...the louder the people will get. If you tell an idiot in chat to hush up, does he? No. Instead he doubles his attacks and focuses them at you. You cannot change this, sorry, it cannot be done. Instead, use the functions and tools in game to ignore people and leave chat channels. I am sure there is some UI thing you can get that will help you block people in chat who curse, yell, whatever.
What a dumb article though. Really, how can anyone believe that they can clean up the chat rooms where people with anonymity reside. It just wont happen. It takes people years of online participation in one community or another to stop using LOL let along stop attacking people.
You can use this as your litmus test though. If "teh" and "pwn" are still in use, nothing has changed and people are still tards online.
I do what I can. Every little bit helps! I focus on recycling and conservation mainly. I hope to make my next vehicle a hybrid or electric, but they are not a lot of things, including economically worth it(for me) and carbon neutral.
We should, but the way in which the laws will be enacted will be detrimental to our society. I want the reasons to be right so the actions taken are right. One cannot say that cleaning up our act is a bad idea. It is great idea and we should do it! That being said, I do not want the government to meddle with business. If you care enough to want to clean up the earth, do not support companies with massive carbon footprints.
Now go drive your internal combustion engine powered vehicle to buy your organic produce.
You are naive to think we can have any control whatsoever. We are not "risking" anything as much as we are living with the consequences.
Also, the people who watched the movie instead of reading the book are the same people creating this mass hysteria over global warming. They watched the movie and made a conclusion. They did not investigate any further, otherwise they know know it is the height of irresponsibility to think we can dictate what/how our climate will do/will change.
Humans play a part of everything, sure, but to think we can avoid climate change, man made or not, shows our ignorance of our own planet.
I consider the links examples and not citations. I mentioned "headline" for, what I thought, was an obvious reason. The contents of the article aside, it is the headline that sets the mindset when opening that article. Again, I agree that Inhofe is a douchenozzle, but they were examples, not citations to prove my point. My point, which you elected to ignore and was quite obvious, is that the media is to blame for the gross misrepresention of what global warming is and may or may not do.
Good point, but I was not really debating the validity of my link or that of TFA. You are correct though, New Scientist > Drudge and likely anything posted on Drudge. I was merely saying that the media has twisted this topic in every which way that they have destroyed the scientific process for the most part(in regards to this issue). Now TFA does cite sources from moderately reputable and that (peer review I guess it falls under) is part of the process and I welcome the articles. The summary I quoted though, how can you not say that statements like those are irresponsible?
"Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences."
First, see Growing number of scientists reconsidering global warming fears. Not the best site ever, but it shows that the consensus everyone likes to talk about is bogus. The _media_ refuses to let allow the discussion to continue and the scientific process run its course without interference.
On Drudge, right now, there is an article saying with the headline, WARMING ON HOLD? April's temperatures were below average.... That right there prove the point that the media has DESTROYED any chance we have at a honest examination of the issue. People see that headline and think, "Maybe this global warming thing is bogus," but that article literally has 0 relevance to global warming. People think it does though because they do not care to think for themselves and believe what everyone else tells them. Sheep, they are sheep. It has been said a million times here, but is true. If you read that headline and draw any correlation to global warming from it, you have no place in any discussion about the topic.
Why? Well it is because they cannot grasp the concept of global warming if that headline/article does anything but anger them about the issue of global warming. Global warming is better referred to as Climate Change. A cold month means nothing, NOTHING, in the grand scheme of things, and that is the point. The grand scheme of things. It is all about averages I guess you can say. People cannot grasp the idea of the climate, let alone what any change in the climate means. Instead, they read a headline/story, not knowing anything about the subject, form an opinion(the one the media likely tells them to form), and parade around as if they have even the slightest clue on the subject, but they do not.
Stop telling me there is a firm and ever-growing body of evidence, because there isn't. There is just a slew of weak minded people buying into the hysteria that you are contributing to with your article. Thanks again for the awesome journalism mass media, you never cease to amaze.
They have a horrible system for recommending similar music to users. They need to adopt the Music Genome Project from Pandora or something similar that they can create with their large and pretty active user base.
