Here, let me type 9 characters into YouTube for you. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Minecraft&page=&utm_source=opensearch
Bam! Watch. Be educated. Or shit, look at Wikipedia. It can explain it too. It's amazingly popular among other Internet forums (Something Awful, LueLinks, part of 4chan), as even though it's an alpha, it's been fully playable for months. So, you know. Multiplayer games that let you goof off and hang out with people make money. SHOCK.
I'm not sure if you're lazy, stupid, or a troll. But your post is calling the guy out on tricking people, when there's an easy to find product there.... Though, looking at your name, I suppose I have the answer.
Okay, having looked this up again (I hadn't for some time), I will have to back down from my position that the longbow killed plate armor. But the longbow did demonstrate that it was no longer the panacea it had been (as at Agincourt and other examples), and it gradually faded starting about then, through the advent of early firearms, and basically died in the form of full-body armor not long after.
You're at least closer to right, and for that at least, I'm happy. You're still getting your cause and effect mixed up (plate being a panacea that longbows cured, given that... it was the other way around, in terms of invention dates). And that Agincourt was bad leadership + mud + arrows, not just arrows. Arrows are artillery - They pin you down, break charges, break morale, etc. They're damned useful, but plate was great protection against them as actual damage dealers.
I mean, really. Read the actual description of the battle itself. It's full of bad decisions on the part of the French. I'm going to start quoting, here.
The French men-at-arms reached the English line and actually pushed it back, with the longbowmen continuing to fire until they ran out of arrows and then dropping their bows and joining the melée (which lasted about three hours), implying that the French were able to walk through the fire of tens of thousands of arrows while taking comparatively few casualties. But the physical pounding even from non-penetrating arrows, combined with the slog in heavy armour through the mud, the heat and lack of oxygen in plate armour with the visor down, and the crush of their numbers meant they could "scarcely lift their weapons" when they finally engaged the English line.
See? Bunches of arrows slogged off like nothing. Tens of thousands of arrows, few casualties. Plate must have been damned awesome.
When the English archers, using hatchets, swords and other weapons, attacked the now disordered and fatigued French, the French could not cope with their unarmoured assailants (who were much less hindered by the mud). The exhausted French men-at-arms are described as having been knocked to the ground and then unable to get back up.
And there you go. The archers got more kills in melee. Crazy, isn't it? Plate was damned good at what it did.
I'm going to assume you either replied to the wrong person or misconstrued my post - I brushed off writing something like this because it didn't seem terribly relevant. I'm mostly going "WHOA, HAY, WRONG" about arrows v plate. Yeah, polearms (as I mentioned in another post, even bec du corbin explicitly) are what killed knights. Concussive stuff, a bit, as well, but mostly... Well, can-openers.
Though, and this is admittedly a nitpick and only mostly true - After plate was around, shields mostly went out of style (as there was much less of a need for them)
Also, really, as I said before... plate was invented after longbows. I mean. Really. Let that sink in. Longbow: ~1250AD. Plate? 1300s. Plate was the response to longbows in the arms race. Gaaaah.
Gaaaah, I covered the damn battle of Agincourt. Archery wasn't the main killing force in that fight. It was the field, that they rushed through despite it being a horrible situation and totally in favor of the English. Sure, archery killed, but it was more exhaustion and stupidity.
Also: The best way to defeat a well armored foe was not an impact weapon - felt and padding under the maille and plate stopped most of the damage - but stuff like http://www.crazywolffarms.com/images/pollaxe_1_.jpg that bad boy. Polearms and short weapons. If you get a knight off his horse and stun him long enough to shove a dagger through his eyes, he's fucked.
Right. And historians have never been wrong about medieval weaponry.
I mean. This is why swords were *commonly thought* to weigh 40 pounds. No, I'm not kidding. Unless they were experts on the matter (And by that, I mean, has read fecthbucher and first hand accounts, which do still exist and bear me out), I'd be just as willing to call BS on them.
No. Wrong. Totally wrong. Bullshit. Maille was *COMMONLY* worn under maille. Be it in the form of a full maille shirt or a gousset that was only there to fill in the holes. Further, plate was not as heavy as you'd believe - The combination of the two was not enough to actually slow a trained knight down, except in terms of long term stamina.
And you might want to check *your* history.
