I know exactly what you mean. Furthermore, I received an invite from Facebook from a new user who did not send me the invite himself; I found out about this after he responded to my reply. Then Facebook began spamming me with "reminders" until I blackballed them through Google. As for those whom Facebook suggested I "may know" I remember at least one false positive. Nevertheless, I'm personally boycotting Facebook for this BS, and passing the word on.

This isn't for a 3D engine, and it's bitmap based, not vector based. I know it's not novel, but my graphics system will be based more on old NES/SNES bitmap technology, where a near infinite number of multicolor palettes can be applied to a single graphic image, just with far greater flexibility.

You have to know these things when you're a king.

Well stated. I'm working on making one of my game projects potentially compatible with higher resolution DPI than is presently available; sure, getting that to work properly will be a great deal of work, but since I'm designing the graphic system to be a separate component, I shouldn't need to worry about changing the core elements of other parts of the engine.

Actually, unless you're somehow using a bridge rectifier with a much smaller voltage drop across the individual diodes, you're using 1.4V(two diodes on a bridge are always in use, so that's double the voltage drop), or pretty much all the energy supplied of the battery if it's alkaline, and more than the total if it's anything else. Other than that, you are absolutely correct.

For D, C, AA, AAA and N batteries, there really isn't a need for more wires, just a slightly more complicated connector for each cell, which would not necessarily require more space and must be aligned plus to minus, so one end's plus and the other end's minus are connected to the power for the circuit itself. Lithium batteries, however, would have to use a different circuit design for this type of scheme, which wouldn't necessarily require more wiring, but would need to require each battery to have its own seat. I'll agree with you about not being compelling for anything that permits multiple batteries in the same seat.

In high school there was a small group of miscreants who took the phrase "To boldly go where no man has gone before" to new depths of depravity.

That's why there's a toilet on the ceiling in the bathroom. My brother said this one time after I modified the Star Trek opening in relation to our family's then 1978 Plymouth Voyager van.

Minor correction; the state of your self reply was +5 when I replied. I'm not sure why I wrote initial in place of that.

I did note the initial state of your self reply, but I still couldn't comprehend the justification concerning your original post. At least the Mods didn't penalize me for calling them out (particularly considering my relatively high UID). I do agree with your opinion on the moderation system; I was merely objecting to the abuse of the system, not that many mods will likely see it, considering the lateness of my reply. Even if my post is little read, hopefully it affects the few who actually do read it to be more careful. Fortunately, I did not immediately dismiss your thoughts just because they had been unfairly criticized. And thanks for the history of the moderation.

Well stated. A good part of the reason people don't understand what the Children of Israel did in taking over what was then called the land of Canaan is caused by a lack of understanding of Canaan religious rites (which often involved, among other things, slaughtering children on their altars). Without understanding the culture of the Israelites at the time, we cannot fairly judge their actions.

Furthermore, the Israelites had nothing to do with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, which took place well over a century before the Mosaic exodus (and the beginning of the Kingdom of Israel), and long before the birth of Jacob (who is called Israel). I don't claim to know exactly what happened, but from what the biblical record states, I believe it may have had something to do with a natural disaster, such as a volcanic eruption.

Irregardless of these facts, there have been thousands who have misused the basic precepts of Christianity since its inception, and they should be individually condemned without condemning the teachings they misused, but unfortunately, the teachings are generally castigated first.

(Score:0, Troll)

I cannot see any justification for this; I see no attempt in these comments to troll anyone, merely to lay out a viable explanation to support Mr. Ormandy, finishing with a logical summary of the argument. I'm tempted to meta-mod in hopes of correcting this travesty (though having commented, I'm not likely to be given the opportunity). I see this kind of thing far too often. As several sigs point out, -1 disagree does not exist for a very good reason. Moderation is intended to punish those who are deliberately uncivil or abusive with their comments. -1 Troll, -1 Flamebait, and -1 Overrated are not, and never will be, acceptable substitutes.

Don't usually respond to ACs, but you truly deserve recognition for this effort. Your comments are thorough, concise, and do not needlessly nitpick or belittle the GP (sure you refer to the GP as small minded, but considering the criticism is on, as you repeatedly point out, a single, simple aspect of a complex problem, I do not find that particularly condescending).

Although, I do think part of your comment could have been phrased more humorously. Here is what I recommend as one possible replacement:

Makes me wonder who you would be blaming in those precious, all critical 60 days of yours, if neither he or MS released info about it, and your systemS got totally owned. The Google employee because he didn't release the info so people could have protected their systems if MS failed, or MS for having the security whole in the first place and being snail slow (sorry to all the true snails out there) in fixing (if they did) the flaw.

I don't see how anyone could think this is flamebait. My personal analysis of your comments indicates you are making a well reasoned argument about the culture Microsoft has created, which may have been the cause of this difficulty, and that is valid, and not intended to draw flames (though it would clearly do so from some readers). If I had points, I'd counter the disparagement, but I figure this is an adequate response.

I've learned to write code with the assumption that my bugs would not get caught by the programming language, so I'd better make sure I catch them, or at least know what they are so I can publish them (in the event I cannot be bothered to write code to catch the bug, as in my FP128 converter for the C=64). I've also never understood the logic behind structuring program memory with the heap, code, stack model; that puts the code above the heap, which grows from the bottom, and below the stack, which grows from the top, thus making buffer overflows easy. I'd rather build an application so the stack is below the program and the heap is above. I also never consider myself finished with anything I haven't thoroughly tested and found all the reasonable bugs in (I don't release code because I'm not a programmer, I just dabble from time to time).

Anyway, I commend you for having the courage to make such a comment, even in an environment that is becoming increasingly hostile toward those who speak the truth.

Your point was well stated. I'm not interested in Windows 7; I switched my core system to Ubuntu in 2007, from XP, and haven't looked back. I would like to say, however, I've never been impressed with the menu structure in any Microsoft product, especially in Office; I use WordPerfect still, and I can't see a day I'd ever consider switching to Word, or dealing with any of Microsoft's new menu systems.

You are correct. Then again, this is a kdawson article, so that it made it here isn't that big a surprise. I also note that the title of the article is the same as the title of the discussion here.