Of course, that price doesn't factor in all the batteries you're going to use when it's a keyboard, mouse or other thing that doesn't have its own power source. And batteries are expensive.
First, the usual disclaimer: I'm sure that wireless technology can be useful for people with thousands of wires, especially in companies, but I wish they'd keep it there and stop assaulting the home user with it.
I'm tired of all this wireless hype that pushes many wireless products into the store, pushing away the wired, cheaper and equally adequate products. I don't have a use for a wireless mouse and/or keyboard that I have to buy batteries for. I have no use for exposing my network to everyone. Etc.
I'm also concerned over all this radio activity in the air, even though people say it's alright, which I don't believe.
And no, I don't have mobile phone, and proud of it.
That's not what I meant. I was asking why you didn't like playing with Sonic, Tails and Knuckles at the same time.
As for the other teams, there's one difference that puts them in two groups. The Sonic and Dark teams have the power characters boxing with and throwing the other characters, while the Rose and Chaotix teams have the power character launch the others instead of boxing and performing a rebounding smash move towards the ground when in the air.
In general, though, the other teams are the different difficulty levels (with the exception of Chaotix) with a different Team Blast.
Difficulty: Sonic: Normal Dark: Hard Rose: Easy Chaotix: somewhere between Normal and Hard
Team Blasts: Sonic: destroy all nearby enemies Dark: destroy all nearby enemies, freeze time for 10 seconds Rose: destroy all nearby enemies, one level up for all characters, invincibility for a short period of time Chaotix: destroy all nearby enemies, with each destroyed enemy acting as a random opened ring box Chaotix:
The problem is that many users blame badly rendered sites on Firefox/Opera/whatever when it's really the site's fault since it's designed for IE, so they switch back.
You shouldn't have to develop in one specific browser. If you really are a professional, you write your HTML and CSS, then -validate- them with the W3 validators, -then- you test it in browsers. Next you apply the necessary hacks or workarounds so that it works in every browser.
Yet another article hating on Sonic because it's cool.
One of the many arguments is that it should be like the older games, and then they reference the GBA games. Uh, they aren't like the older games. Sure, they're 2D, but are they well designed? It doesn't seem like it. Sonic has a kick move that brings him to a full stop, he can grind on rails, but only for about two times in the entire game. In general, the games seem to try to make you go as fast as possible, with boosters all over the place.
Sonic Adventure was a great game that admittedly had some bugs, especially with the camera. It was great to be able to go where you liked, and the story was nice. The game should be commended on how well it weaved together the viewpoint of six characters together. Though I admit that Big's fishing games weren't that exciting and didn't belong in there.
Sonic Adventure 2 did away with the exploration, focusing on levels. The gameplay was enhanced, but still with a somewhat dodgy camera. I thought it was great fun to play. I enjoyed E-102 Gamma's levels in the original, so imagine my joy to see expanded levels based on that premise. I'll admit that the treasure hunter levels regressed, though. Now you could only search one fragment at a time. Bummer.
Sonic Heroes went back to the roots, and I thought it was a great innovative game, using three characters instead of one. I enjoyed every bit of it. The camera wasn't that bad in this game, but then again, I played the EU version, which might have had some fixes. I didn't experience the popular "falling through the floor" bug. The problem was going so fast that until you learned to adjust to it, you would often run off a platform or make a bad jump.
I haven't played Shadow the Hedgehog, but I do intend to. However, at a lower price, because this game genuinely seems to have real problems. For example, the enemy can shoot farther than you.
The idiosyncratic (read: sort of awkward) controls certainly don't make things any easier. All told, they make Ecco an acquired taste, and at the eight dollar standard rate for Genesis games this might be a tough sell. But we'll go ahead and give it the nod just for its boldness in straying from the beaten path.
Well, of course they're not like your typical game. Ecco is underwater, and the 'water feel and control' is well implemented, in my opinion.
Something was lost in the conversion to Genesis, though, and the Wii port is all the more galling for its lack of online co-op... something available in much less expensive XBLA classics. Golden Axe can be mindless fun with another player, but here it's under-featured and over-priced.
Too bad they don't say what was lost.
