Not in polar regions. Thanks to the polar night and the midnight sun, they may not even have proper sunsets or sunrises for over a day!
Besides, as localman mentioned, our natural circadian rhythm without zeitgebers (things that let you know what time it is, like the sun) isn't really 24 hours. I've heard everything between 25 and 30 hours as the natural length.
The reality is that they are already charging both parties for extra access to that resource. Only, instead of charging for access based on content, they're currently charging for access based on speed.
Charging extra for faster upstream or downstream is a fair system. Users are happy with it, businesses are happy with it, and it's an accurate way of measuring and limiting how much the ISPs' networks are actually being used. It also doesn't carry any of the scary byproducts that are possible in a tiered system.
By contrast, a tiered system offers no (or very little) visible advantage to either the customers or the businesses, isn't an obviously fair way to charge for your services, and can potentially stifle the rate of innovation on the Internet.
A free market would be nice, but unfortunately, the ISP market isn't big enough to properly support the advantages of a free market.
1) The developers developed this feature to piss people off.
2) People who enjoy this feature have no skill.
I've posited that the fact that you are the only sample we have of somebody who is pissed off by this feature is a good indication that the developers did not intend the feature to be malicious.
I've also suggested that the other team required a certain level of skill if they were able to beat your team.
You've not countered these claims. The best you've done is suggest that the reason why a crappy team beat yours is unexplainable. So you're right; I've run out of arguments. Presently, that doesn't matter, because you've yet to counter my existing arguments. Instead, you just repeat your claims and insult the rest of the world, each time with more inflammatory language than the last. That's why I'm suggesting the opposition is trolling.
Is there anything else you've like me to help you understand?
Except for the fact that a lot of people enjoy this additional reward for winning. In fact, everybody I've talked to about this feature enjoy it, as does everybody in this thread except for you.
This is pretty good precedent that your claim of the developers' malevolence is baseless.
Okay, I suggest you take some courses in reading comprehension. In the meantime, let me spoon-feed you.
If a team of noskill newbies beat you, what does that say about you?
First, I'll remind you that the phrase "noskill newbies" was coined by you, in case you forgot.
Now, when I made that statement, I was referring to the team beating you in the match, not when an individual person got one extra kill from you. (See how I specifically used the word 'team'?) This made your statement, which read:
Beating someone is really hard when they can't return fire or otherwise defend themselves.
make absolutely no sense.
Then I went on to say:
I was going to say that you're just being argumentative now, but I can see that the fact that you don't understand what I'm talking about is the very problem here.
Here I'm being nice and assuming that you're not just being purposefully stupid to get a rise out of me, but instead made an honest mistake. In hindsight, the jury is still out on this one. (If you were in fact just being purposefully stupid to get a rise out of me, the rest of my theory falls apart. But whose fault is that?)
Assuming that you just made an innocent mistake and missed the fact that I was talking about the team and the match, I formed this hypothesis:
If you actually wanted to play a game about teamwork, you would understand that when I was talking about winning and losing I was talking about the map, not the person who got more frags.
Clearly I have to explain this hypothesis further.
Based on the fact that you assumed I was talking about your personal kills-to-deaths performance in the first message I quoted, it shows that you worry about your individual performance first and your team's performance second.
If this is the case, it also clearly explains why this feature frustrates you so much.
So, the question is, have you considered that you would simply prefer playing a game that's focused on individual performance, rather than team performance?
I was going to say that you're just being argumentative now, but I can see that the fact that you don't understand what I'm talking about is the very problem here.
If you actually wanted to play a game about teamwork, you would understand that when I was talking about winning and losing I was talking about the map, not the person who got more frags.
The feature has nothing to do with any of that. It's just there to piss you off.
Actually, based on everybody else's reactions, it seems like it was only designed to piss you off. Congratulations! Valve made a design decision based solely on you!
Seriously, I really enjoy the extra bonus of going on a rampage for 15 seconds when my team wins. But then again, I'm also the kind of person who would prefer to play a less glamorous class if it means my team will win.
They're obviously pathetic noskill newbies if they're afraid of fighting against opponents who shoot back.
If a team of noskill newbies beat you, what does that say about you?
The total includes the energy used by desktop computers and monitors (which makes up two-thirds of the total) So what they're actually trying to say is that computers use 9.4% of the electricity in the US. This seems to be a pretty important difference.
Hopefully it at least is configurable, so that if someone else happens to offer an anti-phishing blacklist, it can use that instead. And based on the customizable search box in Firefox, and the customizable junk mail headers in Thunderbird, it seems Mozilla is generally really good in that regard. It's the beauty of open source. If somebody offers a patch to support a different blacklist, then hell, why not give the users more choice?
