I have to say that B&W was overrated; Molyneux is not. I cannot overemphasize the wonder I felt the first time I played Magic Carpet. Even that hovercraft racing game his publishers cajoled him into making back in the day was fun (not on the PlayStation, though).
Magic Carpet had convincing (at the time) rolling water with warping reflections and also destrucable terrain. Populous was bit slow for me, though. I'm an instant action kind of gamer.
Look, if you want kids it's your responsibility to care for them. I don't like children, and I don't see any special need to care for children. This whole "won't somebody please help the children" is really beginning to piss me off, and I am someone who used to be very politically correct.
How this post is insightful I don't know. Interesting, maybe, but still wrong. It is the responsibility of the collective society to raise and provide for children. This is "left-leaning" and "liberal", but also "reality". You may bitch about paying taxes to fund schools when you have no children, but the alternative is uneducated children dragging society down in street crime and woeful literacy rates (inner cities, anyone?). I don't think it is anyones responsibilty but my own to meter my children's television and entertainment. And I do protect them from what I consider the "unheathy" portions of society. Sadly, email is one of them. I don't want my boys getting invited to check out "Angela on her webcam" or reading of "super ejaculation distance" so they don't get email.
They CAN browse the web, but I forbid name resolution. I add sites I approve of to their computers of via a hosts file. They are young enough that I can get away with that for now.
And to say that no child deserves protections after you just got done having them yourself is selfish, at best.
While I agree that Active Directory 1.0 (Windows 2000/NT 5/pick one) is impressive in mid to large-ish environemnts, the design methodology absolutely falls apart in a true enterprise environment (inasmuch as AD integrated DNS is concerned).
Consider this: the AD DNS zone is required to be in your domain container. This means two major things: ALL DCs in your domain have this information replicated to them (whether they are DNS servers or not) and NONE of your DCs in other domains can host these zones.
Stretch item one out, and you will see that when a user in Japan powers on his workstation, it replicates to my DC here in the states. Do I care to access that guys data SO BAD that his replication storm^H^H^H^H^H event hits my DC? Even though it isn't running DNS? Kinda silly, really.
Taken the other way, if I want a multimaster DNS zone to cross a domain boundary even in the same forest I cannot do it. It simply cannot be done. You could set up a zone transfer and work some mojo, but you lose the benefits cited in your post. Active Directory DNS doesn't support stub zones, either.
Active Directory 1.1 (Windows 2003/Windows.NET Server/Pick one) fixes these complaints with enlistable name spaces that can cross domain boundaries, but just try to get THAT pushed through in a large environment until 3 months after SP1. Not very fscking likely.
I actually find the automagical functionality of AD fascinating, and I do not mean to troll. I just find that most folks who extoll AD haven't seen it with over a couple of thousand clients.
I listed on Computerjobs in May. I had a great job in one week at a large company. This is not an advertisement, I assure you. It is simply a reminder not to leave any stone unturned; it could happen to you.
Job: A Comedy of Justice was a fork in my internal monologue. I don't recommend it to many people, just as I am normally content to let people be wrong: it often isn't worth the effort. Good to see it mentioned.
Actually, you can have multiple IE rendering engines on one Windows installation; you just have to install them in order and via the Internet Explorer Administration Kit. It is an enormous pain in the ass; not because it is hard, just involved.
Of course, YMMVBATREKS (Your mileage may vary because all their rendering engines kinda suck)
The size when watching a movie in widescreen format is limited not by the diagonal size but the horizontal size. For instance, a 2.35:1 movie (say, Tombstone) will be letterboxed on either TV. Given that, if both TVs are displaying the same signal at the same resolution, and at the same size, then what is the advantage of the widescreen? I'm not saying I don't want one, in the same way I want a Powerbook and Palm Tungsten. I'm saying that the value isn't there, and not only that, that the value is lower for 4:3 signals. All of that being said, if money were no object then I would have chosen this one.
Why? Naturally: for geek duels (much like this one:P).
