Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

If you run the Vista upgrade compatibilty advisor, which you can get from Microsoft's website, it will tell you everything that you need to know about upgrading to vista. Whether your devices will work, or if a program will or will not work.

You should also look at your terms of agreement. Most ISP's will not allow you to host your own server, and instead if you do want to host your own server you are going to have to opt with a more expensive connection.

At 3/3/07 08:59 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 3/3/07 08:55 PM, SevenSeize wrote: WTF????

Next they'll be telling us we can't count ketchup as a vegetable anymore....

Ha, it's a fruit

Ha not according to the Supreme Court.

Nix vs. Hedden

"Botanically, tomatoes are considered a fruit of the vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans, and peas. But in common language of people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, all these are vegetables which are grown in kitchen gardens, and which, eaten cooked or raw, are, like potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips, beets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery, and lettuce, usually served at dinner in, with, or after the soup, fish, or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not like fruits generally, as dessert."

At 1/20/07 08:57 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: What I'm worried about is what they will do with this technology and even use it against the US.

Why would they even contemplate that? We still have good ol' dollar diplomacy in action with China so that it hurts them more then it would to help them if they do attack us.

At 10/29/06 03:15 PM, BanditByte wrote: Let's see, the USSR after Gorbachev(spelling?). Hmm, I wonder where they are today.

NO! Under Gorbachev, the USSR started to losen its economic ties with socialism. The initial plan of the USSR was to initially start off with Socialism and slowly fade into communism. This did not work out, so Gorbachev started to privatize the markets. First of all, he implemented glasnost. THis was the policy of 'openness' which allowed people to finally talk about the problems of the USSR without reprise from the government. Two years later Gorbachev pushed two pieces of legislation commonly referred as Perestroika. Specifically these two laws Law of CoOps and Law on State enterprises, allowed the government businesses to determine their own level of output as well as to allow private enterprises. What went wrong in RUssia? "Shock Therapy." It was the rapid privatization of the economy. This was not possible for Russia to do because its main GDP before the collapse of the USSR was defense, and this part of the economy did not exist after the fall. So to briefly summarize stuff, you cannot point to Russia for the faults of either capitalism or socialism in the late 80's and the 90's. It was merely just a fault of how they transitioned the economy. As of right now, Russia's economy is growing at a decent pace, I can pull the number somewhere if you'd like me to. The middle class is growing, the divide between the rich and the poor is lessening(which may I remind you was fucking huge in the 90's).

At 10/26/06 03:51 PM, Begoner wrote: My idea was never tried.

Yes it was. It was called the USSR. Central Planning of Production.

At 11/3/06 06:00 PM, mofomojo wrote: We should judge our candidates based on the content of their character not based on the color of their skin.

Yeah my bad, by black horse candidate I meant dark horse.

Kucinich is too liberal for the American idea to be elected. 'Department of Peace' ? Looks good on paper, but what kind of functionality would it actually perform? We already have diplomats, humanitarian aid workers, etc, etc. Just look at each of Kucinich's, extremely radical in all regards. This is not a person we want to be put directly at the head of the United States. He would polarize the nation just by his controversial stances.

Legalize same-sex marriages? Its a very firm stance, but yet its not a good one. Legalize same sex civil-unions, and then 10 years down the road you will have your same-sex marriages.
Deparment of Peace? A wonderfully sounding bureaucracy.
Abolishing the death penalty? How about a reform in which it is harder to be put to death, but at the same time reduces the cost of execution. Most of the costs from the death penalty is the cost of red tape.
Ending the war on drugs? How about we just get rid of the name and just enforce our drug laws?
Repealing the Patriot Act? This was a vital piece of legislation that allowed intercommunication between various levels of the government. It removed a vast amount of red tape. Instead of repealing the entire act, how about we reverse the controversial pieces?

Overall, Kucinich is not the guy for the job. He does have a lot of experience in politics, but we don't need somebody like that right now. We need a black horse candidate. So as to the topic, I do know what candidate I want to run, but I sure as hell haven't heard his name.

If you want more accuracy with that method, make the for loop recurse more. The method that glael(sp?) uses is pretty much the most common algorithm used to find a square root, and it was used in schools before calculators could do square roots. It's proven, and it's accurate. Your algorithm on the other hand is a brute force way to calculate the square root and has no basis in mathematics. It is also going to be inaccurate when you don't use perfect squares.

At 9/27/06 03:06 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 9/26/06 05:55 PM, Ravens-Grin wrote:

So no, it is not a theory, it's a proven fact.

You put up with more drag, but also go a greater distance, which evens things out.

