There's nothing innately wrong with inkjets. They're terrible because of the marketing and sales paradigm that formed around them; but as actual technology, they're fine. The only real problem with them are the legal barriers to actual competition in refills.
I'm not sure at this point that a PS3 is significantly more powerful than a cheap computer, although the BluRay, and a few other special features would be expensive to replicate. For pure number crunching I don't think it has the massive price/performance advantage it did a few years ago... although as a media device, it probably still does.
Once the method for hacking PS3s becomes publicly available, I'm certain that 90% of the hacks will be used to play pirated games. I'm not choosing 90% for hyperbole; I mean at least 19 out of every 20. No, I haven't seen a study. This is being pulled out of a LOT of personal experience.
I'm all for the hacks, because that one user deserves to be able to use his PS3 how he wishes; but piracy is a side-effect that will numerically overwhelm the homebrew, just like it has on every cracked console (360, Wii, DS, PSP, x-box, PS2, etc.)
The "coolness factor" is a societal shorthand for more rational, if verbose, reasons: e.g. "what it can do", "suit[ing] her needs", inadequate alternative (Windows), etc.
Wow. I'm glad to learn how closely linked "coolness" and "rationality" are. I had always thought the two had little to do with each other.
I need to go buy a pair of expensive Nikes, I guess.
"Let's Go Crazy" is a 279 second track off of Purple Rain. Most Copyright lawyers consider 'safe harbor' for fair use to be one tenth of a song or, if longer than five minutes, thirty seconds (even Wikipedia implements this). In a very pedantic analysis, had she used 27.9 seconds of the song instead of the quoted 30 then there would be no grounds for take down, let alone a court case.
There's no basis in law for those figures. The law is deliberately constructed to NOT have those sorts of arbitrary limits. It's a mistake to be pedantic over a rule-of-thumb estimate that has no legal weight. There are cases where a full song would be fair use, there are cases where a fifteen-second clip would be infringement.
It's not so much that it has bad syntax, as that its syntax seems to have developed completely independent of any other computer language, and concerns itself with a very different domain of problems. Most of the functions automatically apply to a whole recordset at once, so you can be amazing concise in program certain algorithms... but if you try to write them like you would in any other language, you'll create a miserable mess. It's hard for a 'normal' programmer to wrap their head around, because even the most basic structures are different.
If SAS had been the only language you programmed in, it would probably make a lot more sense.
Often times being 'proactive' means contributing money and ceding control to some authority that is demanding trust. They don't always deserve it. Running out of IPv4 addresses is, of course, inevitable and predictable; but the timeline hasn't necessarily been. The cost and best method of switching hasn't necessarily been. As we get closer, better decisions can be made.
Anyone who still clings to the largely irrelevant requirement of technical skill may want to look at his Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 [wikipedia.org] to be satisfied.
Are we foolish for clinging to technical grammatical skills for authors, or technical musical skills for musicians?
Yes, QT is far more unpleasant than Flash. Maybe it works acceptably when it's ran natively on a mac; but on other OS's, I'd lump QT in with Real Video. Immediate scrub off my machine if it shows up.
Maybe by purchasing it, and filling the ethernet port in with epoxy, you're creating a NEW work of art, that makes just as much of a statement as his did.
probably because he just made up that example to have something to post. it's a common thing that happens here.
Not as common as being an asshole, evidently.
The game was called "Eternal Poison". Published by Atlus for the Playstation 2. It wasn't as good as Fire Emblem, but it was still good, and worth playing.
Not too long ago a read a terrible review of a game that was described as a "unimaginative knockoff of Fire Emblem". I rushed right out to buy it, and enjoyed it.
I think review scores are nearly meaningless; aggregate review scores even more useless. But accurate descriptions of the game, including mechanics, and comparisons to similar games... that is really valuable.
But that seems so different than the standards we apply to other media. I might pay $30 for a ticket to a concert for a set of songs I'll only hear ONCE... but I might think no cd is worth $15, even though the experience could be replicated hundreds of times. A 60 minute movie doesn't start off with a 100% advantage over a 120 minute movie, simply because of enjoyment per hour.
Some types of games... some types of experiences... can really only be experienced once. The ephemeral quality of the experience certainly doesn't detract from it's value. Dollars per hour seems like a crass measurement. We don't judge books by dollars per page. Well, at least that's only a minor factor.
The new Silent Hill game for the Wii, Shattered Memories, was amazingly good; innovative, deep, intelligent... and maybe 8 hours long. $7.50 an hour. Absolutely worth it, in the sense a great movie is, even though it fails the $/hour test.
On the other hand, a good strategy game, like any of the incarnations of Fire Emblem, can easily top a hundred hours. The metric has to be total enjoyment... and fond remembrance of the game counts into that total. Hell, the game is probably worth an extra quarter if it generates a decent slashdot post.
I doubt it would be feasible, since it relies on somebody honestly telling them that certain packets deserve prioritization over other packets. It won't take long before everybody marks their packets "highest priority".
Besides, ideally, at some point most packets will be encrypted by default. You wouldn't WANT to be able to distinguish types of packets from each other.
And you can't write videogames in HTML5. Flash will be around for a while.
The real problem with Flash, stupid menu widgets, irritating ads, and non-html website frontpages, won't disappear until sites can recreate equally annoying equivalents via some other method.
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing innately wrong with inkjets. They're terrible because of the marketing and sales paradigm that formed around them; but as actual technology, they're fine. The only real problem with them are the legal barriers to actual competition in refills.
He read the charts correctly; that's why he said it sold more than MW2 on the 360, not more than MW2 in total.
I'm not sure at this point that a PS3 is significantly more powerful than a cheap computer, although the BluRay, and a few other special features would be expensive to replicate. For pure number crunching I don't think it has the massive price/performance advantage it did a few years ago... although as a media device, it probably still does.