The ram does not often use his horns for actual combat, only for intimidation.
That's true - you can have a 16:9 mode on an analogue television. I have an analogue 16:9 lcd tv as well, so it works both ways. It depends on the TV as to what the advantage is, but on a Sony, it squeezes the picture down. There is no signal loss (only 525 interlaced lines to smoosh, after all; the Sony has way more than that). But it isn't HD by any stretch of the imagination.
The only real advantage to it is that it is wide screen signal that uses all of the bandwidth available to display it. For a good example of this in action, consider this.
I had a Raptor Alpha 433 running NT 3.51. It was fast fast fast. FX!32 didn't come along until 4.0 (or _just_ before it, actually). Also, 486 emu didn't show up until NT4 either. That's why I had to use Photoshop 2.5 for photo editing instead of the newfangled 3.0.
Also, the computer was purple and yellow. It was like a Barney rice box and I loved it.
With all due respect, the meat of the debate I presented was that my 4:3 television is capable of displaying 1080i widescreen displays. The infamous "Black Bars" of letterboxing are irrelevant if the viewing area of the widescreen signal is the same size and same resolution is the same as the "superior" widescreen display. Given that, the best televisions are undeniably widescreen. At the lower end, however, the better values and logical choices are 4:3.
Given some simple math, 32/5 = 6.4 6.4 * 4 = 25.6 inches
Measuring my TV, it seems that this is correct.
Now, a 16:9 30" diagonal TV is approximately 26.14726575863" wide. Measuring the dimensions on my 16:9 lcd screen on my portable dvd, these proportions are also correct.
On the other hand, when viewing a 4:3 signal (certainly far and away the vast majority of signals), the 16:9 image is only approximately 14.70783698922" tall. The 32" 4:3 HDTV displays it 19.2" tall.
Riddle me this, flame boy: is it better to gain 0.54" on the minority of signals, or gain 4.49 inches on most signals? Especially given that the 4:3 HDTV is perfectly capable of displaying a 16:9 signal and simply not use the extra screen real estate (letterboxing)?
The reason these numbers were used and are relevant is that I just bought an HDTV yesterday. There were two beautiful HDTV monitors for $1000 - a widescreen 30" and a 4:3 32". I bought the 32". I am very pleased with my purchase.
Also, just for the record, I am NOT a moron. But you are - the same math gives a 53" 4:3 TV a 42.4" wide screen. A 43" 16:9 screen gives you only a 37.47774" wide screen.
My buddy's 15 year old daughter is completely and totally subservient to AOL IM. She also uses Yahoo! IM. I don't think she has MSN Messenger installed.
She is the target audience, and I can tell you, she is going to eat this with a spoon.
I stream divx and xvid videos over 802.11b to my entertainment center - it works great. Other than _large_ file transfers, I don't see a problem with the current standard.
I've heard of them. So have my parents. Their reputation is stellar amidst my parents' friends. If you read the article,
Many of these reputation managers involve rating methods, from Epinions.com's Web of Trust, to eBay's ratings (and huge anti-fraud department), to Slashdot.org's highly-evolved Meta Moderation system.
These seem important to devotees of those web sites, and techies in particular are entranced by voting schemes. However, compared to the vast readership of a reputation manager like the Associated Press, with tens of millions of readers, or newscaster Paul Harvey, with enormous credibility and over 10 million devoted listeners, they are but a drop in the bucket, promising though they may be.
You see, sirs, you don't count. All of you taken together, even given your collective ability to cripple almost any site on the net, don't count.
How on earth is this "insightful"? The lack of even anecdotal evidence? The odd slap at OSX at the end? Or the curious endorsement of Win2k?
"The G4 is pretty nice, and I like the battery life, but raw performance just isn't very good." This is drivel. I want my moments back from reading it.
Real time strategy for Sega Genesis. Launch title (I think). Well over a decade old. Extradinary, ahead of its time; great fun to this day. Fish around and find the ROM.