I agree with the extensions, sort of, but it's not a perfect system. Sometimes it's easier, more efficient, or more stable (ie easier to test interoperability) to build the functionality directly into the browser, and the average user (the kind of user that would like this functionality) still isn't very comfortable with extensions. And rightly so; most Firefox extensions are very buggy. Perhaps it would be useful if the Firefox team started developing first-party extensions, and made it easier to install them. For instance, the option we're discussion could have no code in the core browser, but when you turn it on it prompts the user with a dialog that says "Firefox needs to download an extension to enable this feature. Would you like to continue?"
Then depending on your browsing habits, you may prefer this solution.
These databases can be awfully big. If you browse a lot of unfamiliar sites, then sure, it's more economical to download a list. But for the average person it's probably more economical to phone home whenever they find an URL their computer has never visited, rather than downloading a giant list of sites when they won't end up going to 99.9% of those sites.
Oh, and you're blowing this way out of proportion when you claim that it will double web traffic. This would double your DNS traffic (for laymen, if there's any on Slashdot, that's the bit that translates slashdot.org to 66.35.250.150 when you type it into your browser) which is nowhere near your total web traffic. Turning this feature on will probably amount to as much extra bandwidth as receiving one extra email per month.
This isn't a feature I'll turn on, but I don't see any harm in offering the feature.
More importantly, what if the kid doesn't go to school at all? What if the kid is home schooled? Sure it's the minority, but is the parent or home school teacher expected to draft report cards before their kid is allowed to play any games?
Actually, in Wil Wheaton's PAX keynote, he mentions an arcade he used to go to that would give free (or was it discounted?) tokens for kids who bring in good report cards. Now that sounds like a great idea.
You say that like your time isn't worth anything.
You're also leaving out advertising and payola, which is still too expensive for most people. You could forego that, but there has yet to be anybody who has gotten popular enough via YouTube to play stadiums.
Also, a question - when a core doesn't function properly, is it somehow disabled completely so that it doesn't use any power? Or maybe a core that isn't being fed any instructions doesn't use any power anyway?
Interesting thing about the PS3: the cell processor they use is built with 8 cores, but they ship with only 7 cores enabled, for yield. So they expect one core to be faulty on a significant number of their chips, and disable it even if it's not faulty just to be safe.
Technically, the disabled core shouldn't use any extra power. Somehow the hardware needs to signify which cores are disabled, either by not making any electrical connection to that core, or telling the motherboard to make no electrical connection to that core.
He came back in time, wrote books to tell us what it was going to be like. He didn't have a vivid imagination, He just simply wrote about what had already happened for Him.
Yep, and it works pretty well, but you still need to be able to use a non-pure-virtual base class as an interface if you want to avoid duplicated code.
It should also be noted that being able to use a full-fledged class as an interface allows you to remove some redundant code. For instance, you can have an "interface" that looks like this:
It's a trite example, but I'm sure you can imagine how this sort of thing can save you a lot of code. Imagine implementing + and += operators for everything that implements the base class, even though the += operator always looks exactly the same. (And before you complain about how evil overloaded operators are, realize that Java still overloads the + and += operators for Strings -- they just don't believe you are trustworthy enough to overload operators for your classes.)
Slashdot Mirror
Not in polar regions. Thanks to the polar night and the midnight sun, they may not even have proper sunsets or sunrises for over a day!
Besides, as localman mentioned, our natural circadian rhythm without zeitgebers (things that let you know what time it is, like the sun) isn't really 24 hours. I've heard everything between 25 and 30 hours as the natural length.
He gave you God's word, and according to Him, everybody really needs it.
The reality is that they are already charging both parties for extra access to that resource. Only, instead of charging for access based on content, they're currently charging for access based on speed.
Charging extra for faster upstream or downstream is a fair system. Users are happy with it, businesses are happy with it, and it's an accurate way of measuring and limiting how much the ISPs' networks are actually being used. It also doesn't carry any of the scary byproducts that are possible in a tiered system.
By contrast, a tiered system offers no (or very little) visible advantage to either the customers or the businesses, isn't an obviously fair way to charge for your services, and can potentially stifle the rate of innovation on the Internet.
A free market would be nice, but unfortunately, the ISP market isn't big enough to properly support the advantages of a free market.
You have two arguments:
1) The developers developed this feature to piss people off.
2) People who enjoy this feature have no skill.
I've posited that the fact that you are the only sample we have of somebody who is pissed off by this feature is a good indication that the developers did not intend the feature to be malicious.
I've also suggested that the other team required a certain level of skill if they were able to beat your team.
You've not countered these claims. The best you've done is suggest that the reason why a crappy team beat yours is unexplainable. So you're right; I've run out of arguments. Presently, that doesn't matter, because you've yet to counter my existing arguments. Instead, you just repeat your claims and insult the rest of the world, each time with more inflammatory language than the last. That's why I'm suggesting the opposition is trolling.