I don't think it's fair to bash it for not having online play. It was never announced, and XBLA's approach to its games is different. This is just a Virtual Console, where you just play games like back in the day, when there were no online cooperation options.
That, and you show me a PS2 game that was out at launch that doesn't look just as crappy as the best PS1 games. It takes time to get coders to take advantage of new hardware properly.
Bad argument/example. The launch Dreamcast games that came out one year earlier looked better than the PS2's launch games.
It's not entirely fair to compare SeaMonkey with Firefox.
He doesn't compare. The link he gave gives you the source code of the trunk of the project. All projects can be found there.
The seamonkey directory is named like that because it was the code name of the Mozilla suite, which was the flagship product of Mozilla in the beginning.
One of the drivers factors behind the foundation of Firefox (then Phoenix) was that the Mozilla inherited from Netscape was borked beyond redemption, and recoding from scratch was the only way forward.
The rewriting from scratch has nothing to do with Firefox. The source code Netscape released was indeed a big mess, and Mozilla then rewrote it from scratch. This rewrite is what was used for all their Mozilla projects. Firefox is not the rewrite.
Firefox is a project that was born around the year 2000 from a couple teenagers who didn't like the review process and the approach the suite took, so they forked the interface code and started on Phoenix, which was designed to only be a browser with the end user in mind.
SeaMonkey, whose repository you linked to. is a continuation of the old Mozilla codebase. It was brought back from the dead after the mozilla project decided to junk it.
It's a continuation of the suite interface code, but not the old Netscape source code that was released.
But have you tried the more recent Mozilla suite, or the new SeaMonkey (Mozilla 1.8 in disguise)? It sounds like you did so only a long time ago, because tabbed browsing has existed in Mozilla for many years now.
It was not a blunder. The rewrite was desperately needed. The source code that Netscape released was a complete mess, one that they couldn't go forward with.
Firefox has always been about controlling your information: what goes in and what goes out has traditionally been left up to the user. But with Firefox 2.0, the Mozilla Foundation obviously decided that users couldn't be trusted to safely decide for themselves whether or not they want to enable the installation of 3rd party tracking, advertising, and adware cookies on their PC. Now users have to navigate to a hidden options page few know of to change that.
Those options were removed because they never worked reliably in the first place. So the developers though it best to remove them instead of instilling a false sense of security.
And since I'm replying about the article already...
however it seems that the Mozilla Foundation has forgotten what gave it its initial boost: people looking to get out of Microsoft's Corporate world
The article's author probably forgot that Firefox and Thunderbird are now in Mozilla Corporation's hands. Mozilla Foundation is the home of all the other projects.
I assume that this is the same logic used for removing the "only allow cookies from the originating site" option. The feature didn't work that well, and would give the user a false sense of security.
As a work-around, unless you surf the web during breaks, you should work at work, like you're supposed to.
Try SeaMonkey. It's essentially Mozilla 1.8. Soon there'll be SeaMonkey 1.1, which is based on the same code base as Firefox 2.0, without the memory leaks.
Eh, what? I assume you meant to place the title of the localised series between brackets, which is actually Dragon Warrior.
Dragon Knight is an ero RPG.
Sounds to me like people are getting really impatient these days. I'm willing to wait up to 10 seconds to let a page load, and if it still hasn't, but is busy (instead of connecting again) I load another tab and occupy myself with something else.
However, four seconds sounds accurate for how long to wait until the page -starts- to load. If I have to wait longer than 4 seconds just to connect to a web server, I start to get impatient. If it takes much longer, I'll come back to it later and go do something else.
That's just it, you're not really changing anything. You're just declaring that you're going to write well formed XML. Why is that so bad?
If it's not really changing anything, then why do it?
Who is "forcing everyone" to do anything?
Uh... Hello, you said XHTML would force everyone to create well-formed documents. Which won't be true anyway until they're sent as application/xhtml+xml.
So you fault people for making that extra step?
So you fault people for making that extra step?
No, I fault them for not going all the way.
Ok, so some people write bad XHTML. Fault THEM, not just anyone who chooses to implement XHTML when they don't necessarily have to.
Fault them, and IE, for letting them do it.
