Perhaps it served some other purpose in the shallow swamps where such fish evolved, and it could be co-opted to movement on land.
the kind of emulation bugs still getting reported are literally "on the Super Game Boy player for the SNES..."
What kind of lunatic plays his Game Boy games on an emulated adapter for a different console entirely instead of just using a Game Boy emulator?!
For more recent systems, yeah, I haven't found any truly good low-level emulators, but those are also not the ones you'd be breaking out the CRT display for.
I don't know about that; I think anything up to and including the PS2, GameCube/Wii and (for all I know) Xbox probably looks better on a CRT.
so many programmers think that programming is a cool and important job that requires a ton of skill and talent and dedication.
That remains true.
and then they learn at around 40 that is all a load of old bollocks, hence the reason companies have outsourced much of it to 3rd world places.
Who are mostly neither talented nor dedicated and produce crap...
so to keep being employed in IT, you need to change with it,
No, you need to leave IT and be hired back at a far higher rate to fix the mess caused by people who think they are programmers but are neither talented or dedicated.
No worse hell that managing an offshoring project and watching future failure being built into the system. I will not do it and neither should anyone.
I'm not going to buy an "expensive" upscaler, but I'd rather use the real consoles. I actually run into emulation errors with games I want to play on a semi-regular basis. I don't think that it's unreasonable to think about buying a scaler, even if it's unreasonable to buy this one.
It would be nice if someone would kick out a television with a fancy scaler built in. AQUOS and Bravia televisions (among others... I have an older example of the former, just barely pre-LED-backlight) have scalers which provide pretty good results for video sources at typical resolutions while also adding minimal latency, which is their primary appeal as compared to other lines — especially since the competition caught up in the black level department. But someone like Vizio (which is commonly favored by gamers due to sharp, clean scaling, if a bit jaggy at times) might consider offering some models with a seriously upgraded scaler and offering them to gamers as a means of improving their old-school gaming experience. Even people who don't own classic consoles, or who keep them in a box in their closet, might consider spending some extra money on such a feature even if they wind up never actually using it.
Not me, but some people
I install Ubuntu LTS
But who are you? You don't have a name, or a mother. You're just an anonymous coward. If you really believed what you're saying, you'd log in.
I install Ubuntu and then nvidia won't install until I fucking massage the thing. And that's the selling point of Ubuntu. Give me a break. It's cool how fancy it is, and how it supports stuff, but it's not cool how flaky it is.
Cars cannot trust communications coming from other cars.
This is an awful idea even without the idea of human malice. With it, it's an Orwellian nightmare mated to a Murphyesque fuckup. Cars which depend on communications from other cars cannot in fact be said to be self-driving. They're part of a hive mind, and if there's sickness in that hive, it's going to affect them.
Democracy demands that at least 50% plus one agree with you.
The people believe whatever they're told to believe. Americans were told that cars would bring them freedom, security, and individuality. Instead, the vehicles can be seized at the least pretext without recourse other than waiving of fees (if you are lucky), any attempt to flee a natural disaster will result in joining a traffic jam, and the individuality is just like everyone else's.
I love driving. It is probably my second-favorite activity in the whole wide world, although I've never actually flown anything outside of a simulator, and I have a feeling that would do even better. But frankly, a functional public transportation system would serve most people better. If the auto companies weren't running things in transportation we could at least have a national dialogue about replacing cars with something better, like PRT — which can provide all of the benefits of the personal auto without any of the drawbacks.
If anything, cars should be less safe and speed limits higher to force people to pay attention, or else.
If there were any evidence that this saved lives, then that might be a good idea. There isn't. What makes cars more dangerous is more speed — it doesn't necessarily increase the risk of an accident, but it does make an accident more dangerous. What makes cars less dangerous is more safety features. Stuff that keeps cars out of accidents, stuff that reduces the amount of energy transferred to the occupants. Not less safety features. Meanwhile, I want all the safety features for that moment when someone else isn't paying attention.
You seriously haven't noticed American government becoming more authoritarian? You seriously didn't pay attention to the revelations of secret conspiracies to which we've been treated of late? This is all news to you?
Now dont discuss this subject any more unless you learn at least a few basic things.
Your post was interesting and informative but my reaction to this parting shot is - go fuck yourself you arrogant son of a bitch.
Global warming exists. Anyone who denies that is also a moron. But it's certainly not manmade.
I don't get the focus on whether or not the warming is anthropogenic. Should we ignore all problems that we didn't make?
Supposing that the warming isn't primarily anthropogenic, there's still plenty of reason to believe that the greenhouse gases we're adding are making it worse, and in fact we can even make some reasonable estimates of how much worse they're making it.
At the end of the day, you'd really better hope that you're wrong about our ability to modify the climate. Because the current climate of Earth is not typical. In fact, there isn't really a "typical" climate for the planet. Ice core histories show us that it swings between much hotter than it is, and much, much colder (by "colder", think "equatorial oceans frozen 30 feet deep for millenia"). Both extremes will be unpleasant for us, and I say "will", not "would", because it's gonna happen. When? We have no idea. We know that climate changes can happen very rapidly (couple of decades), even without an obvious precipitating event (big meteor, supervolcano eruption, etc.), and that they come at apparently-random intervals.
So if we want this planet to be nice for us long-term, we'd better learn to engineer our climate. Or get even better at adapting our local environment. Or both.
This seems incorrect, do you have a source for this? For example:
Guy: All swans are white.
Girl: Look over there! A black swan!
That's not science. That's simple observation. There's no hypothesis involved, for one thing, just a statement which happens in this example to be false.
Carter really messed up with that decision...
We can change that any time. Don't blame Carter. It's being done deliberately. Ask yourself who stands to gain if the status quo is maintained.
Is it limited as compared to your $300 smartphone? Sure. But its only $40.
yes, but it's also limited as compared to this $33 phone. It's a feature phone, which today might as well be a dumbphone.
Climate has always changed, the concept of "Damage" is only relevant to those affected by it.
You mean, the same way as asteroids of various sizes have impacted into the Earth throughout the history of the planet, and "Damage" is only relevant to those affected by it?
Yes, I agree.
Yep. In the long run, the climate will change no matter what we do... unless we learn to actively manage it. Similarly, we will get hit by a catastrophically-destructive meteor, unless we develop the technology need to identify and deflect dangerous asteroids. It's worth noting that while without our intervention the climate may stay as it is for thousands of years, it may also change in decades. The ice core records tell us that the planet is capable of warming or cooling as much as 7C in as little as 20-30 years, even without any obvious catastrophic event, and even faster given a supervolcano eruption, or a big meteor. It WILL happen.
IMO, while it certainly makes sense to take reasonable steps to limit greenhouse gas production, we really need to focus on investing heavily in climate research, with an eventual goal of learning not only to understand but to manage our planet's climate. Actually, we should also invest a little in more strategies to cope with unpleasant climate. I say "more" strategies, because we already have a lot of them. The regions of Earth in which humans can survive comfortably without technological assistance are really small. The "natural" human carrying capacity of most of the places people live is basically zero, but we're very good at modifying our environment to adapt it to our needs. When the planet warms substantially, no doubt we'll have to apply more of those skills, so we should be thinking about which ones and how to improve our capabilities.