The distance was constant in my pseudo-calculations. So if you travel faster you travel the same distance in a quicker amount of time, but you expel a far greater amount of energy in the process.

At 9/26/06 04:01 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 9/26/06 03:53 PM, Ravens-Grin wrote: One major incentive for the government, and I believe this applies better now then ever, is based upon the fact that the faster you go, the less gas mileage you get.

Of course that's just BS theory and not really proven. There's a reason it's called "miles per gallon" and not "miles per gallon if you don't go too fast".

Well it's not BS theory, it's just a little bit of physics.

Let's just look at the drag force ceteris paribus. The drag force is directly coorelated to velocity squared, and we won't have to worry about the other variables because they only have to deal with the drag coefficient, and the area of the surface and these will remain constant. So we have Force of the drag equal to constant k times v squared ( F = k * v^2) .

What we also have is the formula for energy, which is the equivalent to work in our case. Energy is the capacity to do work. Since in our hypothetical case all of the energy from the engine is converted to work done (which is not the case for an IC engine, because an IC engine is HIGHLY inefficient. Touch the engine after you have run the car for awhile and you can see how inefficient the engine is to converting chemical potential energy to mechanical energy). Work is force times distance.

Now let's put some values into this. We will have some distance d, which both "speeds" will travel. So the "miles" will be the same. We will use the values of 55 mph and 75 mph as our velocities. So the work done, or rather energy used, to overcome the drag force for a distance of D is W=F*D, or Energy required= F*D. So we now have this:
55 mph 75 mph
W=k*(55)^2 * d W=k*(75)^2*d

Hmmm, I think the energy required to travel a distance d at a higher velocity is much much much greater than going a slower velocity. 55^2 = 3025 , 75^2 = 5625, and since everything else is constant this is all that you have to look at, the fact that 3025 (value for 55mph) < 5625 (value for 75 mph).

So no, it is not a theory, it's a proven fact.

One major incentive for the government, and I believe this applies better now then ever, is based upon the fact that the faster you go, the less gas mileage you get. It doesn't matter if you are in 4th, 5th gear, or if you have a 6th gear, the faster you go the more drag you will encounter which ultimately causes more energy to be expenditured. It is an easy way to reduce emissions, and at the same time conserve energy. And who better then the government to enforce this? Sure there are better ways to save on energy, but drop the speed limit down to 55 and see how much energy would be conserved just on the highways!

Don't think the government should be meddling with the attempt to conserve energy? Get pissed at Daylight Savings then as well.

http://www.nondot.org/~sabre/os/articles

There's a good resource for you.

I believe a bootloader does not use an OS

At 9/6/06 01:48 AM, whatthedeuce wrote: Assembler isn't a languauge. It's a program for turning assembly language into object code: http://en.wikipedia...y_language#Assembler


And no, you can't just write assembly code and expect it to run without an operating system. It takes a lot more than that.

Assembly Language translates directly into machine code line for line. It's merely a system so that us, humans, can actually read and program at the lowest level possible. You can run a program without an OS, but you have to deal with the memory, disk, video, and everything else directly. Pretty much a huge pain in the ass. Look up a BIOS interrupt table, you're able to use those, as well as that look up processes to get the CPU into protected mode. If you really want to look into OS's, I would suggest looking at the source code of early UNIX, and maybe even Linux Kernel 1.x.x . But an OS is not a good beginnner's project, what you should do is program a calculator, and do a couple more mundane tasks so that you are able to use the memory properly.

What you would have is just the basic interrupts, and I'm not sure if you could write a straight out C++ program without using some assembler. You would also have to change the cpu from real mode to protected mode if you want to use more than 640kb of memory.

At 8/23/06 05:01 PM, mynamewontfitin wrote:

At 8/23/06 03:55 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: Would anyone like to contend that cancer, or more of what causes cancer, is actually a positive thing in human development? Think about it in terms of sexual reproduction and Darwin's theories. I am not going to explain myself just yet because I lack the time, but if necessary I will.

Erm... okaaay. But tell that to the person who has cancer. "Good thing you have cancer, instead of curing it, we are going to let you die so that your inferior family line can end once and for all! :D"
Plus, alot of people have children before they get cancer.

