If that's supposed to be a MST3K reference, the correct lyric is "Next Sunday, A.D." The gag, of course, is that Sunday afternoons is when most TV stations fill programming gaps with godawful movies, the type that MST3K mocks. (Also: that you wouldn't normally qualify "next Sunday" with A.D.)
The Satellite of Love never ends up in 3000 A.D., but it does spend a few episodes in the year 2525, but unfortunately you can't pick your son, pick your daughter too, from the bottom of a big glass tube. I'm pretty sure the "3000" in the title is just there to make it sound cooler.
You gave me a Wikipedia link, written by crazy geeky people like you. Not a citation. You read Slashdot, right? You remember all those articles about how Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used as a primary source, right?
The page didn't discuss even a single instance of street lighting being useful in any fashion at all. I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that every city on Earth has been installing street lighting for literally centuries if there's absolutely no positives to it.
You don't want an argument, you want a fight. It's too bad that it's illegal to give you one, or you would probably have had this attitude beaten out of you already.
Do you always threaten people who disagree with you with physical violence? There's a difference between me saying "you're full of bullshit" and you saying "I'm going to beat your forehead in with a shovel." For one thing, the latter is illegal in most places.
What the holy shit does light "pollution" have to do with your quality of life? You're just pulling this stuff out of mid-air at this point.
You'd actually physically assault someone for leaving their garage light on overnight? You really are not equipped for this whole "civilization" thing, buddy. I'd recommend becoming a hermit right now, and as an added bonus you wouldn't have any lights in your hermit-cave.
If you get ranting angry over a city installing streetlights, I'm guessing there's not a lot of "qualify of life" to be lost.
It's fucking stupid to light up the sky with your streetlights.
Why? Who cares?
On the scale of importance, I rate this about a -500. Definitely not worth the expensive of refitting lights.
If you really wanted to see the evidence you would find that it is trivial to find places to start looking. You clearly do not. Cue further excuses in 3...2...1...
You're trying to convince me. Thus the burden of evidence is on you. Plus I don't give half a shit about light pollution, I just hate assholes who try to tell me what to do.
Perhaps, but even more stupid, wasteful and unnecessary are the holier-than-thou types who constantly tell other people what to do. If you want to live somewhere without streetlights, then move there.
I've love to see some evidence that it's been "fingered" in numerous problems with human health, especially considering the entire point of street lights is to reduce crime.
Not only am I not worried about light pollution from people painting roofs white, I'm not worried about light pollution period! If you are, I suggest you move-- it's a big country*.
* Note: I'm assuming you're in the US, China, Russia, Canada, or... a big country.
On the contrary, Microsoft's embrace, extend and extinguish strategy killed Java, and the browser market as well (not just Netscape, but a whole market).
Why did Microsoft embrace Java? Because Sun was telling everybody that it was the future of GUI application development.
Why did Microsoft extend Java? Because Java sucked at writing GUI applications. (In Windows, at least.)
Why did Microsoft extinguish Java? Because Sun got pissy over Microsoft's extensions, and forced them to stop development on Microsoft's VM implementation. Since Microsoft's VM implementation was so much better at GUI desktop apps and web applets, Microsoft's removal of it basically killed-off Java as a end-user technology.
Notice how the "extinguish" part was prompted by Sun itself, *not* by Microsoft. Microsoft was perfectly happy to maintain their own version of Java for as long as their customers desired it.
Actually, court documents revealed that Microsoft tried to destroy Java on purpose.
I don't believe in conspiracy theories.
IE for Mac was a completely different browser than the Windows version. It was actually somewhat standards compliant.
Nobody's ever chosen a browser based on standards compliance. IE was more popular because it didn't crash and ran faster, on both Windows and Macintosh-- standards have absolutely nothing to do with that particular equation.
The Hulk is extremely destructive, and yet consistently gets rid of the *even more* destructive villain.
He's basically the same thing as Godzilla, if you look at it that way. Sure, Godzilla stomps a city or two, but in the process he defeats the monster that would have destroyed the entire world-- so it's a net good.
Netscape destroyed Netscape, and Sun destroyed Java. (At least for Windows GUI apps.)
