So because tornadoes have happened in the past, we should just stop reporting them? I realize this comparison is a bit different, but it's the same concept.
I think it has nothing to do with "realism", but more to do with consistency. If there is physics element x that is done to perfection, I'd expect similar things to happen when for related element y. I'm not going to be pissed if you aren't simulating each individual atom in my sword or whatever. However, if they are trying to go for "realism", then I'd expect a certain set of guidelines to be followed.
This reminds me of Red vs Blue, when they started using the Halo 2 engine (explained in the plot as "we're in the future"):
[Tucker is regaining conciousness] Tucker: What's going on? Who are you people? Caboose: Tucker! Tucker! I am so glad you are alive. Tucker: Caboose? Still so dumb, but you look so different. Caboose: We're in the future! Things are very shiny here.
I'm assuming that you used a recent version of Ubuntu. If this is true, your hostname problem sounds like you either weren't paying attention in the installer or are just trying to spread lies. Why? Well, Ubuntu uses the Debian installer, and this installer always prompts for hostname. At least, it has in the ~dozen times I've used it.
If you REALLY want the last 5-10% then compile and strip EVERYTHING yourself custom for YOUR processor.
I don't buy it. Sure, some code will run 10 times faster when compiled with things like MMX or SSE. Sure, passing a bunch of flags to GCC will make code that's more suited to your system. But where are the numbers?
I agree. I've been tracking Dapper for a few weeks on both my laptop and desktop and it's been far more stable than any version of Fedora I ever used (1, 2, and 3). My feeling is that Red Hat realizes they kinda have to put something out for Fedora, so they do a decent job, but it's not engineered to the same level of consistency as other distros.
Either you're trolling, or completely oblivious. Just because both games use a guitar controller does not mean one is a "ripoff" of the other. I realize bending over for Konami feels good, I mean obviously you're a fucking expert on this subject, but perhaps you should open your eyes to reality.
Just because he doesn't mention whatever games you see as the pinnacle of the rhythm genre means neither that he hasn't played them or liked them. Your argument is invalid.
Instead of responding to my criticism, you make baseless assertions that I misconstrued your post because I used synonyms, and go off on tangents unrelated to what I said. I will not address any points you bring up in your reply since you still have not addressed the logical errors in your original post.
You are correct, but this principle is relevant in a much more general sense, this being that greed is nearly always the underlying factor in witch-hunts, business decisions, and government policy. People scream about things like "piracy", "corporate restructuring", and "terrorism" (to name a few), yet the underlying reasons are almost always love of money and power. Instead of debating whether or not the evil du jour is legitimate, we should instead be asking whether or not greed is a good enough explanation. Unsurprisingly, it most usually is.
Sorry, but in the age of global trade, nobody has a "right" to the type of region-controlling the media cartels do. In fact, this type of collusion is most likely illegal under lots of treaties and jurisdictions.
who fails the same litmus test as literal creationists. Evolution does not disprove creation, nor are the two incompatible. The fact that you make this same logical error as proponents of Intelligent Design is some pretty delicious irony.
The fuck are you talking about? I'd reply, save for the fact that you failed to produce any coherent argument, choosing to instead ramble on about whatever you happen to hate at the moment.
Wikipedia's process for weeding out bad articles and information could use some work. The main problem I have is that pages are, by default, considered authoritative. Only when someone comes along and finds inaccuracies or disagrees is anything questioned. To compound the problem, the mechanisms for removing bad information or articles are themselves subject to abuse and ignorance. As an example, the article for the web "sitcom" Pure Pwnage was recently put on the chopping block, despite the fact that it has been around for over two years and will probably reach a tier of popularity similar to something like Red vs. Blue. I believe part of the complaint was that the article contained "fancruft", yet instead of trying to remedy the situation, someone unfamiliar with the subject matter decided they knew what was best and started yelling "delete!".
This argument is just really horrible, and skirts the real issues. What makes you an authority on what articles an encyclopedia should contain? What makes "Internet trivia" useless or not worth documenting? You take the easy way out by effectively saying "well, these articles are stupid, so it doesn't matter, and this makes Wikipedia stupid and worthless by association". If this isn't an ad hominem (logical fallacy), it's pretty damn close.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet you can't provide a single link or reference to these reports, if they even exist.
So because tornadoes have happened in the past, we should just stop reporting them? I realize this comparison is a bit different, but it's the same concept.
My guess is that mediocre Star Wars games are easier to sell to management, who don't want to take any chances.
I heard the arcade version of the next Dead or Alive will have one of these for each breast onscreen.