You're not getting my point. Cancer is merely a mutation of the cell. Without these simple mutations that occur naturally, then different possibilities of the gene pool would quite frankly not exist. Extrapolate a single mutation that occurs once a generation, and eventually after thousands to hundreds of thousands of years you may get another species. I always emphasize maybe, because I can only prove it if given the proper amount of time (with some fruit flies, a source of radiation to trigger a more violent mutation of the cells but as not to harm the mitochondria's dna, and a lot of time). Without simple mutations, there could be no variety between species, there actually would be no distinction from anything. Every organism would be the same. Yes cancer is a horrible disease, but the function of it in nature is remarkable. Also, I believe that there is a possibility to control the mutations and have the body better recognize cells that have mutated and attack them before they start to reproduce uncontrollably. It is also proven that a mutation is more likely to occur during the production of sexual cells(meiosis) and not from a normal cell reproduction.

I knew I'd have to explain myself so that poor old(or young) Jonny in the cancer ward wouldn't get pissed at me.

And for AIDs, you never die from the virus itself. You die from opportunistic infections like pneumonia.

Would anyone like to contend that cancer, or more of what causes cancer, is actually a positive thing in human development? Think about it in terms of sexual reproduction and Darwin's theories. I am not going to explain myself just yet because I lack the time, but if necessary I will.

I would not recommend hosting off of a cable modem for one reason, the packets you send out is sent out rather intermittently. When you use a cable modem and you're uploading, the cable modem uses what is called TDMA (Time division multiple access). With this, you get a slot to upload multiple times a second. It's kind of like a time share at a beach, you can use the house but only when it is your time to use it. So let's say that you have 50 people in your blade. That gives you 1/50 of a second every second to upload your information to the people on the server. Of course it does send more then 1 packet every second, but it is still quite limited. DSL on the otherhand you have a constant upload connection because you are not sharing the upload frequency with anyone else; you have a straight connection to the DSLAM (the piece of hardware at your telco office that connects you to the telco's network, which in turn connects you to the internet). Still with DSL you are kind of limited because of the bandwidth, and to determine if you can, or should, host a server highly depends on what game you are going to be hosting.

Also, most ISP's do not allow people to host servers using their internet connection in their contracts.

Overall, don't do it if you are planning on making a serious server, only if you and your buddies just want to get on real quick.

Our greatest enemy is the polarization caused by religion. Chew on it for a little bit. There are many schisms in religion, and many different religions in conflict.

At 7/26/06 11:11 PM, 0x41 wrote:

At 7/26/06 04:21 PM, Plakat wrote: Shure you can! Why not just use binary to code <? echo"A" ?> ?. You, of course couldn't run it on an actuall OS like Windows though. Because its binary.

Because you're using binary to represent DOS Batch. You can't write a program in binary/hex and have it run.

Well, you could, but it would be a bitch and totally unnecesary when you have an assembler that puts the 0's and the 1's in the right places for the computer to recognize it as code.

Also, a lot of interrupts(which allow you to communicate directly with the hardware) are disabled in windows. You have to use system calls in order to access the hardware if you were to make a program in windows.

How much of a tax credit are these private companies given?

Sorry, I jump around a lot while I write, and I neglected to finish typing out my second paragraph. To sum up what I was going to say... Pretty much I feel much of your angst is coming from the 19th century, with Standard Oil and the steel industry in your mind. I'll include these points in my argument for capitalism, because in order to view the good, you must also see the bad.

Capitalism is definetely not aristocracy, nor does it fully exhibit the features of one; the middle class has tremendous weight on the USA, which is a mixed economy but is still a primarily capitalistic one.

The consumer only decides as long as there is the component of competition. Because competition insures that the consumer has a say on how prices and demands are set. But eventually one business will beat the other and when that happens, which it normally always does happen, that business will raise it's prices expodentially. Because they are the only store company throughout all of town that is selling that kind of stuff that is on the market.

In a purely capitalistic system that would only occur if there were conglomerates, which I am adamently against. When the prices do rise exponentially, then smaller fish can come in and take back some of the market, which will cause the prices to drop. Stop thinking about the 19th century, that was a time when there was massive corruption in both government and

At 6/9/06 09:22 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote: People that actually work in capitalist society are more than likely going to give up at what they are doing, file a complaint and get money from the courts, because the competition with immigrants is too much. And yes you are going to argue, but you've never seen someone work. You don't actually know how the workforce is handel with a first person experience. All your shit comes from word of mouth or from websites. You've never seen how people work in a capitalist society. So you don't know. Stop with this BS and whining about social democracy. You don't know how it works. So give it a rest.

I've worked 30 hours while going to school for 35. I have been in the workforce, I know how things work. As well as that, my father has been a manager overseeing over 100 people and directly managing at least 10, which I have heard numerous stories from the inner workings of a company. I may not know everything there is to know about working, but I know enough to know your capitalism by far has more benefits then social democracy.