Once the method for hacking PS3s becomes publicly available, I'm certain that 90% of the hacks will be used to play pirated games. I'm not choosing 90% for hyperbole; I mean at least 19 out of every 20. No, I haven't seen a study. This is being pulled out of a LOT of personal experience.
I'm all for the hacks, because that one user deserves to be able to use his PS3 how he wishes; but piracy is a side-effect that will numerically overwhelm the homebrew, just like it has on every cracked console (360, Wii, DS, PSP, x-box, PS2, etc.)
The "coolness factor" is a societal shorthand for more rational, if verbose, reasons: e.g. "what it can do", "suit[ing] her needs", inadequate alternative (Windows), etc.
Wow. I'm glad to learn how closely linked "coolness" and "rationality" are. I had always thought the two had little to do with each other.
I need to go buy a pair of expensive Nikes, I guess.
"Let's Go Crazy" is a 279 second track off of Purple Rain. Most Copyright lawyers consider 'safe harbor' for fair use to be one tenth of a song or, if longer than five minutes, thirty seconds (even Wikipedia implements this). In a very pedantic analysis, had she used 27.9 seconds of the song instead of the quoted 30 then there would be no grounds for take down, let alone a court case.
There's no basis in law for those figures. The law is deliberately constructed to NOT have those sorts of arbitrary limits. It's a mistake to be pedantic over a rule-of-thumb estimate that has no legal weight. There are cases where a full song would be fair use, there are cases where a fifteen-second clip would be infringement.
"Should"? They're wrong because they're "old"? Or because they "never learned how to change the options"?
Christ, I know asserting that your opinion is correct is fun, but listen to yourself.
I think you may be verging on the insane.
It's not so much that it has bad syntax, as that its syntax seems to have developed completely independent of any other computer language, and concerns itself with a very different domain of problems. Most of the functions automatically apply to a whole recordset at once, so you can be amazing concise in program certain algorithms... but if you try to write them like you would in any other language, you'll create a miserable mess. It's hard for a 'normal' programmer to wrap their head around, because even the most basic structures are different.
If SAS had been the only language you programmed in, it would probably make a lot more sense.
I'd probably say china's 1 child/family policy was a proactive policy to prevent an overpopulation problem in china.
I'd say it was reactive. They've GOT a population problem.
Publishers often don't hold the copyright. They usually don't.
And now she thinks that you aren't really that good with computers, because you couldn't even do a simple task like that.
You know what I blame this on the failure of? Society!
Often times being 'proactive' means contributing money and ceding control to some authority that is demanding trust. They don't always deserve it. Running out of IPv4 addresses is, of course, inevitable and predictable; but the timeline hasn't necessarily been. The cost and best method of switching hasn't necessarily been. As we get closer, better decisions can be made.
Anyone who still clings to the largely irrelevant requirement of technical skill may want to look at his Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 [wikipedia.org] to be satisfied.
Are we foolish for clinging to technical grammatical skills for authors, or technical musical skills for musicians?
Yes, QT is far more unpleasant than Flash. Maybe it works acceptably when it's ran natively on a mac; but on other OS's, I'd lump QT in with Real Video. Immediate scrub off my machine if it shows up.
For something to be defined as art it has to have no purpose or function other than itself.
What does that even mean? "Itself" isn't a purpose.
Maybe by purchasing it, and filling the ethernet port in with epoxy, you're creating a NEW work of art, that makes just as much of a statement as his did.
Only if the definition of art encompasses EVERYTHING. I like art too much to consider this an example. This is attention-mongering and marketing.
probably because he just made up that example to have something to post. it's a common thing that happens here.
Not as common as being an asshole, evidently.
The game was called "Eternal Poison". Published by Atlus for the Playstation 2. It wasn't as good as Fire Emblem, but it was still good, and worth playing.
Not too long ago a read a terrible review of a game that was described as a "unimaginative knockoff of Fire Emblem". I rushed right out to buy it, and enjoyed it.
I think review scores are nearly meaningless; aggregate review scores even more useless. But accurate descriptions of the game, including mechanics, and comparisons to similar games... that is really valuable.
But that seems so different than the standards we apply to other media. I might pay $30 for a ticket to a concert for a set of songs I'll only hear ONCE... but I might think no cd is worth $15, even though the experience could be replicated hundreds of times. A 60 minute movie doesn't start off with a 100% advantage over a 120 minute movie, simply because of enjoyment per hour.
Some types of games... some types of experiences... can really only be experienced once. The ephemeral quality of the experience certainly doesn't detract from it's value. Dollars per hour seems like a crass measurement. We don't judge books by dollars per page. Well, at least that's only a minor factor.
The new Silent Hill game for the Wii, Shattered Memories, was amazingly good; innovative, deep, intelligent... and maybe 8 hours long. $7.50 an hour. Absolutely worth it, in the sense a great movie is, even though it fails the $/hour test.
On the other hand, a good strategy game, like any of the incarnations of Fire Emblem, can easily top a hundred hours. The metric has to be total enjoyment... and fond remembrance of the game counts into that total. Hell, the game is probably worth an extra quarter if it generates a decent slashdot post.
I doubt it would be feasible, since it relies on somebody honestly telling them that certain packets deserve prioritization over other packets. It won't take long before everybody marks their packets "highest priority".
Besides, ideally, at some point most packets will be encrypted by default. You wouldn't WANT to be able to distinguish types of packets from each other.
And you can't write videogames in HTML5. Flash will be around for a while.
The real problem with Flash, stupid menu widgets, irritating ads, and non-html website frontpages, won't disappear until sites can recreate equally annoying equivalents via some other method.