So tell us, what could possibly go wrong with introducing a species that has evolved to specifically prey on one specific other species, and is entirely dependent on that species?
It really is funny how pretty much the exact same arguments Mozilla users made against Phoenix back in they day are now being made by Firefox users against Chrome.
I used Phoenix then, and I use Chrome now, whenever I use a machine it actually runs on.
Oh no, scary scary viruses! Viruses are super evil and will totally destroy humanity if we dare to meddle with them! Time to break out the torches and pitchforks, or at the very least post smarmy posts on Slashdot!
(Here's a hint: Viruses are probably the most common entities in the biosphere. You are pretty much swimming in them.)
Correlation does not prove causation, but yelling "correlation is not causation" on Slashdot sure correlates pretty strongly with being a clueless blowhard.
They guy's just bitter that someone ripped off his website and made a copy in Chinese. Making a long-winded blog post trying to justify being angry at that without ever mentioning it outright is pretty sad.
So if I stand on a scale, but I'm also lifting up some of my weight on the doorframe, I suddenly weigh less? I don't think so, Clyde.
People would quite accurately point out that I was cheating, that my "weight" did not change.
Yes, you would weigh less. However, when people weigh themselves, they are actually interested in their mass and not their weight, even though casual English is not exact about the usage there. That is why people would point out that you are cheating - you are ruining the approximation of mass as weight.
Their usage is dead wrong. Weight is the effect of gravity on mass.
This has been pointed out already, but bears repeating: That is not so. Weight is what a scale measures. Weight is quite literally the value you get when you weigh something.
Personally, I think the regular photographic captchas (i.e., "click on the Siamese cat") are a better idea.
If your first language is not English, you might not know what a "Siamese cat" is. And a computer can just take a guess at random and keep guessing until it gets it right.
Most of these idea fail for those two reasons: cultural dependencies, or far too small answer space.
I can't find the person who originally said this, but it's not really accurate. Even though most games did not use the OS, they still used the underlying Kickstart ROM to coordinate the CPUs with the coprocessors. So they still used the foundation of the Commodore-designed OS.
No, not really. There's no separation between "Kickstart" and "the OS". The ROM merely contained some of the OS libraries to get the whole thing started.
And games generally did not use functions in Kickstart, as they all depended on the OS running.
Slashdot Mirror
So tell us, what could possibly go wrong with introducing a species that has evolved to specifically prey on one specific other species, and is entirely dependent on that species?
Back up your claims.
Uh-oh! That antineutrino won't get stopped by your skin, though!
Actually, skin will likely stop the betas from tritium just fine. It's not just that it's a beta emitter, it's that it emits betas at 17 keV.
It's the magic incantation you have to know as soon as you try to search for help about your OS.
It really is funny how pretty much the exact same arguments Mozilla users made against Phoenix back in they day are now being made by Firefox users against Chrome.
I used Phoenix then, and I use Chrome now, whenever I use a machine it actually runs on.
Except that Theora is pretty much inferior in all qualities except being free.
It just feel wrong to call that complete and utter mess of a file format "normal".
So if it has a fancy name, it's science?
That particular method was researched already, and found to be very unreliable. There's your science.
A horse cart does not turn into an automobile through "feature requests".
Oh no, scary scary viruses! Viruses are super evil and will totally destroy humanity if we dare to meddle with them! Time to break out the torches and pitchforks, or at the very least post smarmy posts on Slashdot!
(Here's a hint: Viruses are probably the most common entities in the biosphere. You are pretty much swimming in them.)
Correlation does not prove causation, but yelling "correlation is not causation" on Slashdot sure correlates pretty strongly with being a clueless blowhard.
They guy's just bitter that someone ripped off his website and made a copy in Chinese. Making a long-winded blog post trying to justify being angry at that without ever mentioning it outright is pretty sad.
This is truly a sign that Windows has caught up with Linux: It used to be only Linux users saying that, but now Windows users are, too!
Obviously it's O(n), anything else would make no sense.
So if I stand on a scale, but I'm also lifting up some of my weight on the doorframe, I suddenly weigh less? I don't think so, Clyde.
People would quite accurately point out that I was cheating, that my "weight" did not change.
Yes, you would weigh less. However, when people weigh themselves, they are actually interested in their mass and not their weight, even though casual English is not exact about the usage there. That is why people would point out that you are cheating - you are ruining the approximation of mass as weight.
In that case you clicked the wrong reply button, but your comment makes more sense.
Their usage is dead wrong. Weight is the effect of gravity on mass.
This has been pointed out already, but bears repeating: That is not so. Weight is what a scale measures. Weight is quite literally the value you get when you weigh something.
Weight and mass are different things. Their usage is correct.
Personally, I think the regular photographic captchas (i.e., "click on the Siamese cat") are a better idea.
If your first language is not English, you might not know what a "Siamese cat" is. And a computer can just take a guess at random and keep guessing until it gets it right.
Most of these idea fail for those two reasons: cultural dependencies, or far too small answer space.
If the spammers have to pay to spam, we've already won.
It would certainly be possible to make a game that booted without the Kickstart floppy on an Amiga 1000.
However, that game would not boot at all on an Amiga 500 or any other one, thus nobody did that.
Actually you are incorrect
I am not, and what you said is not really relevant to what I said.
Nope, they mostly dumped the whole thing, except for some later games that tried to be more system-friendly.
I can't find the person who originally said this, but it's not really accurate. Even though most games did not use the OS, they still used the underlying Kickstart ROM to coordinate the CPUs with the coprocessors. So they still used the foundation of the Commodore-designed OS.
No, not really. There's no separation between "Kickstart" and "the OS". The ROM merely contained some of the OS libraries to get the whole thing started.
And games generally did not use functions in Kickstart, as they all depended on the OS running.
What