We will never fully finish this argument the way it is going right now. Economics is a very abstract idea. There is no definite right or wrong answer; massive unemployment, poor healthcare, or devastating atrocities will not occur if one country decides for capitalism or if they choose social democracy. As well as that, an economic system must be taken in as a whole. It's positive sides, it's negative sides, and any other possibilities resulting from this. What I am going to propose is that we both write an article on why our particular choose of economics is superior and why, including multiple sources and reasonings. Only with these sources and reasonings can we actually determine if one is better then the other or not due to the abstractness of economics. You can use any kind of source, whether it is a news story, history, or mathematical proof. I will also include one additional stipulation, you may only support your topic. You may not mention any downfalls of any other economic system because it seems most of your argument relies on the fact that capitalism is wrong. That's not how arguments are won. If I truly want, I could rebutt all of your arguments, but I feel this is a better route to go.

After this is finished, which I'll admit it might be awhile at least for me because I don't come onto this site often, then we can write a rebuttal which focuses solely on the ideas of the opposing person and why their argument is flawed.

If you don't like this idea, then say so. I'm going to be working on my side of the argument when I have time. Thanks.

At 6/8/06 12:54 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

At 6/8/06 11:31 AM, Ravens_Grin wrote: First off let me say that you have many valid points, but I do not believe in your final conclusion of the state of capitalism.

My feeling is that capitalism is the best economic system.

For who though? Most worker rights as being humans are violated in a pure capitalist society.

A developing industrial nation yes because the economy cannot support such wages, but in developed nation, no.

It has incentives for people to achieve a better paying job and worker harder.

I worked in a capitalist business much harder than other employees and I did not receive any extra dime or nickle.

Then you could've used your skills and hard work to get a better job.

and it automatically distributes resources based upon the demand and not based upon people in a boardroom.

Resources based on what the Owner or Manager of the facility wants and not by what the employees think would best help the business.

I don't think you get what I was trying to say. I wasn't looking at the employees in that argument but rather the consumers. The consumers decide on what should be produced by the demand.

Give me another type of economic system with these benefits and then I might saw capitalism is horrid, but I don’t see that day coming.

Social Democracy.

If you don't believe me, go to Sweden.

Tax rates galore, I don't think so. A social democracy is almost the same thing as a union, and you can already see what occurs when people demand more money for doing less work, the company fails. Look at the state of the extremely unionized US automobile industry. It has been unable to cope with overseas competition, causing quarter after quarter of red ink. I don't like social democracy because of this inflexibility as compared to capitalism. Also, what happens in a recession? Do the people demand the same amount of money despite it being a poor business move?

First off let me say that you have many valid points, but I do not believe in your final conclusion of the state of capitalism.

If the entire world relied solely upon manufacturing, then yes capitalism would ultimately cause a great depression, think of Germany after World War I, but apply that to the rest of the world. The amount of money would ultimately be unable to sustain the manufacturing process due to the added costs of inputs, even after inflation increases the money supply in a country. There is one thing that I believe you did not contemplate, and that would be banks and the service industries are growing at a considerable rate. If we add this into the equation of the economic system, we can see that these two fragments of the economic portion have the ability to float more and more money away from the typical model of manufacturing goods and allows the economic rate of growth to overcome the growth of the cost of basic materials(I’m using the assumption that the demand of the basic materials is constantly increasing, while the supplies we are finding are constantly decreasing) . Services and banks will cause the economy to grow or stay stagnant despite the constant rise of the price of raw materials. We are coming into a different type of economy, one that is based upon intellectual rights, services, as well as the conventional economic basis of manufacturing and construction. The economy will not be dependant upon these constantly increasing prices of copper, steel, and oil and suffer because of it, but rather the added costs of these basic necessities will be absorbed by other fragments of the capitalistic system.

As to your statement about the zero-sum, I'll admit I had no clue what you were talking about, and I'll rephrase what Wikipedia had to say on this topic. Pretty much your loss is someones gain. Capitalism on the mere manufacturing level does assume this zero-sum game idea; but when you include banks, stock markets, and the other quite dynamic parts of the economy, it is apparent that capitalism is truly not a zero-sum game and does not assume it. In a zero-sum game, there can be no growth. What you have is static ,stationary and you will not receive anymore of it. But, with the service industry, you will see that it is directly related to the population of a nation. As more people are born, the more resources you have, the more of a potential of a growth. The inherit problem with this though, is that the population is only sustainable to a certain degree, only a few billion people can be adequately supported by the Earth. We will reach an apex of the economy as the resources we have stays constant, and the population will also remain constant. But yet it won’t truly be the maximum amount the economy can grow under capitalism. People will always want to expand their businesses, inflation will still occur because more intangible money is pumped into the economy either via the Federal Reserve(Which only applies to what kind of economic system we have right now) or via the stock market. In the long run, a capitalistic economy is sustainable

