In a properly written post, the body text should contain all the beef and the title should be just a quick reference. There should never be a situation where the title contains some information which cannot be inferred also from the actual text.
2. If you steal sweets from a shop then more have to be made to replace them. If you infringe copyright then there is no noticeable effect on the producer, as on the whole the extra "work" is all done by third parties.
No noticeable effect? How about the artist not making enough money and thus not making any more albums, is that noticeable enough for you?
To take it to the extremes, can we just make one (1) legal copy of the album and then have the rest being pirated copies of it, as nothing physical is lost in the process?
That kind of makes sense, but wouldn't it also teach the body to avoid things that lead to happiness, because it has detected that those moments cause pain?
A former engineer colleague of mine at the TV station where I used to work always said that "the" recommended viewing distance was six times the width of the screen.
My personal rule of thumb has been: viewing_distance = 4 * screen_diagonal_size.
At some point the limiting factor becomes the ability of the software designers to create such a complex graphics engine rather than the video card itself.
I think managing the complexity still goes a long way. You just break the engine to subproblems and assign them to different teams and people. The real caveat is that you will require more and more programmers to put all that together. Making something like the Source 2 engine already involves planning out huge frameworks and foundations, and it looks a bit like building a ship on a shipyard, at least when looking the magnitude of the project.
Q3A (which is still gives an excellent deathmatch experience) had some ahead-of-its-time features, such as multi-core support and ATI TruForm tessellation.:)
You can't just "fork" Wikipedia. Well, you can, but it's not trivial. They have a good amount of infrastructure (servers, storage, admins) to run the tech behind the website.
While in that article RMS mostly opposes non-free software, he also mentions a bright side in a sidenote: "It might encourage GNU/Linux users to install these games, and it might encourage users of the games to replace Windows with GNU/Linux."
Think how annoying this must be for the established editors though:
You've just got this article prefect and some mayfly comes along and *changes it*. You'd got it the prefect mix of concise and thorough and someone with a different opinion, sorry someone who is wrong comes along and ruins it; and somehow you're the bad boy for trying to maintain standards!
I think you actually found a part of the problem of Wikipedia right there.
Still, let's not completely forget the pretty login screens either. They especially give a nice and professional experience to new users.
For example, when you restart a Windows computer, you get this smooth transition to a screen showing "Restarting" with the spinning pearls animation. In Linux, on restart you might get the distro logo screen, which is nice, but it might not work 100% smooth: the animation might not be playing, or the screen is going black and coming back...maybe you even see some lines of console text in a framebuffer.
Not crucial things, but not impossible to get right either. Wayland will probably help too. In my perfect vision of Linux, it would be nice if these kind of purely aesthetic things would feel good from begin to end. Of course, in some terms Ubuntu is ahead of Windows 8 already, as the graphics of its colorful desktop look quite pro, instead of the harsh puke of colors in Win8.
It doesn't take that long to go through a Wikipedia article to see if there's something you could add there. For the motivation...well, it's just fun to help out and add your piece of information to the pool of knowledge. It's stays there for everyone to be utilized for free, at least that gives me a good feeling.
Slashdot Mirror
In a properly written post, the body text should contain all the beef and the title should be just a quick reference. There should never be a situation where the title contains some information which cannot be inferred also from the actual text.
There's an interesting Clang talk at Channel9: The Care and Feeding of C++’s Dragons. Speaker: Chandler Carruth, Clang lead, Google.
What do people have to say about the IBM XL C++ compiler? Is it good?
2. If you steal sweets from a shop then more have to be made to replace them. If you infringe copyright then there is no noticeable effect on the producer, as on the whole the extra "work" is all done by third parties.
No noticeable effect? How about the artist not making enough money and thus not making any more albums, is that noticeable enough for you?
To take it to the extremes, can we just make one (1) legal copy of the album and then have the rest being pirated copies of it, as nothing physical is lost in the process?
Why are essentially all of the above comments pro-piracy?
If you dreamed up your perfect world, would it contain piracy, or no piracy, or something between? Explain calmly and specifically, why.
Thanks.
Someone outside the US might not have the ability to record all the particular TV shows.
Apparently mentioning any company gives quite easily a shill accusation in Slashdot.
Don't let a random AC troll get you.
That kind of makes sense, but wouldn't it also teach the body to avoid things that lead to happiness, because it has detected that those moments cause pain?
How about writing them to Twitter instead? That could be an interesting combination. Those small snippets of enjoyment would make great tweets.
But still...GIF is a legacy format and shouldn't be used anywhere anymore.
But then again, apart that metal case, the electronic components are pretty much the same.
A former engineer colleague of mine at the TV station where I used to work always said that "the" recommended viewing distance was six times the width of the screen.
My personal rule of thumb has been: viewing_distance = 4 * screen_diagonal_size.
Combine that with the incredible size difference between the standard TV and the standard monitor and there's not much they share in common.
Are you saying that TV uses an entirely different LCD panel than a equivalent sized monitor?
He was clearly saying that TVs are generally larger than PC monitors.
At almost 40 inches, how much higher is the pixel density than 1080p on a 20-inch screen, really?
Probably also creates so tall screen that you will have neck pains using it as a desktop monitor.
At some point the limiting factor becomes the ability of the software designers to create such a complex graphics engine rather than the video card itself.
I think managing the complexity still goes a long way. You just break the engine to subproblems and assign them to different teams and people. The real caveat is that you will require more and more programmers to put all that together. Making something like the Source 2 engine already involves planning out huge frameworks and foundations, and it looks a bit like building a ship on a shipyard, at least when looking the magnitude of the project.
Q3A (which is still gives an excellent deathmatch experience) had some ahead-of-its-time features, such as multi-core support and ATI TruForm tessellation. :)
These days games primarily do their workload on 2-4 cores.
Short answer: fork it, and leave Jimmy behind.
You can't just "fork" Wikipedia. Well, you can, but it's not trivial. They have a good amount of infrastructure (servers, storage, admins) to run the tech behind the website.
While in that article RMS mostly opposes non-free software, he also mentions a bright side in a sidenote: "It might encourage GNU/Linux users to install these games, and it might encourage users of the games to replace Windows with GNU/Linux."
http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korporaatio
Think how annoying this must be for the established editors though:
You've just got this article prefect and some mayfly comes along and *changes it*. You'd got it the prefect mix of concise and thorough and someone with a different opinion, sorry someone who is wrong comes along and ruins it; and somehow you're the bad boy for trying to maintain standards!
I think you actually found a part of the problem of Wikipedia right there.
I see you're never been to Reddit... :)
Still, let's not completely forget the pretty login screens either. They especially give a nice and professional experience to new users.
For example, when you restart a Windows computer, you get this smooth transition to a screen showing "Restarting" with the spinning pearls animation. In Linux, on restart you might get the distro logo screen, which is nice, but it might not work 100% smooth: the animation might not be playing, or the screen is going black and coming back...maybe you even see some lines of console text in a framebuffer.
Not crucial things, but not impossible to get right either. Wayland will probably help too. In my perfect vision of Linux, it would be nice if these kind of purely aesthetic things would feel good from begin to end. Of course, in some terms Ubuntu is ahead of Windows 8 already, as the graphics of its colorful desktop look quite pro, instead of the harsh puke of colors in Win8.
It doesn't take that long to go through a Wikipedia article to see if there's something you could add there. For the motivation...well, it's just fun to help out and add your piece of information to the pool of knowledge. It's stays there for everyone to be utilized for free, at least that gives me a good feeling.