Netscape released years and years worth of shitty, buggy products. With apologies to Joel Spolski*, their release plan basically was "if it builds, release it. If a bug big enough to hit the press surfaces, hotfix it." Netscape decided to spend their time dinking around with email, chat, newsgroups-- basically shoveling every piece of shit into their flagship product they could-- instead of making it fast and stable.
The instant IE stopped sucking, people switched over in droves. (And as proof that OS bundling wasn't nearly as big a factor as Netscape claims: the exact same thing happened on Macintosh computers, even though Apple included *both* IE and Netscape on the system disk.)
Then, as if they weren't already mis-managed enough, Netscape decided to throw their entire product in the dumpster and start over from scratch. They went, what, three and a half years with no release?
Sorry, the simple fact of the matter was that Netscape was run by idiots. They had some early successes, but the only thing really propping them up from day one was the hype surrounding the web itself.
Sun's Java was killed due to these two facts: 1) Sun was telling everybody Java was a write-once-deploy-everywhere product for GUI apps. 2) Java's OS integration sucked ass. (Even now, a decade on, Java's OS integration sucks ass.)
Microsoft made the stupid error of believing that Java was salvageable, so they added extensions to it to make it suck a little bit less at OS integration. Of course, what ended up happening, is that developers would write their Java apps to depend on those extensions and thus make them incompatible with Java on other platforms. If Sun had gotten their ducks in a row with Java from day one, Microsoft wouldn't have had to extend the language.
Now I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with Java for server development, and yes I know that there are 50 kajillion Java products out right now, etc etc. But for GUI development, Java was still-born.
* Too lazy to look up the specific links, but Joel has several articles about Netscape's strategic mistakes on his site: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/
I use vim extensively and I fully agree. On top of the features you mentioned there are also other great features such as tabbing (:tabnew,:tabedit, gt to switch tabs, etc...), screen splitting (:split,:vsplit, ctrl+W,w to switch between screens, etc...), text markers that the user can jump into with only a couple of keypresses (m{a-Z} to create a mark and label it {a-Z], g'{a-Z} to jump to that mark, etc...) and even automating certain actions through macros.
Visual Studio and Eclipse can do all of those things.
I'm sure emacs also have these features but unfortunately we don't usually see them in those fancy text editors bundled with all sorts of crap (i.e., IDEs). So to insinuate that editors such as vim or emacs can't hold their own in relevant-size projects is disingenuous at best.
Possibly true. However, it's also true that you're ignorant of the capabilities of IDEs and thus unfit to judge the other way 'round.
What makes you think that's a bug in the OS, and not just typical wifi packet loss issues? Streaming multimedia is *not* one of the things that wifi is good for-- if you're really having troubles with this, I'd recommend running cable.
Or at the very least trying it with a different OS to determine whether it's Vista or your wifi link at fault. Of course that would involve critical thinking instead of just knee-jerking every single computer problem to be Microsoft's fault...
What was preventing your from torrenting from Vista before? Seeing as that bug only applies to *half-open* TCP connections. Oh, right, you're just making up shit to bash Microsoft for no reason.
1) It's steady. None of its (new) products are run-away successes, but Microsoft sticks with them and incrementally improves them each year until eventually they're really strong.
2) Their competitors keep making stupid-ass mistakes. Netscape didn't lose marketshare because IE was bundled, they lost marketshare because Netscape 4 was a shitty product. Lotus 1-2-3 lost out to Excel because they were dinking around with OS/2 (assigning no importance to Windows compatibility) and failed rewrites. WordPerfect lost out to Word because (like 1-2-3) they assigned no importance to Windows compatibility, and when they finally had a Windows version it was buggy and didn't run at all on NT.
3) Because of the combination of 1 and 2, companies don't bother to even try to complete with Microsoft anymore. The only real competition they have in any of their core products is Lotus Domino/Notes, which users hate, but which has a large momentum from legacy installs. That's... about it.
Sure it's popular to hate on the big player. And sure, I'd love to see some realistic competition to Microsoft's flagship products.
That's all great, until you try to actually ride an Amtrak train somewhere. You come to the station, where's the train? "Its an hour late." Great. Wait an hour. Where's the train? "Oh your run was canceled." "Were you going to tell us?" "Eh."
Customers don't think Amtrak is a waste of money because of the train/track/station maintenance, they think it's a waste of money because their service (especially customer service!) sucks.