Is there anything else you've like me to help you understand?
You're still ignoring the fact that those "cowardly noskill assholes" won, and you lost!
Oh hell, why am I arguing with a flamebaiting troll? I swear I'm going to suffer a concussion if I keep banging my head against this wall.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer...
Except for the fact that a lot of people enjoy this additional reward for winning. In fact, everybody I've talked to about this feature enjoy it, as does everybody in this thread except for you.
This is pretty good precedent that your claim of the developers' malevolence is baseless.
Now, when I made that statement, I was referring to the team beating you in the match, not when an individual person got one extra kill from you. (See how I specifically used the word 'team'?) This made your statement, which read: make absolutely no sense.
Then I went on to say: Here I'm being nice and assuming that you're not just being purposefully stupid to get a rise out of me, but instead made an honest mistake. In hindsight, the jury is still out on this one. (If you were in fact just being purposefully stupid to get a rise out of me, the rest of my theory falls apart. But whose fault is that?)
Assuming that you just made an innocent mistake and missed the fact that I was talking about the team and the match, I formed this hypothesis: Clearly I have to explain this hypothesis further.
Based on the fact that you assumed I was talking about your personal kills-to-deaths performance in the first message I quoted, it shows that you worry about your individual performance first and your team's performance second.
If this is the case, it also clearly explains why this feature frustrates you so much.
So, the question is, have you considered that you would simply prefer playing a game that's focused on individual performance, rather than team performance?
I was going to say that you're just being argumentative now, but I can see that the fact that you don't understand what I'm talking about is the very problem here.
If you actually wanted to play a game about teamwork, you would understand that when I was talking about winning and losing I was talking about the map, not the person who got more frags.
Seriously, I really enjoy the extra bonus of going on a rampage for 15 seconds when my team wins. But then again, I'm also the kind of person who would prefer to play a less glamorous class if it means my team will win. If a team of noskill newbies beat you, what does that say about you?
I agree with the extensions, sort of, but it's not a perfect system. Sometimes it's easier, more efficient, or more stable (ie easier to test interoperability) to build the functionality directly into the browser, and the average user (the kind of user that would like this functionality) still isn't very comfortable with extensions. And rightly so; most Firefox extensions are very buggy. Perhaps it would be useful if the Firefox team started developing first-party extensions, and made it easier to install them. For instance, the option we're discussion could have no code in the core browser, but when you turn it on it prompts the user with a dialog that says "Firefox needs to download an extension to enable this feature. Would you like to continue?"
Then depending on your browsing habits, you may prefer this solution.
These databases can be awfully big. If you browse a lot of unfamiliar sites, then sure, it's more economical to download a list. But for the average person it's probably more economical to phone home whenever they find an URL their computer has never visited, rather than downloading a giant list of sites when they won't end up going to 99.9% of those sites.
Oh, and you're blowing this way out of proportion when you claim that it will double web traffic. This would double your DNS traffic (for laymen, if there's any on Slashdot, that's the bit that translates slashdot.org to 66.35.250.150 when you type it into your browser) which is nowhere near your total web traffic. Turning this feature on will probably amount to as much extra bandwidth as receiving one extra email per month.
This isn't a feature I'll turn on, but I don't see any harm in offering the feature.
Actually, you've long since gotten out of debt. Turns out they got the math wrong.
More importantly, what if the kid doesn't go to school at all? What if the kid is home schooled? Sure it's the minority, but is the parent or home school teacher expected to draft report cards before their kid is allowed to play any games?
Actually, in Wil Wheaton's PAX keynote, he mentions an arcade he used to go to that would give free (or was it discounted?) tokens for kids who bring in good report cards. Now that sounds like a great idea.
You say that like your time isn't worth anything. You're also leaving out advertising and payola, which is still too expensive for most people. You could forego that, but there has yet to be anybody who has gotten popular enough via YouTube to play stadiums.
Legacy.
Yep, and it works pretty well, but you still need to be able to use a non-pure-virtual base class as an interface if you want to avoid duplicated code.
It's a trite example, but I'm sure you can imagine how this sort of thing can save you a lot of code. Imagine implementing + and += operators for everything that implements the base class, even though the += operator always looks exactly the same. (And before you complain about how evil overloaded operators are, realize that Java still overloads the + and += operators for Strings -- they just don't believe you are trustworthy enough to overload operators for your classes.)
"It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations." --Winston Churchill
I don't think "defective by design" means what you think it means...
Wow, somebody hasn't done any software engineering.
You shouldn't even rely on having all your own security holes patches, how can you rely on a third party having all its security holes patches?