It has to start some time. It isn't like XHTML breaks anything.
It does break things when sent as text/html. Not to mention it changes JavaScript when the page does get sent with the proper MIME type.
It can't start as long as the most popular browser doesn't support XHTML properly.
It is easier, trivial even, to write valid XHTML now than to go back and fix all your pages when you do want to use XML tools or implement other namespaces such as XForms in future.
When you already write semantic HTML, it's not easier at all, and Tidy can help you out, I hear, when you do want to change.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why you search out a nice AMD Athlon XP processor that is 32-bits and use that one. :)
My new PC will have it when I assemble it. Already got the CPU secured. No need for 32 extra bits that aren't going to be used.
But have you compared it to performance on 32-bit?
64-bit is mostly a fad right now, it doesn't really run faster or more efficient.
What the hell does that have to do with it?
I was saying that in case someone pointed out that mobile phones are also wireless.
Yes, I was talking about the price in the stores.
Of course, that price doesn't factor in all the batteries you're going to use when it's a keyboard, mouse or other thing that doesn't have its own power source. And batteries are expensive.
First, the usual disclaimer:
I'm sure that wireless technology can be useful for people with thousands of wires, especially in companies, but I wish they'd keep it there and stop assaulting the home user with it.
I'm tired of all this wireless hype that pushes many wireless products into the store, pushing away the wired, cheaper and equally adequate products. I don't have a use for a wireless mouse and/or keyboard that I have to buy batteries for. I have no use for exposing my network to everyone. Etc.
I'm also concerned over all this radio activity in the air, even though people say it's alright, which I don't believe.
And no, I don't have mobile phone, and proud of it.
That's not what I meant. I was asking why you didn't like playing with Sonic, Tails and Knuckles at the same time.
As for the other teams, there's one difference that puts them in two groups. The Sonic and Dark teams have the power characters boxing with and throwing the other characters, while the Rose and Chaotix teams have the power character launch the others instead of boxing and performing a rebounding smash move towards the ground when in the air.
In general, though, the other teams are the different difficulty levels (with the exception of Chaotix) with a different Team Blast.
Difficulty:
Sonic: Normal
Dark: Hard
Rose: Easy
Chaotix: somewhere between Normal and Hard
Team Blasts:
Sonic: destroy all nearby enemies
Dark: destroy all nearby enemies, freeze time for 10 seconds
Rose: destroy all nearby enemies, one level up for all characters, invincibility for a short period of time
Chaotix: destroy all nearby enemies, with each destroyed enemy acting as a random opened ring box
Chaotix:
Not exactly what you're looking for, but this is a good place to start: http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support.php
The article's author also states not wanting to play with multiple characters.
Why not? What's so bad about playing with multiple characters at the same time?
No worries. If you need to test on Mac browsers, you can use these sites:
http://www.browsrcamp.com/
http://browsershots.org/
The problem is that many users blame badly rendered sites on Firefox/Opera/whatever when it's really the site's fault since it's designed for IE, so they switch back.
You shouldn't have to develop in one specific browser. If you really are a professional, you write your HTML and CSS, then -validate- them with the W3 validators, -then- you test it in browsers. Next you apply the necessary hacks or workarounds so that it works in every browser.
Yet another article hating on Sonic because it's cool.
One of the many arguments is that it should be like the older games, and then they reference the GBA games. Uh, they aren't like the older games. Sure, they're 2D, but are they well designed? It doesn't seem like it. Sonic has a kick move that brings him to a full stop, he can grind on rails, but only for about two times in the entire game. In general, the games seem to try to make you go as fast as possible, with boosters all over the place.
Sonic Adventure was a great game that admittedly had some bugs, especially with the camera. It was great to be able to go where you liked, and the story was nice. The game should be commended on how well it weaved together the viewpoint of six characters together. Though I admit that Big's fishing games weren't that exciting and didn't belong in there.
Sonic Adventure 2 did away with the exploration, focusing on levels. The gameplay was enhanced, but still with a somewhat dodgy camera. I thought it was great fun to play. I enjoyed E-102 Gamma's levels in the original, so imagine my joy to see expanded levels based on that premise. I'll admit that the treasure hunter levels regressed, though. Now you could only search one fragment at a time. Bummer.
