you think plants are bright green? All that green light they reflect is entirely wasted.
There's nothing wrong with the word "mashup". It's a handy word for remixing several songs into one.
Didn't know IBM was into music, though.
4 is spot on. Ruby is slow. It has nothing to do with features, and everything to do with having a weak language implementation.
This is not in the context of dragon flight, it is in the contest of storytelling, were "woven" would indeed be the right choice.
That would be the "posturing" I was speaking of.
I think you meant to say "Linux users" there. Nerdy Mac users tend to be nerds who have gotten tired of the posturing and social ineptness.
There is absolutely nothing in the article you linked about not being able to slow down. It seems infeasible for a number of reasons, but that is not one of them.
Or perhaps you have some information indicating otherwise?
You're entirely right about simplicity, and the fact that most Linux users and developers don't understand this is most likely why it's not yet the Year of Linux on the Desktop.
The fact is, in a vast majority of cases, there is usually a best way to do things, which does the job for pretty much everyone. However, most programmers are too lazy to try and figure this out, and instead pick several inferior ways to do something, and force the user to pick one of them in the settings. This is not how good and usable programs are designed.
Well played!
Even if it is "true", it is more likely than anything else mass hysteria.
Slashdot "editors" do not "edit" submissions. This makes Slashdot "more real", according to CmdrTaco.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174297&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=14502339#14502484
No, no, the subject was "Interesting..." so obviously the correct moderation is "Interesting", as demonstrated by the previous "Interesting" moderation.
Quickly moving away from? It's sitting exactly where it always was. Perhaps Doom was a bit more accessible, but most games since have pretty much just been Quake over and over again.
You mean "reality" like in "lies"?