Compare Amtrak with, say, the US Postal Service. People make fun of the USPS for having poor customer service, but the fact is that at least your mail gets where it's going in a reasonable amount of time. Amtrak can't pull that off. Not even close.
As the saying goes: even Mussolini could make the trains run on time.
No kidding. I decided to stop buying Sony about a 5 years ago when I bought a 5-disk DVD changer from them that didn't work. At all. It actually tried to swallow my Aliens disk-- I had to hack at it with a screwdriver to save my DVD from it. Fortunately, Fry's took the return, even after the screwdrivering.
I do kind of wish Sony would stick around, though... they hyperbole coming from their Playstation division is simply hilarious. They're one baby step away from just hiring Baghdad Bob to talk about the PS3.
What, exactly, does the validity of my code mean? All you're doing is dodging the question. XHTML gives you absolutly nothing in practical terms. Since I don't make decisions based on gut instinct, or how "clean" something looks, I don't use it. It just makes me angry at how much time browser makers have wasted on such a pointless standard.
I'd love to change my mind here. But if "XML editing tools exist!" is the best you got, it's not going to happen.
XHTML does give you something that HTML 4 doesn't have: it's XML, rather than SGML. Do you have any idea what sort of ugly code, unsupported by any browser, is perfectly valid SGML and therefore perfectly valid HTML4? That sort of crap won't be acceptable as XHTML, which makes XHTML the superior standard IMO.
In *practical* terms, what does that give me?
I say again: PRACTICAL.
The simple fact of the matter is that there is no practical difference between HTML and XHTML. Geeky types just "think it looks cleaner." Being able to validate as XML gives you absolutely *nothing*, it just makes it that much harder for the average person to write a web page.
But, were they features people actually wanted, or just some extra bells and whistles that only a few people will ever need, use, or even know about? I don't think in the years I've owned iPods I've ever felt there were features I wish it had.
I bought an 80-GB Zune because:
1) The Zune software is FAR superior to iTunes. My Zune actually broke (the screen cracked) a few months ago, but I'm still using the Zune software to manage my collection-- iTunes is only used for my iPhone.
2) The Zune has an FM radio and the iPod doesn't.
Other than those two points, the Zune was on-par with the iPod Video I had before. Both devices play music and MP4 files fine.
So a good number of people have stated nostalgia, and out of those the majority have said that 2d platformers were mostly or all bad. Yet I've not seen any examples of how or why.
Sorry, there isn't a Atari or NES version of IGN where I can just go back and look up all the reviews. You'll just have to take my word for it: the vast majority of 2D platformers, back when that genre was dominant, sucked.
You're listing a small selection of titles that are known to not-suck, and then saying because they don't suck people who say the majority of them *did* suck are wrong. But you're suffering from the same nostalgia as everybody else: the reason Castlevania, Contra, Bionic Commando, and Mega Man have all had recent sequels is because those games *didn't suck*.
Tough shit. Younger generations are going to be published on the web from the day they're born... if you want to worry about anybody's online reputation, worry about theirs.
Sure, some now-lawyer did something damned stupid when it was 20 years old in college, and it's out there for everybody to see. Guess what? Damned stupid stuff I wrote when I was 14 years old is out there for everybody to see, and I can't do jack to get rid of it. (Plus I share a name with a guy who runs a gay sports blog.)
The greatest thing about the rise of Facebook and LinkedIn is that those pages have pushed the more questionable ones down to the *bottom* 10 of the search results for my name. Well, except the gay sports blogger who is still #2. But I don't mind him as much as the stupid shit I said when I was a kid.
That horrible wasting-mind disease known as nostalgia. On average, the same percentage of platformers were good as, for example, the percentage of first-person shooters that are good. The thing is, people still play the good platformers-- like Mario 3 or Sonic 2, and as a result, they completely forget about the thousands of crappy platformers out there.
If you want a more even perspective, take a look at Something Awful's ROM pit: http://www.somethingawful.com/d/rom-pit/ They review the bad platformers you've forgotten.
Now, can we please stop seeing topics like this based entirely on nostalgia?
Slashdot Mirror
If that's supposed to be a MST3K reference, the correct lyric is "Next Sunday, A.D." The gag, of course, is that Sunday afternoons is when most TV stations fill programming gaps with godawful movies, the type that MST3K mocks. (Also: that you wouldn't normally qualify "next Sunday" with A.D.)