Also, a great thing about supply and demand is that if people demand an item at such a great level, then more raw materials will go towards that. It is kind of a system of a guided hand, through the purchases of the people, which allows the society to allocate resources to what is needed and wanted the most. It would be totally inefficient for an organization to determine what is needed, and most of all, wanted by the entire population. Look at the USSR and their attempt to grow their economy via the 5 year plans. A total failure. The growth of an economy has to start at the individual.

The strange thing about my perspective of capitalism is that I feel that monopolies are actually quite beneficial to the basis of the economy, and the problem of a monopoly should actually be seen as problems of conglomerates. Yes, capitalism is based upon greed, but if one company performed one specific task, then they will want to try and maximize their profits. This is through price cuts, more efficiency within the company, and growth. All of these benefits the individual until a conglomerate comes along and uses unfair business practices, channeling profits from one part of the company to another so that it can cause bankruptcies to have itself as the sole competitor in an industry. So in conclusion; monopolies=good, conglomerates=bad.

I was just scanning through the forum post and there was some concerns about mechanization and the possibility that humans will lose jobs because of it. Only partly true. Mechanization is a great thing because of its possibility to expand the economy, which oddly enough adds more jobs! Mechanization allows for more people to enter the white-collar job market, which is by far less arduous back-breaking work, and it also receives more pay. Also, who is going to run, program, and maintain the machines? Overall though, I do not feel that mechanization is a bad thing in the long run, it may replace your job today, but tomorrow you’ll see that you’re better off.

Don’t think so? Let’s go into some supply and demand curves. Look them up if you want to really know what I’m going to talk about. Pretty much, because the demand of labour would decrease by a small margin, and the supply will pretty much remain constant, the market price for the worker’s wage will actually decrease. But since there are more workers (mechanized and human), the production and profits should increase, which allows the company to pay the workers more money, as well as invest in other parts of the market. This is assuming that the company is well run.

My feeling is that capitalism is the best economic system. It has incentives for people to achieve a better paying job and worker harder, and it automatically distributes resources based upon the demand and not based upon people in a boardroom. Give me another type of economic system with these benefits and then I might saw capitalism is horrid, but I don’t see that day coming.

At 6/7/06 08:03 PM, user001b wrote:

At 6/7/06 06:47 PM, arz756 wrote:

At 6/7/06 05:58 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

Do you have any idea how the great depression came to be?

Nope, Do You?

banks and debit spending

That is not entirely the case. It did involve the banks, but it is highly related to consumer debt, people buying stocks on margin, as well as people holding loans while the market is deflating(in this way it costs a shit load more to pay back your loans). The banks were also loaning way too much money out, so while people were defaulting with their loans, people were demanding to have their entire accounts withdrawn.

I'll reply tomorrow opposing your view, but not tonight, I must go to bed.

Who deserves the larger salary, a professional athlete or an actor?

To answer your question it is a yes and a no. For the game engine, it primarily is composed of C/C++ code, because it is one of the lowest programming languages you can use without getting into Assembly. It allows you to manipulate almost every minute detail occurring with your computer. With that, you have to be fairly knowledgeable on what the fuck is happening every single time you press a key, move the mouse, and so on and so forth. As for the graphics part that you see everyday, the programmer is just merely, if I may put in realistic terms, the chemical and molecular bonds between atoms that make up and compose the images that we see. Although we know they're there, when we look at a painting we don't think about how the color is there, what chemicals have allowed it to look that way, but rather we view the artists work and their craft. The artists in this case would be the modeler, painter, illustrator, and so on and so forth. The programmer merely gives them the tools to achieve what they are after.

But continuing on this, the engine is not the main part of programming for a game, rather it is programming the necesary tools for other people to do their jobs. Map editors, script editors, mainly a lot of editors that will allow other people to manipulate the potential world that you have created with your chemical,molecular bonds and what you have defined as how chemicals and molecules should combine. So that I may end this stupid bantor, as well as metaphor, I will actually answer your answer. Yes C++ is used, but it may not be used in the way that you think that it may be used. It is used to set up the necesary framework, and from here scripts are then used to manipulate the game world that you have created the framework for, and the artists have put their artwork upon. Also, the interpreter of these scripts will most likely be in C/C++.

Use an IDE. it will be simpler. An example of one is JGrasp