I think it has nothing to do with "realism", but more to do with consistency. If there is physics element x that is done to perfection, I'd expect similar things to happen when for related element y. I'm not going to be pissed if you aren't simulating each individual atom in my sword or whatever. However, if they are trying to go for "realism", then I'd expect a certain set of guidelines to be followed.
This reminds me of Red vs Blue, when they started using the Halo 2 engine (explained in the plot as "we're in the future"):
[Tucker is regaining conciousness]
Tucker: What's going on? Who are you people?
Caboose: Tucker! Tucker! I am so glad you are alive.
Tucker: Caboose? Still so dumb, but you look so different.
Caboose: We're in the future! Things are very shiny here.
"Any group outside the hegemony will be demonized". Okay, somebody probably said it before me, but that doesn't make it false. :P
I'm assuming that you used a recent version of Ubuntu. If this is true, your hostname problem sounds like you either weren't paying attention in the installer or are just trying to spread lies. Why? Well, Ubuntu uses the Debian installer, and this installer always prompts for hostname. At least, it has in the ~dozen times I've used it.
I don't buy it. Sure, some code will run 10 times faster when compiled with things like MMX or SSE. Sure, passing a bunch of flags to GCC will make code that's more suited to your system. But where are the numbers?
I agree. I've been tracking Dapper for a few weeks on both my laptop and desktop and it's been far more stable than any version of Fedora I ever used (1, 2, and 3). My feeling is that Red Hat realizes they kinda have to put something out for Fedora, so they do a decent job, but it's not engineered to the same level of consistency as other distros.
And is it due to a lack of cheap energy? I didn't think so.
Either you're trolling, or completely oblivious. Just because both games use a guitar controller does not mean one is a "ripoff" of the other. I realize bending over for Konami feels good, I mean obviously you're a fucking expert on this subject, but perhaps you should open your eyes to reality.
Just because he doesn't mention whatever games you see as the pinnacle of the rhythm genre means neither that he hasn't played them or liked them. Your argument is invalid.
Guitar Hero is a game. A guitar is an instrument.
A shortage of cheap energy cannot destroy a bunch of earth's species. Global warming could.
I don't use IE anymore, but I'm pretty sure you can disable that.
Instead of responding to my criticism, you make baseless assertions that I misconstrued your post because I used synonyms, and go off on tangents unrelated to what I said. I will not address any points you bring up in your reply since you still have not addressed the logical errors in your original post.
You are correct, but this principle is relevant in a much more general sense, this being that greed is nearly always the underlying factor in witch-hunts, business decisions, and government policy. People scream about things like "piracy", "corporate restructuring", and "terrorism" (to name a few), yet the underlying reasons are almost always love of money and power. Instead of debating whether or not the evil du jour is legitimate, we should instead be asking whether or not greed is a good enough explanation. Unsurprisingly, it most usually is.
Sorry, but in the age of global trade, nobody has a "right" to the type of region-controlling the media cartels do. In fact, this type of collusion is most likely illegal under lots of treaties and jurisdictions.
who fails the same litmus test as literal creationists. Evolution does not disprove creation, nor are the two incompatible. The fact that you make this same logical error as proponents of Intelligent Design is some pretty delicious irony.
Doesn't IE, by default, redirect unknown hosts to an MSN search? *adjusts tinfoil hat*
The fuck are you talking about? I'd reply, save for the fact that you failed to produce any coherent argument, choosing to instead ramble on about whatever you happen to hate at the moment.
Wikipedia's process for weeding out bad articles and information could use some work. The main problem I have is that pages are, by default, considered authoritative. Only when someone comes along and finds inaccuracies or disagrees is anything questioned. To compound the problem, the mechanisms for removing bad information or articles are themselves subject to abuse and ignorance. As an example, the article for the web "sitcom" Pure Pwnage was recently put on the chopping block, despite the fact that it has been around for over two years and will probably reach a tier of popularity similar to something like Red vs. Blue. I believe part of the complaint was that the article contained "fancruft", yet instead of trying to remedy the situation, someone unfamiliar with the subject matter decided they knew what was best and started yelling "delete!".
This argument is just really horrible, and skirts the real issues. What makes you an authority on what articles an encyclopedia should contain? What makes "Internet trivia" useless or not worth documenting? You take the easy way out by effectively saying "well, these articles are stupid, so it doesn't matter, and this makes Wikipedia stupid and worthless by association". If this isn't an ad hominem (logical fallacy), it's pretty damn close.
Wanting to attack an organization that destroys sovereignty is terrorism? Sounds like you have things backwards.