This was mostly not the case. Plate, when taken care of, was very good protection against the longbow. If you didn't take care of it, then shoddy worksmanship would allow it to be pierced in some spots, and of course there were still the joints and such that could be penetrated. (Though, even maille isn't that bad of protection against arrows, either. Bolts, on the other hand, would pierce maille... And plate, at very close distance, and with some luck. So, freak cases.). So. One arrow against plate? Yeah, no. 2000 arrows against a charge? Yeah, it'll kill a few guys, of course.
Let me put it this way. Would armor have been developed that didn't give greater protection from arrows, if all it did was slow you down when you wore it?
Of course, this is the hard and fast -- At points, arrows did go through plate, sure. Then it got thicker. Problem solved. And it was still totally usable in battle. Plate was, by and large, impregnable.... Unless you have (melee) weapons meant to fuck the guy inside up, despite it, but, that's another case. If there was one thing people back in those days were good at, it was killing people. And preventing people from being killed by those methods. It's pretty much all they did. (Also, if someone wants to bring up the Battle of Agincourt, this is more because... the French were stupid enough to run through a field of mud, in plate, while having arrows rained on them. English longbowmen *helped*, but French stupidity lost that fight)
Eh.
Really, it's useless for hurricanes, aside from in places where people wouldn't be prepared for a hurricane anyway.
At the very least, Florida's building code is such that, for anything built in the last 17 years (at least - I know the standards were strengthened after Andrew), the wind causing impacts is not what does damage - Aside from to windows. It's the the wind speed and pressure differences that destroy roofs and cause structural damage, and flooding that causes the most damage, really.
Whoo, being a Floridian does have it's uses.
That's what this is.
The idea that fining someone for singing to themself while they work. The idea that this could be in any way the right course of action.
There's no other words/term for it.
Oi!
Castle of the Winds, I'd bet money.
I loved that game, it was the first shareware game I ever bought, way back when.
The game's been released free, since.
seen, kinda.
Certain classes require certain programs that only work on Windows, but that's down to a class by class basis. Hell, the lecture I'm sitting in as I type this, Digital Logic, requires Quartus, which... you have to pay for if you use Linux, as opposed to the free version available for Windows. Some require certain discs that only work under Windows, etc.
However, everything Uni wide works totally fine under Linux.
That's an amazing wish. I really like the way you think. Without evil college sports, and all the money they bring to schools, schools could teach better! Yeah. Teaching better with less money. Right.
Admittedly, going to UF with a phenominally successful sports program over the last few years and a great history, we might be the exception that sport pours money into the school (and, hell, the local economy). However, even if not? Fuck that. Sure, college sports being huge isn't all good, but if the entire and only reason you're going to college is to learn, you're doing it wrong. Learn, yes. Make classes your top priority, yes. Have fun, too? YES. Even being a total geek and not tending to like sports or school pride and shit, it's still all fun as shit, if you don't 'think you're too good for it'.
Aside from maybe some better attendance in class the Monday after a game weekend, I don't see how it really hurts.
If by most gamers you mean people that only play FPSes, sure!
I'd admit I'm not most gamers, but I do like a very wide variety of games, and the Wii has managed to stay damn competitive in my mind. Not that the other consoles don't have games I want (My lust for SRPGs hasn't really been sated by/any/ console, though Valkyria Chronicles looked amazing, and still makes me wish I had access to a PS3), but the Wii still has a lot of just fun games.
Finally, I highly doubt Wii emulation. Once someone gets it working on a PC, sure. But emulation on consoles always seems to lag behind that on PCs and PCs still don't even have near perfect PS2 or GCN emulation.
It's not, actually.
You can tone it down to, pretty much, only when you install something or a program updates. I hated Vista's UAC after light use, but I left Win7's on. I got a bunch of prompts right after I installed it, but after that? Once a week, if that.
Oh, wait. Also for certain compatibility settings, actually.I forgot about that, at first.
I've had every gameboy since the original (Sans pocket and DSlite), and they've all been through heavy use. All of them still work if I pop batteries into them. My DS has been through a lot, as it's been the one I've carried around the most - The outside doesn't look too spiffy, but there's been no functional damage. Same goes with all the Nintendo portables owned by friends of mine - I've never seen one break.
Slashdot Mirror
Here, let me type 9 characters into YouTube for you. ... Though, looking at your name, I suppose I have the answer.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Minecraft&page=&utm_source=opensearch
Bam! Watch. Be educated. Or shit, look at Wikipedia. It can explain it too. It's amazingly popular among other Internet forums (Something Awful, LueLinks, part of 4chan), as even though it's an alpha, it's been fully playable for months. So, you know. Multiplayer games that let you goof off and hang out with people make money. SHOCK.