I use last.fm all the time and I love it, but not for what it is billed for. I am able to track my listening, which is cool because, dude numbers.... right? Also they have information on artists a click away from my page along with a calendar for events coming to my area. They use their database well in many ways, but they have yet to come up with a system for recommending new music that is good. Currently, it boils down to, if you like Artist A and these other 1000 people like Artist A, then you must like some of the other stuff they like. Then the bring in tags and produce some list that is bogus. Given they make money from selling CD's and getting a cut, you would think a large focus would be put on a system where people would actually find stuff they like when searching for similar sounding stuff.
As for the music videos - I do not care to much for the idea, but I see the draw for others. They have improved their site a great deal over the last few years and it shows no sign of slowing down, which is good. I just wish they would revisit the core elements of the site for a change and give us a system that works... it is, after all, what the site was meant to be about in the first place.
Why not do a review of a services documentation?
on
MySQL Cards and Charts
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Why not review the documentation of the subject at hand before posting and trying to sell books to people when better resources are available for free? If/. posted a review of PHP/MySQL documentation , people would be able to see that they do not need to buy these books. That would help the users here save money as opposed to ripping them off so the site can get a small cut.
They are going to cache files for bandwidth savings alone. They will have to have locally stored files for connectivity to these modules at the very least. Now pulling the files from a network still requires them to be somewhere and you need the software to receive and process them, no? What... You think they are going to make a 100% online OS? That is impossible as far as I can tell given our current technology.
An online OS most likely means you have a base framework that allows you to connect and interact with the services of the OS, which are based online. I have no idea for sure, but like I said, I cannot see any way a 100% online OS can be delivered without storing certain parts of the OS locally at all times.
While I agree, I think they know of these issues. They will probably store many of the files used to generate vital and productivity pages locally. You can save offline maybe and it will auto sync the next time you have access? Who knows... I do not, but to assume they are that shortsighted is not giving them nearly enough credit.
Idiot. The subject at hand is Hotmail, which is Microsoft, but does not have anything close to a 90% market share. I have to develop emails for a ton of different clients (HTML/CSS) and if they do something stupid is will make my life, or someone's under me, miserable.
...and for the record, I do not need a reason to bash MS, they readily provide reasons that I can pick and choose from at will. I choose this one because it relates to my work.
Yes I know, but it was not a very limiting factor, especially in online play. 200 food cap was good though, it simply forces the action instead of limiting the player like War3.
Starcraft was the only RTS game that had unique races and still had balance. War3 is light years away from being balanced. It is unlikely we will ever see another balanced RTS as it is it becomes harder and harder to do with every new unit and ability. War3, with its 4 races, was doomed from the offset. There are just too many things in the game now to ever find the balance SC has. The problem compounds even more with technology restrictions as well. SC pretty much had infinite units, which contributed to the ability to find balance. With all the new 3d engines, you cannot push that many polygons on the screen without severe frame lag. War3 instituted the unit cap and upkeep in order to promote the use of less units.
With SC2 likely to be announced this month and hopefully as an RTS, we can only hope for some innovation in the genre to present something new in place of true balance. Blizzard learned their lesson with War3 and are unlikely to include the same shortcomings in SC2. Things like creeps, items, upkeep, resource limitation, and shops will all be re-examined and hopefully excluded from the game. Blizzard knows that the success of SC2 relies on the adoption of the game in Asians markets where it would be played competitively. They learned with War3 that it does not matter if it is from Blizzard or not, they will not support an inferior game when better game are still viable. The aspects of competitive Starcraft were not around in War3, which caused it to not be adopted. Not only did they add great focus to micromanagement, they took away from the macro aspect with upkeep, resource limitation, and low unit counts. SC had a much greater focus on macromanagement which yielded the ability to play the game different from a strategic standpoint.