3.5 hours is atrocious. I just got a treo, and I used it to take notes in 4 meetings today, not to mention using it as a phone. It held up great. And my thumb typing skill is already steaming fast.
Shallow and pointless games are my favorite. I love action that I can turn off almost instantly. Tony Hawk 4 soundtrack is alright, but my tastes are eclectic at best. What exactly are you disagreeing with?:)
As far as turning winamp on the computer goes, my home theater system is jacked into my xbox/gamecube/stuff. Also of note is that the sound effects are coming from said game console. I make strides to ensure that no computers escape my office at home; I deal with them too much at work as it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Magic Carpet had convincing (at the time) rolling water with warping reflections and also destrucable terrain. Populous was bit slow for me, though. I'm an instant action kind of gamer.
My god... it's full of stars
Look, if you want kids it's your responsibility to care for them. I don't like children, and I don't see any special need to care for children. This whole "won't somebody please help the children" is really beginning to piss me off, and I am someone who used to be very politically correct.
How this post is insightful I don't know. Interesting, maybe, but still wrong. It is the responsibility of the collective society to raise and provide for children. This is "left-leaning" and "liberal", but also "reality". You may bitch about paying taxes to fund schools when you have no children, but the alternative is uneducated children dragging society down in street crime and woeful literacy rates (inner cities, anyone?). I don't think it is anyones responsibilty but my own to meter my children's television and entertainment. And I do protect them from what I consider the "unheathy" portions of society. Sadly, email is one of them. I don't want my boys getting invited to check out "Angela on her webcam" or reading of "super ejaculation distance" so they don't get email.
They CAN browse the web, but I forbid name resolution. I add sites I approve of to their computers of via a hosts file. They are young enough that I can get away with that for now.
And to say that no child deserves protections after you just got done having them yourself is selfish, at best.
Consider this: the AD DNS zone is required to be in your domain container. This means two major things: ALL DCs in your domain have this information replicated to them (whether they are DNS servers or not) and NONE of your DCs in other domains can host these zones.
Stretch item one out, and you will see that when a user in Japan powers on his workstation, it replicates to my DC here in the states. Do I care to access that guys data SO BAD that his replication storm^H^H^H^H^H event hits my DC? Even though it isn't running DNS? Kinda silly, really.
Taken the other way, if I want a multimaster DNS zone to cross a domain boundary even in the same forest I cannot do it. It simply cannot be done. You could set up a zone transfer and work some mojo, but you lose the benefits cited in your post. Active Directory DNS doesn't support stub zones, either.
Active Directory 1.1 (Windows 2003/Windows .NET Server/Pick one) fixes these complaints with enlistable name spaces that can cross domain boundaries, but just try to get THAT pushed through in a large environment until 3 months after SP1. Not very fscking likely.
I actually find the automagical functionality of AD fascinating, and I do not mean to troll. I just find that most folks who extoll AD haven't seen it with over a couple of thousand clients.
Of course, YMMV.
Job: A Comedy of Justice was a fork in my internal monologue. I don't recommend it to many people, just as I am normally content to let people be wrong: it often isn't worth the effort. Good to see it mentioned.
>>Unless I want to grandstand with my important indignation.
;)
>Ummm, you're in the right place for that.
Technically, in matters concerning us versus Microsoft it is not so much important indignation as impotent rage.
Actually, you can have multiple IE rendering engines on one Windows installation; you just have to install them in order and via the Internet Explorer Administration Kit. It is an enormous pain in the ass; not because it is hard, just involved.
Of course, YMMVBATREKS (Your mileage may vary because all their rendering engines kinda suck)
You do if you use an lcd or plasma. I was discussing crt or rear projection. I don't know of any 4:3 plasma screens, but there are plenty of 4:3 lcds.
Just proving a point. That's funny though.
Why? Naturally: for geek duels (much like this one :P).
The ram does not often use his horns for actual combat, only for intimidation.
The only real advantage to it is that it is wide screen signal that uses all of the bandwidth available to display it. For a good example of this in action, consider this.