I'm not sure if you're lazy, stupid, or a troll. But your post is calling the guy out on tricking people, when there's an easy to find product there.
Okay, having looked this up again (I hadn't for some time), I will have to back down from my position that the longbow killed plate armor. But the longbow did demonstrate that it was no longer the panacea it had been (as at Agincourt and other examples), and it gradually faded starting about then, through the advent of early firearms, and basically died in the form of full-body armor not long after.
You're at least closer to right, and for that at least, I'm happy. You're still getting your cause and effect mixed up (plate being a panacea that longbows cured, given that ... it was the other way around, in terms of invention dates). And that Agincourt was bad leadership + mud + arrows, not just arrows. Arrows are artillery - They pin you down, break charges, break morale, etc. They're damned useful, but plate was great protection against them as actual damage dealers.
I mean, really. Read the actual description of the battle itself. It's full of bad decisions on the part of the French. I'm going to start quoting, here.
The French men-at-arms reached the English line and actually pushed it back, with the longbowmen continuing to fire until they ran out of arrows and then dropping their bows and joining the melée (which lasted about three hours), implying that the French were able to walk through the fire of tens of thousands of arrows while taking comparatively few casualties. But the physical pounding even from non-penetrating arrows, combined with the slog in heavy armour through the mud, the heat and lack of oxygen in plate armour with the visor down, and the crush of their numbers meant they could "scarcely lift their weapons" when they finally engaged the English line.
See? Bunches of arrows slogged off like nothing. Tens of thousands of arrows, few casualties. Plate must have been damned awesome.
When the English archers, using hatchets, swords and other weapons, attacked the now disordered and fatigued French, the French could not cope with their unarmoured assailants (who were much less hindered by the mud). The exhausted French men-at-arms are described as having been knocked to the ground and then unable to get back up.
And there you go. The archers got more kills in melee. Crazy, isn't it? Plate was damned good at what it did.
Also, finally: Here. 35 years after Agincourt. Invented. http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Miscellaneous/Real_Fighting_Stuff/Avant_armour_1440.jpg
I'm going to assume you either replied to the wrong person or misconstrued my post - I brushed off writing something like this because it didn't seem terribly relevant. I'm mostly going "WHOA, HAY, WRONG" about arrows v plate. Yeah, polearms (as I mentioned in another post, even bec du corbin explicitly) are what killed knights. Concussive stuff, a bit, as well, but mostly ... Well, can-openers.
Though, and this is admittedly a nitpick and only mostly true - After plate was around, shields mostly went out of style (as there was much less of a need for them)
Thank you I love you will you have my babies.
Also, really, as I said before... plate was invented after longbows. I mean. Really. Let that sink in. Longbow: ~1250AD. Plate? 1300s. Plate was the response to longbows in the arms race. Gaaaah.
Gaaaah, I covered the damn battle of Agincourt. Archery wasn't the main killing force in that fight. It was the field, that they rushed through despite it being a horrible situation and totally in favor of the English. Sure, archery killed, but it was more exhaustion and stupidity.
Also: The best way to defeat a well armored foe was not an impact weapon - felt and padding under the maille and plate stopped most of the damage - but stuff like http://www.crazywolffarms.com/images/pollaxe_1_.jpg that bad boy. Polearms and short weapons. If you get a knight off his horse and stun him long enough to shove a dagger through his eyes, he's fucked.
Right. And historians have never been wrong about medieval weaponry.
I mean. This is why swords were *commonly thought* to weigh 40 pounds. No, I'm not kidding. Unless they were experts on the matter (And by that, I mean, has read fecthbucher and first hand accounts, which do still exist and bear me out), I'd be just as willing to call BS on them.
No. Wrong. Totally wrong. Bullshit. Maille was *COMMONLY* worn under maille. Be it in the form of a full maille shirt or a gousset that was only there to fill in the holes.
Further, plate was not as heavy as you'd believe - The combination of the two was not enough to actually slow a trained knight down, except in terms of long term stamina.
How did I miss this one earlier, wow?
Fair enough. Different cause than I figured it was, but this wallpapering still wouldn't do anything, though.
And you might want to check *your* history.