Ok rant off. To wrap, balance will never be achieved again because companies feel the need to have more and more in games in order to sell them as new and improved, but doing so is at the cost of balance. With every new factor, it becomes exponentially more difficult to balance the game.
add this to the list of ways the RIAA/MPAA try to stop P2P but actually end up pissing off its own customers. You know, if they spent half the time and resources they do in their witch hunts on a education/PR campaign they would have much better results. Instead of using FUD, educated the people on what they are doing and what it constitutes. Downloading a CD from thePirateBay is stealing, but copying a CD you bought is not. Draw some lines, let them be known, and maintain your image while still fighting your fight. Probably to late for that now though... oh well...
I suppose the longer Mercury can hold out as an active planet, the longer will should last as one... assuming we make it that far...
I do not know much about this, but is it possible Mercury would always have a molten core just do the extremes it endures (gravity, radiation, cosmic whatever, etc). If true, then my above statement is holds no value.
Hey I appreciate it! You presented things in a very clear way and every time I thought you might be attacking me, I see you really are not at all. Consider me a fan and I thank you again for your contributions to my better understanding of this.
The nature of capitalism is to capitalize upon human greed. You make that sounds as if it is a bad thing. You say greed, a negative word, but really they are being selfish, which is good. If everyone really did do what was best for them at all times (morally and ethically mind you) the world we be a great place.
It is not an idealistic way of thinking at all. People should do what they want based on what is important to them in order to get what they want for themselves. I think we agree fundamentally though, I am not trying to say you are wrong I guess... Hard to decipher what you yourself think about it so I wont go into that.
As for your Microsoft example, you are right monopoly == bad for capitalism, and I agree with what you say. I was merely setting an example the people on here might relate to more the comparison of the OS market (Linux/OS X/OSS).
Yeah and if people really cared about the value of human life we would not need laws making murder illegal. We could just rely upon the altruism of people to stand by their ideals and not kill. I don't see either that or not regulating monopolies as a real, practical option though, in a functional society. I totally agree, we cannot rely on others personal set of ethics and morals to be in line with ours. That is governments job should be, to protect people from infringing on others peoples liberty. We will never be able to rely on a person doing the right thing just because we trust in our fellow man... we cant trust everyone, nor should you.
You are 100% correct, it is the consumers fault that this is the state of affairs. If you care enough to think that this is wrong, then you should care enough to not support that magazine at all. It goes for anything too. If the consumer would actually have and enforce his own values through his purchases, everything would work itself out. If you are %100 anti Microsoft then you should not use or support their products. If all consumers did that then companies would fold when they fuck up like this. Sure you can say that you have to use Microsoft because they have this and that and the alternative is expensive, hard to obtain, whatever... but that is not an excuse and you obviously care more about what they offer than whatever pissed you off about them. If you really did not like Microsoft, you would find a way not to give them your money or support (in market share,etc).
Not only will all of these systems rack up costs in implementation, but imagine the administrative and logistical nightmare. Forgetting maintenance (hardward and software) and all, the investment in manpower will be a nightmare. Who is going to respond to what situation? What deems a situation? What requires sirens, what doesnt? How do you handle the situation... automatic detention pending investigation? Who do I sue when I spend a night in jail for telling my friend I want to blow up my car because it has so many problems? How is information logged and accessed? Is it public or private? Who watches the watchers? Who do business's sue when the police roll out and make a scene, thus hurting your business?
I cannot see this ever happening for two reasons. First, eventually the people will stop the recession of their rights - otherwise they deserve what they will get. Second, the system will prove impossible to run for all the reasons above, and many more. Remember, the day you wake up, look at the calendar and see you are living in 1984, you will have not a single person to blame except yourself.
Believing such things will get you a lot of flak from some intelligent people. You should hear the things people say to me when I tell them I want to own a huge company and make a ton of money. Intelligence applied should yield money, but that is not always the case nowadays. That said, if you lead a life to that end and make it known, you will get more resistance than support. Someone asks me why I am learning this or doing that and I reply: "To learn is so I can apply it to make me money." The response is usually, but not always; "That is greedy/selfish!" So to me, that is a big problem. When I get put down for wanting to lift myself up, that shows a large problem in the mentality of our nation.