The Satellite of Love never ends up in 3000 A.D., but it does spend a few episodes in the year 2525, but unfortunately you can't pick your son, pick your daughter too, from the bottom of a big glass tube. I'm pretty sure the "3000" in the title is just there to make it sound cooler.
You gave me a Wikipedia link, written by crazy geeky people like you. Not a citation. You read Slashdot, right? You remember all those articles about how Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used as a primary source, right?
The page didn't discuss even a single instance of street lighting being useful in any fashion at all. I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that every city on Earth has been installing street lighting for literally centuries if there's absolutely no positives to it.
You don't want an argument, you want a fight. It's too bad that it's illegal to give you one, or you would probably have had this attitude beaten out of you already.
Do you always threaten people who disagree with you with physical violence? There's a difference between me saying "you're full of bullshit" and you saying "I'm going to beat your forehead in with a shovel." For one thing, the latter is illegal in most places.
What the holy shit does light "pollution" have to do with your quality of life? You're just pulling this stuff out of mid-air at this point.
You'd actually physically assault someone for leaving their garage light on overnight? You really are not equipped for this whole "civilization" thing, buddy. I'd recommend becoming a hermit right now, and as an added bonus you wouldn't have any lights in your hermit-cave.
If you get ranting angry over a city installing streetlights, I'm guessing there's not a lot of "qualify of life" to be lost.
It's fucking stupid to light up the sky with your streetlights.
Why? Who cares?
On the scale of importance, I rate this about a -500. Definitely not worth the expensive of refitting lights.
If you really wanted to see the evidence you would find that it is trivial to find places to start looking. You clearly do not. Cue further excuses in 3...2...1...
You're trying to convince me. Thus the burden of evidence is on you. Plus I don't give half a shit about light pollution, I just hate assholes who try to tell me what to do.
Perhaps, but even more stupid, wasteful and unnecessary are the holier-than-thou types who constantly tell other people what to do. If you want to live somewhere without streetlights, then move there.
I've love to see some evidence that it's been "fingered" in numerous problems with human health, especially considering the entire point of street lights is to reduce crime.
Not only am I not worried about light pollution from people painting roofs white, I'm not worried about light pollution period! If you are, I suggest you move-- it's a big country*.
* Note: I'm assuming you're in the US, China, Russia, Canada, or ... a big country.
On the contrary, Microsoft's embrace, extend and extinguish strategy killed Java, and the browser market as well (not just Netscape, but a whole market).
Why did Microsoft embrace Java? Because Sun was telling everybody that it was the future of GUI application development.
Why did Microsoft extend Java? Because Java sucked at writing GUI applications. (In Windows, at least.)
Why did Microsoft extinguish Java? Because Sun got pissy over Microsoft's extensions, and forced them to stop development on Microsoft's VM implementation. Since Microsoft's VM implementation was so much better at GUI desktop apps and web applets, Microsoft's removal of it basically killed-off Java as a end-user technology.
Notice how the "extinguish" part was prompted by Sun itself, *not* by Microsoft. Microsoft was perfectly happy to maintain their own version of Java for as long as their customers desired it.
Actually, court documents revealed that Microsoft tried to destroy Java on purpose.
I don't believe in conspiracy theories.
IE for Mac was a completely different browser than the Windows version. It was actually somewhat standards compliant.
Nobody's ever chosen a browser based on standards compliance. IE was more popular because it didn't crash and ran faster, on both Windows and Macintosh-- standards have absolutely nothing to do with that particular equation.
The Hulk is extremely destructive, and yet consistently gets rid of the *even more* destructive villain.
He's basically the same thing as Godzilla, if you look at it that way. Sure, Godzilla stomps a city or two, but in the process he defeats the monster that would have destroyed the entire world-- so it's a net good.
Netscape destroyed Netscape, and Sun destroyed Java. (At least for Windows GUI apps.)
Netscape released years and years worth of shitty, buggy products. With apologies to Joel Spolski*, their release plan basically was "if it builds, release it. If a bug big enough to hit the press surfaces, hotfix it." Netscape decided to spend their time dinking around with email, chat, newsgroups-- basically shoveling every piece of shit into their flagship product they could-- instead of making it fast and stable.
