I'll tell you what it's going to do; it's going to Slap Chop your little Magic Jack into the afterlife, where it will meet Billy Mays, dressed in OxyClean bleached ultra-white angel clothes, buffing his harp with a ShamWow, and re-affixing it to his head with some Mighty Putty.
Pay google a meager sum to add some javascript that displays an "upgrade to IE9" link instead of google search for people still running IE6.
Do the same thing on Bing.
Sure, you could get around it with a user-agent switcher - but if you're savvy enough to do that, chances are you're not running IE6...
What I'm impressed with is that someone capable enough to run 11 characters at once managed to forget to factor the electric bill of running 11 computers at once.
Oh, wait.... parent's basement... not paying electric bill.... gotcha.
This is the best point I've seen made yet on EA's BS PR (yes, that's a lot of acronyms).
If they've hit 1% in 8 days, then, assuming the rate of usage continues at its present rate, in just under 3 months (11 weeks, or 80 days) 10% of all their customers won't be able to play the game they paid good money for.
That's 10% of all your legitimate buyers who can't play their game after 3 months. That's a lot of pissed off customers.
EA is destined to become extinct if they don't start listening to their customers' demands. How difficult is it to understand that pirates get the games anyway, and that by adding copy protection they're only making the honest people feel untrusted and alienated?
I can see how many people would consider it acceptable... however... what happens in the future if the steam servers go the way of all the earth, and you want to play a game that you paid for, but you had to wipe your drive to reinstall your OS - so you haven't got a hard copy, and you can't download the soft copy you paid for...
You might say "i won't want to play it by then", but trends in retro gaming would beg to differ on the point.
Have you ever read the book or seen the play "Inherit the wind?"
If not, you certainly ought to. It discusses this very subject from an intriguing point of view.
We've moved from one end of the spectrum to the other. At one point in time, creationism was the ONLY science.
Additionally, I would add that your belief in science is very strongly based on faith. Unless you plan to reproduce the experiments of all the great thinkers and scientists who've gone before you, you've taken many of their discoveries on faith. Some of them you've probably reproduced for yourself, yes. However, I would wager that a great many you haven't, but you accept because a lot of current smart people seem to think they were right.
In like manner, a lot of smart people who came before us seemed to think that a supremely intelligent being created the world, and a lot of current smart people seem to think they were right. That seems to be a fundamental question of our origins. Shouldn't we devote some time studying whether there's anything to that? Particularly since many of the great thinkers (upon whose discoveries much of our modern science is based) believed that such was true.
The creationists and evolutionists aren't so different in the end, really. It's only which side of the [perhaps nonexistent] fence they're on that makes them different.
How do you know the world wasn't created WITH evolution?
YOU have set the two up as polar opposites. They weren't necessarily that way to start with.
You're making the argument that because evolution has evidence to support it, that there can't be a God who created our world.
Maybe he USED evolution to create the world.
Evolution doesn't disprove creationism at all. In fact, it offers a viable explanation for how a supremely powerful being might have gone about creating an entire world from a beautifully simple origin, knowing the processes that would follow.
Slashdot Mirror
I stand corrected. Clearly your knowledge of "As seen of TV" products far surpasses my own. ;)
I'll tell you what it's going to do; it's going to Slap Chop your little Magic Jack into the afterlife, where it will meet Billy Mays, dressed in OxyClean bleached ultra-white angel clothes, buffing his harp with a ShamWow, and re-affixing it to his head with some Mighty Putty.
Might I also suggest, "One Office" as a new name.
Because now the product truly is "one of us", rather than being lorded over by Oracle.
Much simpler solution:
Pay google a meager sum to add some javascript that displays an "upgrade to IE9" link instead of google search for people still running IE6.
Do the same thing on Bing.
Sure, you could get around it with a user-agent switcher - but if you're savvy enough to do that, chances are you're not running IE6...
If they add the ability to play as LoneStar with Barf as your companion character, I am SO there.
