Actually, to be more accurate, the conditions in which the "in between" creatures would flourish didn't exist at the time the species split into two. It may exist after the speciation event (perhaps even today), but by that time, the two populations can't produce viable offspring with each other (and thus are two different species according to the biological definition of species).
Examples of times when the "in between" conditions don't exist: the two populations are geographically separated; individuals possessing an "average" trait are killed off, leaving the two extremes of the trait to remain (e.g. bird migrates to island that has two types of seeds, one requiring smaller beaks, the other requiring bigger beaks); a portion of the population evolves separate mating behaviors and preferences.
"Dull as shit" is just your opinion, and I suspect my opinion would be the same. But that doesn't mean the game is shit. It may be shit for you and me, but not to the people the game is targeted for, which is definitely not us. It's like saying, all chick flicks suck, when clearly some people just love em. Or something more game-related: some think PvP is da shit, and others think PvP is shit.
Blankets absorb heat very well and retain that heat. Put a laptop on it and guess what happens. I used to treat my bed as a substitute for a table and put my laptop on it. At times, my laptop would spontaneously restart. At first, I didn't realize what was wrong. I used my laptop as a gaming machine (it's more powerful than my desktop), so I thought it was just the heat of the moment. Then I touched the grille that the internal fan blows air out of. Ouch.
A couple people I know are now playing for 'free' by trading in game isk for time cards, which buys you time in the game.
Wow...that's an ingenious virtual money sink. I can't believe no one else has ever thought about that idea (then again, I haven't really been keeping up with the MMOG scene). FYI, virtual money sinks are good since they slow down virtual inflation.
I've played Eve around 2 years ago, but I found it really boring to play without a corporation (and I didn't have time for one). I remember surfing the net with Eve in the background waiting for my ship to finally reach its destination. I wonder if they've addressed that problem...
You can try the DownThemAll extension. It's a download manager built into Firefox. Has some minor interface issues (can't get the dtaOneClick feature working), but overall pretty solid and polished.
I never played SWG, so I don't know whether NGE is a good thing or bad thing (and I treat game player opinions with a heavy dose of skepticism). However, regardless of whether NGE is a good thing or not, Sony should not have introduced such a huge change that turns the gameplay over on its head. Unless the changes also cater to the old playerbase, no matter how good the new game is, they're bound to piss off a LOT of people.
In fact, I'll say that I think the NGE improvements sounds promising. Even though it seems like the new action-oriented gameplay is completely half-assed, I'm interested in MMOG action games, and one set in a familiar sci-fi universe is a bonus. But they should have created a new game instead of royally screwing over the current playerbase. The SWG producer is an idiot if he thinks he can save money by just changing the game instead of creating a new one. Just consider all the bad publicity and all the disgruntled customers leaving the game. It's definitely not worth the cost.
While I'm atheist/deist and don't preach to others, I can imagine why other atheists would "try to convince the world that they are right." Many just want to prove that they're not insane. When you're asked if you believe in God in today's world, you have two choices.
1) Lie and avoid having to discuss it over and over again.
2) Tell the truth and have to defend yourself (and there's the risk that the other person will just think you're insane).
Contrast that with the question passed to another believer - a Christian asking a Christian. Even if they are of different denominations, they're most likely won't be any defending oneself here.
Of course, there are the atheist evangelists, just like there are religious evangelists, but I suspect the percentage is around the same. It's more a product of personality than anything (the "I'm right, you're wrong, 100% confidence, must spread the truth" type).
I'm pretty sure most people realize that MS has ulterior motives - it's just that they don't care. Nothing to do with incompetence there - just apathy.
This is just one of those things where it depends on your personality. Some people (including me) just like to craft things, and some (also including me) just like to observe things. I enjoyed the Sims for a while. I guess some people just can't stand not having a goal and just doing things for the sake of doing it. Still, I understand your point of view - the lack of a goal eventually gets to me.
To give an example, I've been playing GalCiv2 a lot recently. And a lot of time was spent not on playing the game, but rather designing ships. The shape of your ship has no impact on gameplay, so it's pointless to waste time building them, right? Some people agree. Yet others including me regard the ship designer feature as a creative outlet. Well, from someone who played Legos all the way thru middle school, that shouldn't be surprising.
It would be nice if you could futher elaborate why why evolution "doesn't account for either the rapid introduction of complete body types (phyla) that appeared during [the Cambrian Explosion]", rather than pointing us to a book.
A quick google search on "evolution phyla OR phylum" revealed this interesting link: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm According to that article, they have found evidence for the evolution of new phyla. Care to explain how that article is wrong?
All the setAttribute stuff, the document.createElement, document.write, etc. - all that is the Document Object Model (DOM). It's not part of JS. JS is a language, and the DOM is a library provided by the browser environment. For example, in IE, VBScript can access the same DOM methods as it can in JS. Mozilla in the future will support Python access to the DOM.
You sound like a guy who knows little about large-scale software development. When you have a lot of developers on a project, you can't direct them all to find and fix bugs. This is especially true for open-source projects - you can't expect all contributors to want to just hunt bugs down. Not only do the developers specialize in different modules (making it inefficient to make them work on something unrelated to their module), there's a limit to how many devs can work on the same problem.
