And yet Google is still better for, well... you know, searching for things. For some reason, I think that might be better than lots of fancy R&D projects. Maybe it's because they're both... "search engines".
"Neglecting physical wear" when it comes to batteries is like saying "This car runs forever (neglecting its need for fuel)"
I didn't think the ability to charge batteries was ever the problem - it's the fact that the innards of the batteries themselves slowly degrade and eventually become unusable
Agreed with OP + Not to the mention the fact that often (but not always) samples are used in a starting point and end up completely unrecognisable / different-sounding in the final product (NIN songs are a good example of this, they sample literally tons of things and are normally distorted to the point where they're not even anything like the original material)
I would consider it a feature, especially since 99% of flash content I see is actually advertising (and it's literally plastered over sites. Countless flash adverts loading their own stupid videos etc. Good riddance)
The WHO hyped up a potential pandemic to stop it becoming a pandemic. If you're informed about something (i.e. a disease) you can deal with it, inform others, get help etc. If you're in the dark, have zero information and have no idea what's afoot, the chances are you'll ignore any problems, unintentionally assist the spread of the disease and... bang. You have a catalyst. Keeping it hyped kept people vigilant
"That 10 per cent must take so-called "foundational" writing courses first."
Considering they're taking on students who can't write English properly, it's kind of ironic they've picked the most obscure/rare adjective form of 'foundation' for the title of the course.(Unless of course if foundational is often used on the other side of the pond, in which case I withdraw my laughter...)
If you swap the focus from smaller size problems to the mega-scale problems, then you get a bunch of students who can only do mega-scale problems (reverse of the trend the article talks about)
Here's the rub: It's easier to scale up than it is to scale down. Most big problems are made up of lots of little problems. Little problems are rarely made up of mega-scale problems...
I think what they need to do is to keep the focus on the small/'regular' stuff, but also show how their knowledge applies to the "big stuff" (so they can 'see' problems from both ends) - not just focus on one or the other
They haven't even got 64-bit mig. done / smooth for their users, and they're looking at 128-bit already? Is this some kind of a joke? Or have they just realised they've missed the 64 bit boat and they're just going to work seriously on the next step up?
Although I agree about the consistency of Apple's site being better in general, both of the site have some pretty horrible out of date 'backwater' regions. If I recall, quite a few of the Apple developer pages have completely inconsistent theming and styles (shadowed text on aqua buttons circa pre-10.4 etc.) and MS's hardware pages with the red top banner are rather crudely squished into the current style on some pages
But I suppose style != usability so this may not have been considered
...that irrespective of the situation, press releases are never going to say "this sucks" or "this is completely unoriginal". A few of these are genuine oversights/lack of forward thinking (e.g. the iPhone app one) but the majority of them are standard marketing hyperbole that appears everywhere ("This cleaning product will TRANSFORM YOUR LIFE!").
Now send them back in time to stop the Great Fire of London in 1666, and we have a plot for a new Terminator movie (without the terminating part, however).
I hate it when some moron takes it upon themselves to mod down legitimate complaints. Seriously - this was not some substance-less "LOL ITZ BAD" comment: all I noticed from this "game" was how terrible the query -> result relationship worked.
All this made me realise is how terrible Bing's search is. I mean... some of the queries failed to return the correct site, and I was literally "spelling it out" (full name of the page complete with some of the exact sentences/phrases on it).
If anything, this just makes Bing seem like a lost cause - it made the 'game' seem unfair (the engine was failing, not me) and completely pointless
Frankly, after all the very public warnings about facebook I have no sympathy for anyone foolish enough to use their service.
Which is a stupid approach to take, considering the warnings would have come some time after many had users had signed up (and since FB has no intention of allowing account destruction = fail)
Who really cares about this? The only morons who don't do clean installs to begin with, won't be buying Windows via this route any way (average home users will get it via new PCs and whatnot).
So basically this amounts to "Option that no one used will no longer be available"
...is that will use Silverlight. My initial reaction to this was "My God, it will suck: it won't be cross platform". Then it occurred to me - Silverlightis cross-platform. So not only would this allow MS to target a larger market, it would get SL on to a huge amount of machines. Oh, and it could be an additional 'pull' factor for Windows: You get free streaming, but you can only download (onto a device) if you have a Zune. And you can only use the Zune if you have Windows... or some such strategy like that
Obviously this is only my personal prediction, but I'm personally expecting this to be an offline app with embedded Silverlight stuff. Either that, or a.NET app (but I'm uncertain on that - what's the status of Mono with OS X?)