When someone asks me who I want to win some sporting event I reply that I care almost as much about their sport as their leading player cares about technology. When was the last time some sporting idol was known to be a fan of a new computer, cell phone, or software? Curt Shilling started a game design company
Slashdot Mirror
...the louder the people will get. If you tell an idiot in chat to hush up, does he? No. Instead he doubles his attacks and focuses them at you. You cannot change this, sorry, it cannot be done. Instead, use the functions and tools in game to ignore people and leave chat channels. I am sure there is some UI thing you can get that will help you block people in chat who curse, yell, whatever.
What a dumb article though. Really, how can anyone believe that they can clean up the chat rooms where people with anonymity reside. It just wont happen. It takes people years of online participation in one community or another to stop using LOL let along stop attacking people.
You can use this as your litmus test though. If "teh" and "pwn" are still in use, nothing has changed and people are still tards online.
I do what I can. Every little bit helps! I focus on recycling and conservation mainly. I hope to make my next vehicle a hybrid or electric, but they are not a lot of things, including economically worth it(for me) and carbon neutral.
We should, but the way in which the laws will be enacted will be detrimental to our society. I want the reasons to be right so the actions taken are right. One cannot say that cleaning up our act is a bad idea. It is great idea and we should do it! That being said, I do not want the government to meddle with business. If you care enough to want to clean up the earth, do not support companies with massive carbon footprints.
Now go drive your internal combustion engine powered vehicle to buy your organic produce.
So, why should we risk these severe consequences?
You are naive to think we can have any control whatsoever. We are not "risking" anything as much as we are living with the consequences.
Also, the people who watched the movie instead of reading the book are the same people creating this mass hysteria over global warming. They watched the movie and made a conclusion. They did not investigate any further, otherwise they know know it is the height of irresponsibility to think we can dictate what/how our climate will do/will change.
Humans play a part of everything, sure, but to think we can avoid climate change, man made or not, shows our ignorance of our own planet.
You do not sound very smart when you attack someones intelligence and, in the same sentence, say site instead of cite. Just a thought...
I consider the links examples and not citations. I mentioned "headline" for, what I thought, was an obvious reason. The contents of the article aside, it is the headline that sets the mindset when opening that article. Again, I agree that Inhofe is a douchenozzle, but they were examples, not citations to prove my point. My point, which you elected to ignore and was quite obvious, is that the media is to blame for the gross misrepresention of what global warming is and may or may not do.
Good point, but I was not really debating the validity of my link or that of TFA. You are correct though, New Scientist > Drudge and likely anything posted on Drudge. I was merely saying that the media has twisted this topic in every which way that they have destroyed the scientific process for the most part(in regards to this issue). Now TFA does cite sources from moderately reputable and that (peer review I guess it falls under) is part of the process and I welcome the articles. The summary I quoted though, how can you not say that statements like those are irresponsible?
"Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences."
First, see Growing number of scientists reconsidering global warming fears. Not the best site ever, but it shows that the consensus everyone likes to talk about is bogus. The _media_ refuses to let allow the discussion to continue and the scientific process run its course without interference.
On Drudge, right now, there is an article saying with the headline, WARMING ON HOLD? April's temperatures were below average.... That right there prove the point that the media has DESTROYED any chance we have at a honest examination of the issue. People see that headline and think, "Maybe this global warming thing is bogus," but that article literally has 0 relevance to global warming. People think it does though because they do not care to think for themselves and believe what everyone else tells them. Sheep, they are sheep. It has been said a million times here, but is true. If you read that headline and draw any correlation to global warming from it, you have no place in any discussion about the topic.
Why? Well it is because they cannot grasp the concept of global warming if that headline/article does anything but anger them about the issue of global warming. Global warming is better referred to as Climate Change. A cold month means nothing, NOTHING, in the grand scheme of things, and that is the point. The grand scheme of things. It is all about averages I guess you can say. People cannot grasp the idea of the climate, let alone what any change in the climate means. Instead, they read a headline/story, not knowing anything about the subject, form an opinion(the one the media likely tells them to form), and parade around as if they have even the slightest clue on the subject, but they do not.
Stop telling me there is a firm and ever-growing body of evidence, because there isn't. There is just a slew of weak minded people buying into the hysteria that you are contributing to with your article. Thanks again for the awesome journalism mass media, you never cease to amaze.