... the French were stupid enough to run through a field of mud, in plate, while having arrows rained on them. English longbowmen *helped*, but French stupidity lost that fight)
This was mostly not the case. Plate, when taken care of, was very good protection against the longbow. If you didn't take care of it, then shoddy worksmanship would allow it to be pierced in some spots, and of course there were still the joints and such that could be penetrated. (Though, even maille isn't that bad of protection against arrows, either. Bolts, on the other hand, would pierce maille... And plate, at very close distance, and with some luck. So, freak cases.). So. One arrow against plate? Yeah, no. 2000 arrows against a charge? Yeah, it'll kill a few guys, of course.
Let me put it this way. Would armor have been developed that didn't give greater protection from arrows, if all it did was slow you down when you wore it?
Of course, this is the hard and fast -- At points, arrows did go through plate, sure. Then it got thicker. Problem solved. And it was still totally usable in battle. Plate was, by and large, impregnable.... Unless you have (melee) weapons meant to fuck the guy inside up, despite it, but, that's another case. If there was one thing people back in those days were good at, it was killing people. And preventing people from being killed by those methods. It's pretty much all they did.
(Also, if someone wants to bring up the Battle of Agincourt, this is more because
Eh.
Really, it's useless for hurricanes, aside from in places where people wouldn't be prepared for a hurricane anyway.
At the very least, Florida's building code is such that, for anything built in the last 17 years (at least - I know the standards were strengthened after Andrew), the wind causing impacts is not what does damage - Aside from to windows. It's the the wind speed and pressure differences that destroy roofs and cause structural damage, and flooding that causes the most damage, really.
Whoo, being a Floridian does have it's uses.
MS is practically saying, "Oops, we violated the GPL!"
Oooopsies.
That's what this is.
The idea that fining someone for singing to themself while they work. The idea that this could be in any way the right course of action.
There's no other words/term for it.
Oi! Castle of the Winds, I'd bet money. I loved that game, it was the first shareware game I ever bought, way back when. The game's been released free, since.
seen, kinda. Certain classes require certain programs that only work on Windows, but that's down to a class by class basis. Hell, the lecture I'm sitting in as I type this, Digital Logic, requires Quartus, which ... you have to pay for if you use Linux, as opposed to the free version available for Windows. Some require certain discs that only work under Windows, etc.
However, everything Uni wide works totally fine under Linux.
That's an amazing wish. I really like the way you think.
Without evil college sports, and all the money they bring to schools, schools could teach better! Yeah. Teaching better with less money. Right.
Admittedly, going to UF with a phenominally successful sports program over the last few years and a great history, we might be the exception that sport pours money into the school (and, hell, the local economy). However, even if not? Fuck that. Sure, college sports being huge isn't all good, but if the entire and only reason you're going to college is to learn, you're doing it wrong. Learn, yes. Make classes your top priority, yes. Have fun, too? YES. Even being a total geek and not tending to like sports or school pride and shit, it's still all fun as shit, if you don't 'think you're too good for it'.
Aside from maybe some better attendance in class the Monday after a game weekend, I don't see how it really hurts.
Live a little, really.
If by most gamers you mean people that only play FPSes, sure!
/any/ console, though Valkyria Chronicles looked amazing, and still makes me wish I had access to a PS3), but the Wii still has a lot of just fun games.
I'd admit I'm not most gamers, but I do like a very wide variety of games, and the Wii has managed to stay damn competitive in my mind. Not that the other consoles don't have games I want (My lust for SRPGs hasn't really been sated by
Finally, I highly doubt Wii emulation. Once someone gets it working on a PC, sure. But emulation on consoles always seems to lag behind that on PCs and PCs still don't even have near perfect PS2 or GCN emulation.
Well, fuck.
Because every type of chocolate in the world is uniformly dense. Mmhm. Right.
Jack Thompson! Sigh. Hopefully he or someone else like him does not see this.
See also: Page file.
It's not, actually. You can tone it down to, pretty much, only when you install something or a program updates. I hated Vista's UAC after light use, but I left Win7's on. I got a bunch of prompts right after I installed it, but after that? Once a week, if that. Oh, wait. Also for certain compatibility settings, actually.I forgot about that, at first.
Easy and obvious answers: A wiki or LaTeX.
The site is working fine for me, so, RTFA. They can't install games with DRM.
I've had every gameboy since the original (Sans pocket and DSlite), and they've all been through heavy use. All of them still work if I pop batteries into them. My DS has been through a lot, as it's been the one I've carried around the most - The outside doesn't look too spiffy, but there's been no functional damage. Same goes with all the Nintendo portables owned by friends of mine - I've never seen one break.