A monopoly is not just the lack of substitute (or competing) goods - it's about the lack of viable competing goods. So in this case, MS still fits the bill (e.g. Being the most popular platform, and with the win32 API being very heavily embedded in many products, targeting Windows is the only viable option for a lot of companies. It doesn't necessarily mean it's the only one)
Personally I have a lot of respect for ESET's AV (specifically NOD32) because it's fast and does the job.
But since they don't target consumers so aggressively (unlike Symantec with Norton, who manage to get difficult-to-remove trial version on tons of laptops at the point of sale) they don't exactly have a very big following. In fact, outside of business and tech circles, I assume they're completely unknown. So I suppose what went wrong, is that AV companies had to dump ethics to get well known. The decent ones who respect the end user and state of the machine (as opposed to "sticky" trial software and the like) end up at the bottom of the barrel. The industry is "upside down"
Newsflash moron: I have to buy Windows as well. Especially if a large pool of potential users adopt Win7 - I have to do so also, to ensure my games work on it.
It's also worth noting that whilst, yes, I do have a vested interest - a) I don't develop exclusively for Windows and b) It's not like I get a % cut from MS' profits or anything. It's hardly "having a dog in the race"
In case you didn't notice "dude", I was not talking about myself - hence the use of "people" as opposed to just voicing that as my own opinion.
I'm an indie games developer, and I do not support piracy, nor do I condone it. But on the other hand, in order to get rid of it you need to ditch the self-righteous preaching, and actually try and understand why people do it (which is what I was getting at). Preaching at people just gets them more annoyed - understanding, however, leads to logic which you can exploit to your own advantage. That's why I think DRM is idiotic - it's a brute force way of stopping something, and it's lazy. Publishers and developers need to do a bit of thinking to defeat piracy, rather than just breaking out the baseball bat
No, it's not intended to be a contradiction. Whilst the outpricing could be understood as the entitlement thing ("it's too expensive, I'll just get it for free") my point was that even if it _were_ within the price region for someone to buy it, why should they buy it (at a known inflated price) when they can get it for free? What reason is there to do so?
The only one I can thing of (from the perspective of an average Joe) is "it's the legal method vs. illegal" - but then piracy is so widespread these days that it is actually desensitizing the population to the stigma of "illegality"
Slashdot Mirror
And yet Google is still better for, well... you know, searching for things. For some reason, I think that might be better than lots of fancy R&D projects. Maybe it's because they're both... "search engines".
"Neglecting physical wear" when it comes to batteries is like saying "This car runs forever (neglecting its need for fuel)"
I didn't think the ability to charge batteries was ever the problem - it's the fact that the innards of the batteries themselves slowly degrade and eventually become unusable
Agreed with OP + Not to the mention the fact that often (but not always) samples are used in a starting point and end up completely unrecognisable / different-sounding in the final product (NIN songs are a good example of this, they sample literally tons of things and are normally distorted to the point where they're not even anything like the original material)
I would consider it a feature, especially since 99% of flash content I see is actually advertising (and it's literally plastered over sites. Countless flash adverts loading their own stupid videos etc. Good riddance)
The WHO hyped up a potential pandemic to stop it becoming a pandemic. If you're informed about something (i.e. a disease) you can deal with it, inform others, get help etc. If you're in the dark, have zero information and have no idea what's afoot, the chances are you'll ignore any problems, unintentionally assist the spread of the disease and... bang. You have a catalyst. Keeping it hyped kept people vigilant
"That 10 per cent must take so-called "foundational" writing courses first."
Considering they're taking on students who can't write English properly, it's kind of ironic they've picked the most obscure/rare adjective form of 'foundation' for the title of the course.(Unless of course if foundational is often used on the other side of the pond, in which case I withdraw my laughter...)
If you swap the focus from smaller size problems to the mega-scale problems, then you get a bunch of students who can only do mega-scale problems (reverse of the trend the article talks about)
Here's the rub: It's easier to scale up than it is to scale down. Most big problems are made up of lots of little problems. Little problems are rarely made up of mega-scale problems...
I think what they need to do is to keep the focus on the small/'regular' stuff, but also show how their knowledge applies to the "big stuff" (so they can 'see' problems from both ends) - not just focus on one or the other
They haven't even got 64-bit mig. done / smooth for their users, and they're looking at 128-bit already? Is this some kind of a joke? Or have they just realised they've missed the 64 bit boat and they're just going to work seriously on the next step up?
If a 10-day change is "slow as molasses" then I'd like to see what happens when they react quickly to something!
Although I agree about the consistency of Apple's site being better in general, both of the site have some pretty horrible out of date 'backwater' regions. If I recall, quite a few of the Apple developer pages have completely inconsistent theming and styles (shadowed text on aqua buttons circa pre-10.4 etc.) and MS's hardware pages with the red top banner are rather crudely squished into the current style on some pages
But I suppose style != usability so this may not have been considered
...that irrespective of the situation, press releases are never going to say "this sucks" or "this is completely unoriginal". A few of these are genuine oversights/lack of forward thinking (e.g. the iPhone app one) but the majority of them are standard marketing hyperbole that appears everywhere ("This cleaning product will TRANSFORM YOUR LIFE!").
