And lo on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:32:03 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:15:07 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>> "Bloody Torchwood" Train of thought - did you ever get Ultraviolet over
>> there? No not the film with Mila Whosavitch, the series staring Jack
>> Davenport whom you should know from Spooks.
>
> Surely you mean Coupling, not Spooks.  Jack didn't appear in Spooks. :-P

You're right, I keep mistaking him for the guy who played Tom in the first  
series.

>> Ah hah http://www.amazon.com/Ultraviolet-Jack-Davenport/dp/B00005KA70/
>> didn't recognise the cover there. It's only 6 one-hour episodes and they
>> never made a second series, but it's quite deep in tone.
>
> I'll have to check it out - I don't think it did ever show over here, at
> least not on my stations.

I don't even think it got more then one broadcasting here so I'm not  
surprised. Worth adding to any rental queue you might have if possible.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Compare the scenery of HL2 to, for example, the scenery of Doom3 or
> Quake4. There just isn't comparison. We are talking about this:

One thing I noticed recently is just how much non-repeating textures 
improve scenery. Even if you don't notice them consciously, I think 
having the same rust stain on the concrete wall every 10 feet makes it 
look unrealistic.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> They got sued because they tried to *change* it to deliberately make it 
> incompatible. 

No, that wasn't my understanding. What I read during that timeframe was 
they added features to let Java invoke Windows stuff natively with much 
more ease than JNI, and the IDE generated code from the wizards to 
invoke that by default, unless you said "no, really, generate JNI 
instead." But you could take an existing Java program and compile and 
run it on MS's Java without a problem.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> They got sued because they tried to *change* it to deliberately make 
>> it incompatible. 
> 
> No, that wasn't my understanding. What I read during that timeframe was 
> they added features to let Java invoke Windows stuff natively with much 
> more ease than JNI, and the IDE generated code from the wizards to 
> invoke that by default, unless you said "no, really, generate JNI 
> instead." But you could take an existing Java program and compile and 
> run it on MS's Java without a problem.

Well, perhaps you're right. All I know is that we started ending up with 
lots of "Java" programs which only actually work with the M$ JVM. And 
that rather subverts the entire point of Java - portability.

I was also told - I haven't verified this personally, but I was told - 
that most of the changes weren't "better" or "worse", just "different 
for the sake of being different". IOW, to subvert the standard.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Well, perhaps you're right. All I know is that we started ending up with 
> lots of "Java" programs which only actually work with the M$ JVM.

I've seen very few Java programs that work correctly on multiple Java 
interpreters, myself. I think I have 3 JVMs installed at work (under 
Linux) to support the three different java-based libraries I'm using 
from different parts of my program.

If you want your Java portable, don't use proprietary libraries. It's 
pretty easy.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Well, perhaps you're right. All I know is that we started ending up 
>> with lots of "Java" programs which only actually work with the M$ JVM.
> 
> I've seen very few Java programs that work correctly on multiple Java 
> interpreters, myself. I think I have 3 JVMs installed at work (under 
> Linux) to support the three different java-based libraries I'm using 
> from different parts of my program.
> 
> If you want your Java portable, don't use proprietary libraries. It's 
> pretty easy.

In fairness, it would probably help if the AWT hadn't been designed by 
an escaped monkey...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> In fairness, it would probably help if the AWT hadn't been designed by 
> an escaped monkey...

Heck - in early versions of Java (i.e., Netscape 4 timeframe), they 
didn't even have Hashtable working right.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

> Invisible wrote:
>> In fairness, it would probably help if the AWT hadn't been designed by 
>> an escaped monkey...
> 
> Heck - in early versions of Java (i.e., Netscape 4 timeframe), they 
> didn't even have Hashtable working right.
> 

That's an implementation bug. Invisible is talking about AWT *design*, 
which can't be just "fixed on the next release".

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> That's an implementation bug. Invisible is talking about AWT *design*, 
> which can't be just "fixed on the next release".

Yes. He was changing the topic, and I was still on the original topic. 
:-) Just saying, AWT wasn't the worst of it. Java had all kinds of evil 
brokenness, and still does.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> That's an implementation bug. Invisible is talking about AWT *design*, 
>> which can't be just "fixed on the next release".
> 
> Yes. He was changing the topic, and I was still on the original topic. 
> :-) Just saying, AWT wasn't the worst of it. Java had all kinds of evil 
> brokenness, and still does.

So does .Net have a less horribly broken library design then?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message