They have a horrible system for recommending similar music to users. They need to adopt the Music Genome Project from Pandora or something similar that they can create with their large and pretty active user base.
I use last.fm all the time and I love it, but not for what it is billed for. I am able to track my listening, which is cool because, dude numbers.... right? Also they have information on artists a click away from my page along with a calendar for events coming to my area. They use their database well in many ways, but they have yet to come up with a system for recommending new music that is good. Currently, it boils down to, if you like Artist A and these other 1000 people like Artist A, then you must like some of the other stuff they like. Then the bring in tags and produce some list that is bogus. Given they make money from selling CD's and getting a cut, you would think a large focus would be put on a system where people would actually find stuff they like when searching for similar sounding stuff.
As for the music videos - I do not care to much for the idea, but I see the draw for others. They have improved their site a great deal over the last few years and it shows no sign of slowing down, which is good. I just wish they would revisit the core elements of the site for a change and give us a system that works... it is, after all, what the site was meant to be about in the first place.
Why not review the documentation of the subject at hand before posting and trying to sell books to people when better resources are available for free? If /. posted a review of PHP/MySQL documentation , people would be able to see that they do not need to buy these books. That would help the users here save money as opposed to ripping them off so the site can get a small cut.
They are going to cache files for bandwidth savings alone. They will have to have locally stored files for connectivity to these modules at the very least. Now pulling the files from a network still requires them to be somewhere and you need the software to receive and process them, no? What... You think they are going to make a 100% online OS? That is impossible as far as I can tell given our current technology.
An online OS most likely means you have a base framework that allows you to connect and interact with the services of the OS, which are based online. I have no idea for sure, but like I said, I cannot see any way a 100% online OS can be delivered without storing certain parts of the OS locally at all times.
While I agree, I think they know of these issues. They will probably store many of the files used to generate vital and productivity pages locally. You can save offline maybe and it will auto sync the next time you have access? Who knows... I do not, but to assume they are that shortsighted is not giving them nearly enough credit.
Idiot. The subject at hand is Hotmail, which is Microsoft, but does not have anything close to a 90% market share. I have to develop emails for a ton of different clients (HTML/CSS) and if they do something stupid is will make my life, or someone's under me, miserable.
...and for the record, I do not need a reason to bash MS, they readily provide reasons that I can pick and choose from at will. I choose this one because it relates to my work.
.... please have normal CSS support, please have normal CSS support, please have norm --
Shit, I woke up and Microsoft still owned Hotmail... Oh well... here's to pipe dreams friends!
Yes I know, but it was not a very limiting factor, especially in online play. 200 food cap was good though, it simply forces the action instead of limiting the player like War3.
I think you are a solid 12-36 months away from being able to form a worthwhile post here. In the meantime, Digg.com welcomes you with open arms!
Starcraft was the only RTS game that had unique races and still had balance. War3 is light years away from being balanced. It is unlikely we will ever see another balanced RTS as it is it becomes harder and harder to do with every new unit and ability. War3, with its 4 races, was doomed from the offset. There are just too many things in the game now to ever find the balance SC has. The problem compounds even more with technology restrictions as well. SC pretty much had infinite units, which contributed to the ability to find balance. With all the new 3d engines, you cannot push that many polygons on the screen without severe frame lag. War3 instituted the unit cap and upkeep in order to promote the use of less units.
With SC2 likely to be announced this month and hopefully as an RTS, we can only hope for some innovation in the genre to present something new in place of true balance. Blizzard learned their lesson with War3 and are unlikely to include the same shortcomings in SC2. Things like creeps, items, upkeep, resource limitation, and shops will all be re-examined and hopefully excluded from the game. Blizzard knows that the success of SC2 relies on the adoption of the game in Asians markets where it would be played competitively. They learned with War3 that it does not matter if it is from Blizzard or not, they will not support an inferior game when better game are still viable. The aspects of competitive Starcraft were not around in War3, which caused it to not be adopted. Not only did they add great focus to micromanagement, they took away from the macro aspect with upkeep, resource limitation, and low unit counts. SC had a much greater focus on macromanagement which yielded the ability to play the game different from a strategic standpoint.