The instant IE stopped sucking, people switched over in droves. (And as proof that OS bundling wasn't nearly as big a factor as Netscape claims: the exact same thing happened on Macintosh computers, even though Apple included *both* IE and Netscape on the system disk.)
Then, as if they weren't already mis-managed enough, Netscape decided to throw their entire product in the dumpster and start over from scratch. They went, what, three and a half years with no release?
Sorry, the simple fact of the matter was that Netscape was run by idiots. They had some early successes, but the only thing really propping them up from day one was the hype surrounding the web itself.
Sun's Java was killed due to these two facts:
1) Sun was telling everybody Java was a write-once-deploy-everywhere product for GUI apps.
2) Java's OS integration sucked ass. (Even now, a decade on, Java's OS integration sucks ass.)
Microsoft made the stupid error of believing that Java was salvageable, so they added extensions to it to make it suck a little bit less at OS integration. Of course, what ended up happening, is that developers would write their Java apps to depend on those extensions and thus make them incompatible with Java on other platforms. If Sun had gotten their ducks in a row with Java from day one, Microsoft wouldn't have had to extend the language.
Now I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with Java for server development, and yes I know that there are 50 kajillion Java products out right now, etc etc. But for GUI development, Java was still-born.
* Too lazy to look up the specific links, but Joel has several articles about Netscape's strategic mistakes on his site: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/
I use vim extensively and I fully agree. On top of the features you mentioned there are also other great features such as tabbing (:tabnew, :tabedit, gt to switch tabs, etc...), screen splitting (:split, :vsplit, ctrl+W,w to switch between screens, etc...), text markers that the user can jump into with only a couple of keypresses (m{a-Z} to create a mark and label it {a-Z], g'{a-Z} to jump to that mark, etc...) and even automating certain actions through macros.
Visual Studio and Eclipse can do all of those things.
I'm sure emacs also have these features but unfortunately we don't usually see them in those fancy text editors bundled with all sorts of crap (i.e., IDEs). So to insinuate that editors such as vim or emacs can't hold their own in relevant-size projects is disingenuous at best.
Possibly true. However, it's also true that you're ignorant of the capabilities of IDEs and thus unfit to judge the other way 'round.
There's a difference between "not supported" and "doesn't work."
Not that I'm defending the website's slowness in adapting to change.
What makes you think that's a bug in the OS, and not just typical wifi packet loss issues? Streaming multimedia is *not* one of the things that wifi is good for-- if you're really having troubles with this, I'd recommend running cable.
Or at the very least trying it with a different OS to determine whether it's Vista or your wifi link at fault. Of course that would involve critical thinking instead of just knee-jerking every single computer problem to be Microsoft's fault...
What was preventing your from torrenting from Vista before? Seeing as that bug only applies to *half-open* TCP connections. Oh, right, you're just making up shit to bash Microsoft for no reason.
They're planning for an invasion of the Waverlies, I guess.
Microsoft is successful because:
1) It's steady. None of its (new) products are run-away successes, but Microsoft sticks with them and incrementally improves them each year until eventually they're really strong.
2) Their competitors keep making stupid-ass mistakes. Netscape didn't lose marketshare because IE was bundled, they lost marketshare because Netscape 4 was a shitty product. Lotus 1-2-3 lost out to Excel because they were dinking around with OS/2 (assigning no importance to Windows compatibility) and failed rewrites. WordPerfect lost out to Word because (like 1-2-3) they assigned no importance to Windows compatibility, and when they finally had a Windows version it was buggy and didn't run at all on NT.
3) Because of the combination of 1 and 2, companies don't bother to even try to complete with Microsoft anymore. The only real competition they have in any of their core products is Lotus Domino/Notes, which users hate, but which has a large momentum from legacy installs. That's... about it.
Sure it's popular to hate on the big player. And sure, I'd love to see some realistic competition to Microsoft's flagship products.
That's all great, until you try to actually ride an Amtrak train somewhere. You come to the station, where's the train? "Its an hour late." Great. Wait an hour. Where's the train? "Oh your run was canceled." "Were you going to tell us?" "Eh."
Customers don't think Amtrak is a waste of money because of the train/track/station maintenance, they think it's a waste of money because their service (especially customer service!) sucks.