For example, lots of people complain that Firefox uses too much memory. Of course they're working on the problem (well some of it is "intended behavior"). Do you think throwing more devs at the problem will get the problem fixed any faster?
Small nitpick: IE supports ECMAScript (JavaScript) almost perfectly, with a handful of obscure bugs (even Mozilla doesn't support JavaScript 100% if you consider bugs). You're probably referring to its proprietary DOM extensions/changes which JS scripts can access in the browser environment.
Ever heard of WHATWG? Mozilla, Opera, and Safari are all actives members of it and will all support WHATWG specification features, including this ping attribute.
Actually there is a good reason why MS wants control of the browser market: standards. Lots of their upcoming technologies (XAML, etc.) are very related to the web browser scene. They could use IE7 to help promote these new techs - e.g. ActiveX controls using XAML. The advantage of a large market share is the well-known "de facto standard" factor - control the market, and you control the standard.
I won't expand on the repercussions of this, but I will say that MS isn't alone here. In fact, Mozilla is doing the same thing with its Gecko platform - think XUL. While their motives may differ, both want market share to promote their own technologies.
You need to be more specific than that. What exactly needs cleaning? The JavaScript language itself? Or client-side scripting in general?
A lot of people really dislike the idea of web applications, yet for some reason they use websites like hotmail or google maps, or even simple AJAX-enhanced forms. I think what those people hate is the potential for abuse. They trust the web to be safe to surf and unobtrusive, and want to keep it that way. Nothing wrong with that. Yet there are cases when the power of client-side scripting really is needed - the alternative being to download a desktop app (which has even more severe trust issues).
My take: I'm not sure what can be done about this, but here's a suggestion that takes the middle ground. When a site has a script, the browser should ask the user whether to allow the script for the script temporarily or permanently for the site - modal dialog with yes and no buttons and a "remember for this site" checkbox. Basically a dialog asking whether the browser should switch to "web app mode".
Unfortunately, I doubt the situation with client-side scripting is going to change anytime soon. Advertisers tend to use it, and they're not going to like even the above compromise. Even if advertisers didn't exist, browser vendors are not going to give up client-side scripting for two reasons: it's a feature that's very popular with developers; and backwards compatibility.
As an aside, JavaScript itself could use some cleaning up as well - can't wait to see what JS2 offers.
Um, you must be one hell of a Firefox fanatic to completely ignore the fact there have been serious published and previously unpatched (but now patched) vulnerabilities in Firefox before. Why the hell was this modded insightful? Now it may be true that Mozilla fixes vulnerabilities faster than the IE team, but this is an outright lie.
Eh well, it's a good time to redefine the word then. Popular usage is far more important than a dictionary when defining a word. In fact I find this situation really analogous to that of the word manga.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, to be more accurate, the conditions in which the "in between" creatures would flourish didn't exist at the time the species split into two. It may exist after the speciation event (perhaps even today), but by that time, the two populations can't produce viable offspring with each other (and thus are two different species according to the biological definition of species).
Examples of times when the "in between" conditions don't exist: the two populations are geographically separated; individuals possessing an "average" trait are killed off, leaving the two extremes of the trait to remain (e.g. bird migrates to island that has two types of seeds, one requiring smaller beaks, the other requiring bigger beaks); a portion of the population evolves separate mating behaviors and preferences.
"Dull as shit" is just your opinion, and I suspect my opinion would be the same. But that doesn't mean the game is shit. It may be shit for you and me, but not to the people the game is targeted for, which is definitely not us. It's like saying, all chick flicks suck, when clearly some people just love em. Or something more game-related: some think PvP is da shit, and others think PvP is shit.
Blankets absorb heat very well and retain that heat. Put a laptop on it and guess what happens. I used to treat my bed as a substitute for a table and put my laptop on it. At times, my laptop would spontaneously restart. At first, I didn't realize what was wrong. I used my laptop as a gaming machine (it's more powerful than my desktop), so I thought it was just the heat of the moment. Then I touched the grille that the internal fan blows air out of. Ouch.
Wow...that's an ingenious virtual money sink. I can't believe no one else has ever thought about that idea (then again, I haven't really been keeping up with the MMOG scene). FYI, virtual money sinks are good since they slow down virtual inflation.
I've played Eve around 2 years ago, but I found it really boring to play without a corporation (and I didn't have time for one). I remember surfing the net with Eve in the background waiting for my ship to finally reach its destination. I wonder if they've addressed that problem...
You can try the DownThemAll extension. It's a download manager built into Firefox. Has some minor interface issues (can't get the dtaOneClick feature working), but overall pretty solid and polished.
I think most east asian languages are like this. Chinese, for sure, is also like this. But it too is westernizing.
I never played SWG, so I don't know whether NGE is a good thing or bad thing (and I treat game player opinions with a heavy dose of skepticism). However, regardless of whether NGE is a good thing or not, Sony should not have introduced such a huge change that turns the gameplay over on its head. Unless the changes also cater to the old playerbase, no matter how good the new game is, they're bound to piss off a LOT of people.