Ok rant off. To wrap, balance will never be achieved again because companies feel the need to have more and more in games in order to sell them as new and improved, but doing so is at the cost of balance. With every new factor, it becomes exponentially more difficult to balance the game.
add this to the list of ways the RIAA/MPAA try to stop P2P but actually end up pissing off its own customers. You know, if they spent half the time and resources they do in their witch hunts on a education/PR campaign they would have much better results. Instead of using FUD, educated the people on what they are doing and what it constitutes. Downloading a CD from thePirateBay is stealing, but copying a CD you bought is not. Draw some lines, let them be known, and maintain your image while still fighting your fight. Probably to late for that now though... oh well...
I suppose the longer Mercury can hold out as an active planet, the longer will should last as one... assuming we make it that far...
I do not know much about this, but is it possible Mercury would always have a molten core just do the extremes it endures (gravity, radiation, cosmic whatever, etc). If true, then my above statement is holds no value.
Hey I appreciate it! You presented things in a very clear way and every time I thought you might be attacking me, I see you really are not at all. Consider me a fan and I thank you again for your contributions to my better understanding of this.
It is not an idealistic way of thinking at all. People should do what they want based on what is important to them in order to get what they want for themselves. I think we agree fundamentally though, I am not trying to say you are wrong I guess... Hard to decipher what you yourself think about it so I wont go into that.
As for your Microsoft example, you are right monopoly == bad for capitalism, and I agree with what you say. I was merely setting an example the people on here might relate to more the comparison of the OS market (Linux/OS X/OSS). Yeah and if people really cared about the value of human life we would not need laws making murder illegal. We could just rely upon the altruism of people to stand by their ideals and not kill. I don't see either that or not regulating monopolies as a real, practical option though, in a functional society. I totally agree, we cannot rely on others personal set of ethics and morals to be in line with ours. That is governments job should be, to protect people from infringing on others peoples liberty. We will never be able to rely on a person doing the right thing just because we trust in our fellow man... we cant trust everyone, nor should you.
You are 100% correct, it is the consumers fault that this is the state of affairs. If you care enough to think that this is wrong, then you should care enough to not support that magazine at all. It goes for anything too. If the consumer would actually have and enforce his own values through his purchases, everything would work itself out. If you are %100 anti Microsoft then you should not use or support their products. If all consumers did that then companies would fold when they fuck up like this. Sure you can say that you have to use Microsoft because they have this and that and the alternative is expensive, hard to obtain, whatever... but that is not an excuse and you obviously care more about what they offer than whatever pissed you off about them. If you really did not like Microsoft, you would find a way not to give them your money or support (in market share,etc).
Not only will all of these systems rack up costs in implementation, but imagine the administrative and logistical nightmare. Forgetting maintenance (hardward and software) and all, the investment in manpower will be a nightmare. Who is going to respond to what situation? What deems a situation? What requires sirens, what doesnt? How do you handle the situation... automatic detention pending investigation? Who do I sue when I spend a night in jail for telling my friend I want to blow up my car because it has so many problems? How is information logged and accessed? Is it public or private? Who watches the watchers? Who do business's sue when the police roll out and make a scene, thus hurting your business?
I cannot see this ever happening for two reasons. First, eventually the people will stop the recession of their rights - otherwise they deserve what they will get. Second, the system will prove impossible to run for all the reasons above, and many more. Remember, the day you wake up, look at the calendar and see you are living in 1984, you will have not a single person to blame except yourself.
Believing such things will get you a lot of flak from some intelligent people. You should hear the things people say to me when I tell them I want to own a huge company and make a ton of money. Intelligence applied should yield money, but that is not always the case nowadays. That said, if you lead a life to that end and make it known, you will get more resistance than support. Someone asks me why I am learning this or doing that and I reply: "To learn is so I can apply it to make me money." The response is usually, but not always; "That is greedy/selfish!" So to me, that is a big problem. When I get put down for wanting to lift myself up, that shows a large problem in the mentality of our nation.