Compare Amtrak with, say, the US Postal Service. People make fun of the USPS for having poor customer service, but the fact is that at least your mail gets where it's going in a reasonable amount of time. Amtrak can't pull that off. Not even close.
As the saying goes: even Mussolini could make the trains run on time.
No kidding. I decided to stop buying Sony about a 5 years ago when I bought a 5-disk DVD changer from them that didn't work. At all. It actually tried to swallow my Aliens disk-- I had to hack at it with a screwdriver to save my DVD from it. Fortunately, Fry's took the return, even after the screwdrivering.
I do kind of wish Sony would stick around, though... they hyperbole coming from their Playstation division is simply hilarious. They're one baby step away from just hiring Baghdad Bob to talk about the PS3.
What, exactly, does the validity of my code mean? All you're doing is dodging the question. XHTML gives you absolutly nothing in practical terms. Since I don't make decisions based on gut instinct, or how "clean" something looks, I don't use it. It just makes me angry at how much time browser makers have wasted on such a pointless standard.
I'd love to change my mind here. But if "XML editing tools exist!" is the best you got, it's not going to happen.
XHTML does give you something that HTML 4 doesn't have: it's XML, rather than SGML. Do you have any idea what sort of ugly code, unsupported by any browser, is perfectly valid SGML and therefore perfectly valid HTML4? That sort of crap won't be acceptable as XHTML, which makes XHTML the superior standard IMO.
In *practical* terms, what does that give me?
I say again: PRACTICAL.
The simple fact of the matter is that there is no practical difference between HTML and XHTML. Geeky types just "think it looks cleaner." Being able to validate as XML gives you absolutely *nothing*, it just makes it that much harder for the average person to write a web page.
The Sonic 2 article was on April Fools. Congratulations on missing the joke.
But, were they features people actually wanted, or just some extra bells and whistles that only a few people will ever need, use, or even know about? I don't think in the years I've owned iPods I've ever felt there were features I wish it had.
I bought an 80-GB Zune because:
1) The Zune software is FAR superior to iTunes. My Zune actually broke (the screen cracked) a few months ago, but I'm still using the Zune software to manage my collection-- iTunes is only used for my iPhone.
2) The Zune has an FM radio and the iPod doesn't.
Other than those two points, the Zune was on-par with the iPod Video I had before. Both devices play music and MP4 files fine.
Yah, I read this article as: "Japanese people are racist (classist, I guess), and it's somehow Google's fault."
But really, is this a surprise to anybody? The least-diverse country in the world in racist! Shocking!
So a good number of people have stated nostalgia, and out of those the majority have said that 2d platformers were mostly or all bad. Yet I've not seen any examples of how or why.
Sorry, there isn't a Atari or NES version of IGN where I can just go back and look up all the reviews. You'll just have to take my word for it: the vast majority of 2D platformers, back when that genre was dominant, sucked.
You're listing a small selection of titles that are known to not-suck, and then saying because they don't suck people who say the majority of them *did* suck are wrong. But you're suffering from the same nostalgia as everybody else: the reason Castlevania, Contra, Bionic Commando, and Mega Man have all had recent sequels is because those games *didn't suck*.
Tough shit. Younger generations are going to be published on the web from the day they're born... if you want to worry about anybody's online reputation, worry about theirs.
Sure, some now-lawyer did something damned stupid when it was 20 years old in college, and it's out there for everybody to see. Guess what? Damned stupid stuff I wrote when I was 14 years old is out there for everybody to see, and I can't do jack to get rid of it. (Plus I share a name with a guy who runs a gay sports blog.)
The greatest thing about the rise of Facebook and LinkedIn is that those pages have pushed the more questionable ones down to the *bottom* 10 of the search results for my name. Well, except the gay sports blogger who is still #2. But I don't mind him as much as the stupid shit I said when I was a kid.
That horrible wasting-mind disease known as nostalgia. On average, the same percentage of platformers were good as, for example, the percentage of first-person shooters that are good. The thing is, people still play the good platformers-- like Mario 3 or Sonic 2, and as a result, they completely forget about the thousands of crappy platformers out there.
If you want a more even perspective, take a look at Something Awful's ROM pit: http://www.somethingawful.com/d/rom-pit/ They review the bad platformers you've forgotten.
Now, can we please stop seeing topics like this based entirely on nostalgia?