Now send them back in time to stop the Great Fire of London in 1666, and we have a plot for a new Terminator movie (without the terminating part, however).
I hate it when some moron takes it upon themselves to mod down legitimate complaints. Seriously - this was not some substance-less "LOL ITZ BAD" comment: all I noticed from this "game" was how terrible the query -> result relationship worked.
All this made me realise is how terrible Bing's search is. I mean... some of the queries failed to return the correct site, and I was literally "spelling it out" (full name of the page complete with some of the exact sentences/phrases on it).
If anything, this just makes Bing seem like a lost cause - it made the 'game' seem unfair (the engine was failing, not me) and completely pointless
Frankly, after all the very public warnings about facebook I have no sympathy for anyone foolish enough to use their service.
Which is a stupid approach to take, considering the warnings would have come some time after many had users had signed up (and since FB has no intention of allowing account destruction = fail)
I don't think I can say anything, other than the fact this confirms my assumptions that Linus is an extremely level-headed, perceptive person.
Who really cares about this? The only morons who don't do clean installs to begin with, won't be buying Windows via this route any way (average home users will get it via new PCs and whatnot).
So basically this amounts to "Option that no one used will no longer be available"
Actually, accept my apologies: 1.x is PPC compatible, but 2.0+ is no longer PPC compatible
Silverlight is i386 Windows/OS X only
No it isn't. It runs on PPC as well, assuming the spec. info is correct
Why would they monkey with Mono?
So (non-OS X developers) could port .NET apps directly
...is that will use Silverlight. My initial reaction to this was "My God, it will suck: it won't be cross platform". Then it occurred to me - Silverlight is cross-platform. So not only would this allow MS to target a larger market, it would get SL on to a huge amount of machines. Oh, and it could be an additional 'pull' factor for Windows: You get free streaming, but you can only download (onto a device) if you have a Zune. And you can only use the Zune if you have Windows... or some such strategy like that
Obviously this is only my personal prediction, but I'm personally expecting this to be an offline app with embedded Silverlight stuff. Either that, or a .NET app (but I'm uncertain on that - what's the status of Mono with OS X?)
A monopoly is not just the lack of substitute (or competing) goods - it's about the lack of viable competing goods. So in this case, MS still fits the bill (e.g. Being the most popular platform, and with the win32 API being very heavily embedded in many products, targeting Windows is the only viable option for a lot of companies. It doesn't necessarily mean it's the only one)
Personally I have a lot of respect for ESET's AV (specifically NOD32) because it's fast and does the job.
But since they don't target consumers so aggressively (unlike Symantec with Norton, who manage to get difficult-to-remove trial version on tons of laptops at the point of sale) they don't exactly have a very big following. In fact, outside of business and tech circles, I assume they're completely unknown. So I suppose what went wrong, is that AV companies had to dump ethics to get well known. The decent ones who respect the end user and state of the machine (as opposed to "sticky" trial software and the like) end up at the bottom of the barrel. The industry is "upside down"
Newsflash moron: I have to buy Windows as well. Especially if a large pool of potential users adopt Win7 - I have to do so also, to ensure my games work on it.
It's also worth noting that whilst, yes, I do have a vested interest - a) I don't develop exclusively for Windows and b) It's not like I get a % cut from MS' profits or anything. It's hardly "having a dog in the race"
In case you didn't notice "dude", I was not talking about myself - hence the use of "people" as opposed to just voicing that as my own opinion.
I'm an indie games developer, and I do not support piracy, nor do I condone it. But on the other hand, in order to get rid of it you need to ditch the self-righteous preaching, and actually try and understand why people do it (which is what I was getting at). Preaching at people just gets them more annoyed - understanding, however, leads to logic which you can exploit to your own advantage. That's why I think DRM is idiotic - it's a brute force way of stopping something, and it's lazy. Publishers and developers need to do a bit of thinking to defeat piracy, rather than just breaking out the baseball bat
No, it's not intended to be a contradiction. Whilst the outpricing could be understood as the entitlement thing ("it's too expensive, I'll just get it for free") my point was that even if it _were_ within the price region for someone to buy it, why should they buy it (at a known inflated price) when they can get it for free? What reason is there to do so?
The only one I can thing of (from the perspective of an average Joe) is "it's the legal method vs. illegal" - but then piracy is so widespread these days that it is actually desensitizing the population to the stigma of "illegality"