Not so. There are enough vertical lines of i resolution on an average $1000 4:3 HDTV to display a 720x480 480p signal letterboxed with every pixel.
Also, the computer was purple and yellow. It was like a Barney rice box and I loved it.
With all due respect, the meat of the debate I presented was that my 4:3 television is capable of displaying 1080i widescreen displays. The infamous "Black Bars" of letterboxing are irrelevant if the viewing area of the widescreen signal is the same size and same resolution is the same as the "superior" widescreen display. Given that, the best televisions are undeniably widescreen. At the lower end, however, the better values and logical choices are 4:3.
If I had an unlimited budget, my tone would likely be different. The chief issue I had with the poster of the comment I replied to was that he called me and my ilk morons and offered reasons that were patently incorrect.
Consider this:
4:3 aspect ratio TV, 32" diagonal screen
Given some simple math, 32/5 = 6.4
6.4 * 4 = 25.6 inches
Measuring my TV, it seems that this is correct.
Now, a 16:9 30" diagonal TV is approximately 26.14726575863" wide. Measuring the dimensions on my 16:9 lcd screen on my portable dvd, these proportions are also correct.
On the other hand, when viewing a 4:3 signal (certainly far and away the vast majority of signals), the 16:9 image is only approximately 14.70783698922" tall. The 32" 4:3 HDTV displays it 19.2" tall.
Riddle me this, flame boy: is it better to gain 0.54" on the minority of signals, or gain 4.49 inches on most signals? Especially given that the 4:3 HDTV is perfectly capable of displaying a 16:9 signal and simply not use the extra screen real estate (letterboxing)?
The reason these numbers were used and are relevant is that I just bought an HDTV yesterday. There were two beautiful HDTV monitors for $1000 - a widescreen 30" and a 4:3 32". I bought the 32". I am very pleased with my purchase.
Also, just for the record, I am NOT a moron. But you are - the same math gives a 53" 4:3 TV a 42.4" wide screen. A 43" 16:9 screen gives you only a 37.47774" wide screen.
She is the target audience, and I can tell you, she is going to eat this with a spoon.
I stream divx and xvid videos over 802.11b to my entertainment center - it works great. Other than _large_ file transfers, I don't see a problem with the current standard.
Many of these reputation managers involve rating methods, from Epinions.com's Web of Trust, to eBay's ratings (and huge anti-fraud department), to Slashdot.org's highly-evolved Meta Moderation system.
These seem important to devotees of those web sites, and techies in particular are entranced by voting schemes. However, compared to the vast readership of a reputation manager like the Associated Press, with tens of millions of readers, or newscaster Paul Harvey, with enormous credibility and over 10 million devoted listeners, they are but a drop in the bucket, promising though they may be.
You see, sirs, you don't count. All of you taken together, even given your collective ability to cripple almost any site on the net, don't count.
For the humor challenged, :P
"The G4 is pretty nice, and I like the battery life, but raw performance just isn't very good." This is drivel. I want my moments back from reading it.
Real time strategy for Sega Genesis. Launch title (I think). Well over a decade old. Extradinary, ahead of its time; great fun to this day. Fish around and find the ROM.
Click here for more.
Metroid Fusion was a better game, I think. Prime was the best first person scanner ever :P
Too much scanning in my opinion.
3.5 hours is atrocious. I just got a treo, and I used it to take notes in 4 meetings today, not to mention using it as a phone. It held up great. And my thumb typing skill is already steaming fast.
The eToilet. Where do YOU want to go today?
Shallow and pointless games are my favorite. I love action that I can turn off almost instantly. Tony Hawk 4 soundtrack is alright, but my tastes are eclectic at best. What exactly are you disagreeing with? :)
As far as turning winamp on the computer goes, my home theater system is jacked into my xbox/gamecube/stuff. Also of note is that the sound effects are coming from said game console. I make strides to ensure that no computers escape my office at home; I deal with them too much at work as it is.