Sonic Heroes went back to the roots, and I thought it was a great innovative game, using three characters instead of one. I enjoyed every bit of it. The camera wasn't that bad in this game, but then again, I played the EU version, which might have had some fixes. I didn't experience the popular "falling through the floor" bug. The problem was going so fast that until you learned to adjust to it, you would often run off a platform or make a bad jump.
I haven't played Shadow the Hedgehog, but I do intend to. However, at a lower price, because this game genuinely seems to have real problems. For example, the enemy can shoot farther than you.
Looking forward to Sonic on the Wii.
Well, of course they're not like your typical game. Ecco is underwater, and the 'water feel and control' is well implemented, in my opinion.
Too bad they don't say what was lost.
I don't think it's fair to bash it for not having online play. It was never announced, and XBLA's approach to its games is different. This is just a Virtual Console, where you just play games like back in the day, when there were no online cooperation options.
Bad argument/example. The launch Dreamcast games that came out one year earlier looked better than the PS2's launch games.
He doesn't compare. The link he gave gives you the source code of the trunk of the project. All projects can be found there.
The seamonkey directory is named like that because it was the code name of the Mozilla suite, which was the flagship product of Mozilla in the beginning.
The rewriting from scratch has nothing to do with Firefox. The source code Netscape released was indeed a big mess, and Mozilla then rewrote it from scratch. This rewrite is what was used for all their Mozilla projects. Firefox is not the rewrite.
Firefox is a project that was born around the year 2000 from a couple teenagers who didn't like the review process and the approach the suite took, so they forked the interface code and started on Phoenix, which was designed to only be a browser with the end user in mind.
It's a continuation of the suite interface code, but not the old Netscape source code that was released.
But have you tried the more recent Mozilla suite, or the new SeaMonkey (Mozilla 1.8 in disguise)? It sounds like you did so only a long time ago, because tabbed browsing has existed in Mozilla for many years now.
It was not a blunder. The rewrite was desperately needed. The source code that Netscape released was a complete mess, one that they couldn't go forward with.
Those options were removed because they never worked reliably in the first place. So the developers though it best to remove them instead of instilling a false sense of security.
And since I'm replying about the article already...
The article's author probably forgot that Firefox and Thunderbird are now in Mozilla Corporation's hands. Mozilla Foundation is the home of all the other projects.
SeaMonkey still has Composer, though hasn't really been developed anymore since years. It's mostly kept in working shape.
However, the original author of Composer has made a stand-alone application called nVU (http://www.nvu.com/).
I assume that this is the same logic used for removing the "only allow cookies from the originating site" option. The feature didn't work that well, and would give the user a false sense of security.
As a work-around, unless you surf the web during breaks, you should work at work, like you're supposed to.
Try SeaMonkey. It's essentially Mozilla 1.8. Soon there'll be SeaMonkey 1.1, which is based on the same code base as Firefox 2.0, without the memory leaks.
Eh, what? I assume you meant to place the title of the localised series between brackets, which is actually Dragon Warrior. Dragon Knight is an ero RPG.
Sounds to me like people are getting really impatient these days. I'm willing to wait up to 10 seconds to let a page load, and if it still hasn't, but is busy (instead of connecting again) I load another tab and occupy myself with something else.
However, four seconds sounds accurate for how long to wait until the page -starts- to load. If I have to wait longer than 4 seconds just to connect to a web server, I start to get impatient. If it takes much longer, I'll come back to it later and go do something else.
The post you replied to suggested taxing the producer of the hardware, NOT the consumer.
If it's not really changing anything, then why do it?
Uh... Hello, you said XHTML would force everyone to create well-formed documents. Which won't be true anyway until they're sent as application/xhtml+xml.
So you fault people for making that extra step?
No, I fault them for not going all the way.Fault them, and IE, for letting them do it.
It does break things when sent as text/html. Not to mention it changes JavaScript when the page does get sent with the proper MIME type.
It can't start as long as the most popular browser doesn't support XHTML properly.
When you already write semantic HTML, it's not easier at all, and Tidy can help you out, I hear, when you do want to change.