In fact, I'll say that I think the NGE improvements sounds promising. Even though it seems like the new action-oriented gameplay is completely half-assed, I'm interested in MMOG action games, and one set in a familiar sci-fi universe is a bonus. But they should have created a new game instead of royally screwing over the current playerbase. The SWG producer is an idiot if he thinks he can save money by just changing the game instead of creating a new one. Just consider all the bad publicity and all the disgruntled customers leaving the game. It's definitely not worth the cost.
Just don't try to respawn in real life...
While I'm atheist/deist and don't preach to others, I can imagine why other atheists would "try to convince the world that they are right." Many just want to prove that they're not insane. When you're asked if you believe in God in today's world, you have two choices. 1) Lie and avoid having to discuss it over and over again. 2) Tell the truth and have to defend yourself (and there's the risk that the other person will just think you're insane). Contrast that with the question passed to another believer - a Christian asking a Christian. Even if they are of different denominations, they're most likely won't be any defending oneself here. Of course, there are the atheist evangelists, just like there are religious evangelists, but I suspect the percentage is around the same. It's more a product of personality than anything (the "I'm right, you're wrong, 100% confidence, must spread the truth" type).
I'm pretty sure most people realize that MS has ulterior motives - it's just that they don't care. Nothing to do with incompetence there - just apathy.
To give an example, I've been playing GalCiv2 a lot recently. And a lot of time was spent not on playing the game, but rather designing ships. The shape of your ship has no impact on gameplay, so it's pointless to waste time building them, right? Some people agree. Yet others including me regard the ship designer feature as a creative outlet. Well, from someone who played Legos all the way thru middle school, that shouldn't be surprising.
A quick google search on "evolution phyla OR phylum" revealed this interesting link: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm According to that article, they have found evidence for the evolution of new phyla. Care to explain how that article is wrong?
All the setAttribute stuff, the document.createElement, document.write, etc. - all that is the Document Object Model (DOM). It's not part of JS. JS is a language, and the DOM is a library provided by the browser environment. For example, in IE, VBScript can access the same DOM methods as it can in JS. Mozilla in the future will support Python access to the DOM.
For example, lots of people complain that Firefox uses too much memory. Of course they're working on the problem (well some of it is "intended behavior"). Do you think throwing more devs at the problem will get the problem fixed any faster?
I'd mod this flamebait if I already didn't post a reply elsewhere on this thread. Here's a very thorough reply from a Firefox dev/contributor: http://robert.accettura.com/archives/2005/12/19/fi refox-myths/
Small nitpick: IE supports ECMAScript (JavaScript) almost perfectly, with a handful of obscure bugs (even Mozilla doesn't support JavaScript 100% if you consider bugs). You're probably referring to its proprietary DOM extensions/changes which JS scripts can access in the browser environment.
That's not the most glaring CSS issue Firefox has. Firefox doesn't even support "display: inline-block": bug 9458. That's CSS1!
Ever heard of WHATWG? Mozilla, Opera, and Safari are all actives members of it and will all support WHATWG specification features, including this ping attribute.
He meant "require ActiveX". Flash may be implemented as an ActiveX control in IE, but it's also available for Firefox.
I won't expand on the repercussions of this, but I will say that MS isn't alone here. In fact, Mozilla is doing the same thing with its Gecko platform - think XUL. While their motives may differ, both want market share to promote their own technologies.
A lot of people really dislike the idea of web applications, yet for some reason they use websites like hotmail or google maps, or even simple AJAX-enhanced forms. I think what those people hate is the potential for abuse. They trust the web to be safe to surf and unobtrusive, and want to keep it that way. Nothing wrong with that. Yet there are cases when the power of client-side scripting really is needed - the alternative being to download a desktop app (which has even more severe trust issues).
My take: I'm not sure what can be done about this, but here's a suggestion that takes the middle ground. When a site has a script, the browser should ask the user whether to allow the script for the script temporarily or permanently for the site - modal dialog with yes and no buttons and a "remember for this site" checkbox. Basically a dialog asking whether the browser should switch to "web app mode".
Unfortunately, I doubt the situation with client-side scripting is going to change anytime soon. Advertisers tend to use it, and they're not going to like even the above compromise. Even if advertisers didn't exist, browser vendors are not going to give up client-side scripting for two reasons: it's a feature that's very popular with developers; and backwards compatibility.
As an aside, JavaScript itself could use some cleaning up as well - can't wait to see what JS2 offers.
Um, you must be one hell of a Firefox fanatic to completely ignore the fact there have been serious published and previously unpatched (but now patched) vulnerabilities in Firefox before. Why the hell was this modded insightful? Now it may be true that Mozilla fixes vulnerabilities faster than the IE team, but this is an outright lie.
...yes she will. IE and Firefox look different.
Eh well, it's a good time to redefine the word then. Popular usage is far more important than a dictionary when defining a word. In fact I find this situation really analogous to that of the word manga.