Comment Re:Obligatory (Score 1) 371
"I'd like to know what the exact problem is they can't overcome[...]"
perhaps an arrow in the knee?
This (NSFW) seems an appropriate response...
"I'd like to know what the exact problem is they can't overcome[...]"
perhaps an arrow in the knee?
This (NSFW) seems an appropriate response...
EA still has some good development studios; they're not a pure publisher. For example, EA Tiburon develops the quite profitable Madden series...
By "develops" you mean "changes the roster, tweaks the icons, and releases a 'new game' every year", correct?
Nothing new here. Move along.
But...but...it's an APPLE screen with a keyboard! That mean's it's magical, revolutionary, innovative, wonderful, stunning, and powerful! Why do you hate magic?
Not that it detracts from viewing it, but lets be clear. Enterprise was NEVER intended to go into space without retrofitting it which after costs was considered prohibitive. It was cheaper to build Atlantis than to retrofit Enterprise which tells you something about how "space" worthy it really was.
Enterprise was critical for flight testing in the atmosphere before Columbia launched.
Actually, it was Challenger that was built instead of converting Enterprise. Challenger was a structural test vehicle already, so most of the build work was complete. And since the testing had a HUGE safety margin, there was no damage, and it was decided to convert it from a test vehicle into a full orbiter.
Then there was Endeavour, built from spares leftover from Discovery and Atlantis...
"Some interesting points to note include the painted-over windows (the gray circles near the nose), the amazing intricacy and build quality of the landing gear mechanism, and the tail piece. The Enterprise was never fitted with engines so it has that specially designed part in the back."
Umm, hate to be "that guy" but there is so much fail in that one snippet I can't stand it.
Normally I wouldn't get this worked up, but from a site supposedly aimed at geeks, I expected more...
...that a guy who's last name is suspiciously close to the descriptor for animals who feed on decomposing flesh decided to become a lawyer?
The decomposing animal itself is what carrion refers to, the creatures who feed on it. [/pedantic]
Although somehow this might make it a MORE apt description of the guy's character...
How do you post a Chinese translation of "Hey y'all, watch this!"?
"Hi dàji, kàn zhège!" (since Slashdot can't handle Chinese characters).
If you are getting your receipt checked at the door, you are shopping somewhere whose main claim is that they are cheap.
Ever been forced to purchase something at Best Buy recently? They check receipts all the time and sure as hell can't claim their prices are cheap, which is why more and more people are avoiding the hell out of them (to say nothing of the rampant ignorance of their employees).
Hidden cost, hard to quantify, doesn't show up on spreadsheets often.
OT I know, but am I the only one that hears Mordin Solus' voice when I read that?
Ahh, Free Speech only means something when you agree with its usage, eh?
Free Speech protections mean the government can't surpress what you say. Slashdot, being a private company, is not bound by the First Amendment in that way. And you'd be surprised how many forums/boards require you to prove you're not a shill or spambot before turning you loose on the site's population as a whole.
'My company deals with financial services. We are not allowed to access Dropbox either.' So why isn't Linux the first choice for all financial services?
The problem is that your question makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. "We can't use Dropbox, so why doesn't our company use Linux"? Banning cloud services has nothing to do with what OS you prefer. It's all about restricting ways users can get potentially confidential data offsite to places the employer can't control. That's it. End of story. Turning this into a Linux vs Windows debate not only strains logic, but hurts your cause. You're feeding the stereotype that Linux users are nothing but unruly zealots who try to cram their ideology into any conversation, regardless of wether or not it's invited or warranted.
Not to mention the submission is flat out absurd from a logical standpoint. "My employer doesn't allow cameras in the building. So why don't more companies have an on-site cafeteria?" makes about as much sense. Seriously, timothy...were you asleep at the wheel and just blindly posting whatever came across your screen? How about you may me to sit there and look at submissions instead. I'd at least put some actual effort into it.
I'm a Canadian, but spent some of my high school career in the States so I picked up a bit of how the US election system works. Unfortunately I think a lot of Americans don't fully understand their own democratic system. My understanding of Bush's second term was he wasn't even close to having the popular vote, but got in because of the electoral college vote him in. The college is suppose to vote the way the population tells it, but it doesn't have to, and there have been several presidents that were elected by the college that didn't have the popular vote. Elections are just horse and pony shows to make the population feel like they have some influence. Although our election system here in Canada is considerable different, it isn't any better. None of us have any real say over who is going to tell us to bend over and take it, but modern governments have learned from past empires that if you don't keep the population happy they're going to revolt.
The electors can technically vote any way they want, but they generally follow their states. It doesn't really happen the way you think it does. What happens is each state has a certain number of electoral votes. On election day, the people vote for their chosen candidate, and whoever gets the most votes in a state, gets all of that state's electoral votes. However, some states have far more electoral votes than others. This causes situations where you can have the popular vote in your favor, but because your opponent won more of the "big states", you lose. And with it being essentially a two-party system, the electoral vote is done on a "first past the post" basis, so whoever gets to 270 electoral votes first is the new President.
So it's not really a conspiracy by electors to ignore the will of the people. It's a horribly designed numbers game that allows candidates to pretty much ignore smaller states or ones that aren't "swing states". Either way, the result is the people get screwed again and again.
Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.