What I'm impressed with is that someone capable enough to run 11 characters at once managed to forget to factor the electric bill of running 11 computers at once. Oh, wait.... parent's basement... not paying electric bill.... gotcha.
What you're referring to is known as Augmented Reality" and a lot of smart people are working on it.
Oh bugger, clicked reply on the wrong post. This reply meant to go with previous post.
What you're referring to is known as Augmented Reality" and a lot of smart people are already working on it.
Kind of like saying that a National Vehicle Tracking system would be primarily used for amber alerts?
Try explaining to a restaurant that after having eaten their food, it simply wasn't up to your standards so you won't be paying.
Have fun in jail.
So when we have an oppressive Orwellian government, we should blame the criminals for forcing the government into taking away EVERYONE's freedoms?
This is the best point I've seen made yet on EA's BS PR (yes, that's a lot of acronyms).
If they've hit 1% in 8 days, then, assuming the rate of usage continues at its present rate, in just under 3 months (11 weeks, or 80 days) 10% of all their customers won't be able to play the game they paid good money for.
That's 10% of all your legitimate buyers who can't play their game after 3 months. That's a lot of pissed off customers.
EA is destined to become extinct if they don't start listening to their customers' demands. How difficult is it to understand that pirates get the games anyway, and that by adding copy protection they're only making the honest people feel untrusted and alienated?
I can see how many people would consider it acceptable... however... what happens in the future if the steam servers go the way of all the earth, and you want to play a game that you paid for, but you had to wipe your drive to reinstall your OS - so you haven't got a hard copy, and you can't download the soft copy you paid for...
You might say "i won't want to play it by then", but trends in retro gaming would beg to differ on the point.
What you don't realize is that everything around the LHC is being converted into strange matter.
It started with the scientists, so noone has noticed anything different yet.
In fact, email probably ENHANCES productivity when the subject of the email received is:
"Stop Reading Slashdot and Get Back to Work"
Could someone explain irony to me? Just checking...
I am indeed one.
Have you ever read the book or seen the play "Inherit the wind?"
If not, you certainly ought to. It discusses this very subject from an intriguing point of view.
We've moved from one end of the spectrum to the other. At one point in time, creationism was the ONLY science.
Additionally, I would add that your belief in science is very strongly based on faith. Unless you plan to reproduce the experiments of all the great thinkers and scientists who've gone before you, you've taken many of their discoveries on faith. Some of them you've probably reproduced for yourself, yes. However, I would wager that a great many you haven't, but you accept because a lot of current smart people seem to think they were right.
In like manner, a lot of smart people who came before us seemed to think that a supremely intelligent being created the world, and a lot of current smart people seem to think they were right. That seems to be a fundamental question of our origins. Shouldn't we devote some time studying whether there's anything to that? Particularly since many of the great thinkers (upon whose discoveries much of our modern science is based) believed that such was true.
The creationists and evolutionists aren't so different in the end, really. It's only which side of the [perhaps nonexistent] fence they're on that makes them different.
How do you know the world wasn't created WITH evolution?
YOU have set the two up as polar opposites. They weren't necessarily that way to start with.
You're making the argument that because evolution has evidence to support it, that there can't be a God who created our world.
Maybe he USED evolution to create the world.
Evolution doesn't disprove creationism at all. In fact, it offers a viable explanation for how a supremely powerful being might have gone about creating an entire world from a beautifully simple origin, knowing the processes that would follow.
Have we determined that the Sun is definitely not sentient?
If it is, it seems like an awfully bad idea to go probing the corona of a being capable of melting us in a matter of seconds.
I don't know.... I think they're really going to appeal to the Emo crowd by cutting themselves.
Er.... their prices.
FACE!
We should copyright the copyright laws with billion dollar royalties for usage.
You could violate any copyrights you want, and when they try to cite the copyright laws, BAM!
That something is also that there is no step 3...