I think it is interesting that you insist that the cost is minimal while also insisting that those that supported IE in the past should not be the one's to bear said cost The cost is not minimal for existing web pages, that's the whole damn point. While something is under development, it's absolutely trivial to insert one line of code. It adds next-to-no effort to the process. Once something is no longer under development, however, it may not be that easy. If there's someone already there who can maintain the site, then it's easy, but it's not so easy if that isn't the case. At the very least (and I'm sure that someone would want to do it in a more complicated way than this), it involves hiring someone to make that change to the template. If the site doesn't have an easy way to change it in one spot, it involves even more work.
It is ALWAYS much cheaper to make a tiny modification to a project which is underway than to hire someone just to do that modification, because although it takes only 5 minutes of work, the guy who did it will happily charge a full hour of labor for the occasion. A developer on an active project will still charge the full hour, but those other 55 minutes will be filled with useful work, not dead space.
IE8 should work in "real standards compliant" mode by default... without needing yet another hack to make it so. No. IE8 should make backwards compatibility its top priority, at any other cost, as anyone else should. Backwards compatibility is THE #1 priority for any piece of software which is going to get used with legacy stuff.
Ah... I'm starting to see what the problem is here. Oh, yes, because NO ONE except a professional web developer could POSSIBLY have a thoughtful, well-informed opinion on the subject. What a ludicrous idea.
There is no reason now to punish people that didn't and don't want to do that First, adding one damn tag is no punishment. The effort is so small that we can count it as zero. Second, it's also an investment into the future, because if IE gets to the point where it supports standards really well, and web sites also support IE, Microsoft can finally drop the legacy stuff they have to deal with now, and make every web developer's life easier. If I were a web developer, I'd be jumping for joy at this, not bitching that it's a punishment.
The analogy is valid. The people making the decision that lead to the mess should be the ones bearing the price to fix the mess. The analogy is horribly invalid. The government, if they bail some lenders out, pays just as much cost as the lenders would have. It costs society the same. However, in this case, the cost to society is ~0, because all that it requires is to add one freaking tag to the template of every web site which is built from now on.
If the government could bail out a major lender for $.01, I'd be clamoring for the government to do so, because that $.01 cost on society would produce a huge benefit. Not to mention, the government STILL isn't analagous in any way to web developers or Microsoft.
No, THIS IS getting out of the hole and filling it back in, or at least, the first step in that line. Here's how it should go (not necessarily how Microsoft is planning it, but how it should go):
IE8 has the strict standards mode, web developers adopt it for all their new sites, and update old ones as best they can.
Wait 6 years or so (or pick your timeframe, if you don't like that one).
Now the majority of pages that are on the interweb have the strict standards rendering tag in, and IE8 or later makes up 90% of the IE users.
Next version of IE doesn't require the special tag to render in strict standards mode.
You may disagree with this course of action, which is your prerogative, but to say that they're "digging another hole", and not trying to fix the problem, is insane.
I get your point, and you may have a more real-world-ready opinion than some of us, but I am not ready to concede anything to MS in this regard. That kind of stubborn attitude doesn't do anyone any good. You're welcome to try to change what the world is like. I encourage you to do so, in fact. However, in the meantime, the world is not ideal, and you have to adapt to it. This is a necessary step towards standards compliance for IE, and you're going to tell MS to shove it up their ass? You must not want standards compliance for IE that badly, I have to say.
Please. They don't "deserve" any punishment for making pages that fit the realities of the world. The fact is, many people use IE. IE doesn't follow standards. Thus, you need to specifically support IE in your web pages unless you're ok with leaving the majority of your potential users in the dark (which no sane person would be). The developers who made pages which have "IE mode" did what they had to do, because they understood that reality was not like they wanted it to be, and they had to adjust to it. Quite bluntly, it sounds like you're the sort of person who expects the world to revolve around you, and what you think the world should be like.
Your analogy about government bail-outs is a poor one, too, considering Microsoft isn't an institution of the people, for the good of the people. The government has very different expectations and responsibilities than Microsoft, the analogy fails.
Why are the PS3 guitars 2.4 Ghz instead of Bluetooth? Is this really a cost-saving move? They have to include a dongle, and I can't power on the system with the controller. This just seems stupid. Probably cost-saving. I agree, it's stupid. I have the PS3 version as well, and I hate the lack of Bluetooth. The insulting thing was that Neversoft claimed it was because Bluetooth wasn't precise enough, but the Wii guitars use the Wiimote's signal, which is (surprise!) Bluetooth. If you need to cut costs, fine, but don't lie to us about it and expect we won't figure it out.
Why can't I find any stand alone PS3 wireless guitars anywhere? They're not on sale yet. I think they're slated to go on sale this month or next, but I'm not really sure.
Why aren't the buttons analog? I imagine the game would be more realistic if you could press the fret button harder to extend the note, or perhaps strum harder to play louder, etc? I don't know that the game really needs the added level of complexity, to be honest.
Can you play GH 1 & 2 on a PS3 with the PS3 controller, or do you need the PS2 guitar and the adapter? You need the adapter, and even the adapter works very poorly. My advice (having tried this myself) is don't bother with the old games on the PS3: either live without them, or get a cheap PS2 (if you don't already have one).
No, the initial run of Rock Band guitars was poorly built. The second run, as far as I've read on the forums, is quite nice. Indeed, after my original guitar broke within 24 hrs of buying the game, the replacement I got works beautifully. Best fake guitar I could ask for.
Harmonix has nothing to do with the Wii version of GH3. They make Rock Band, which doesn't have a Wii version.
I understand that you're joking, but it's important to keep things like that straight, so an uninformed party doesn't get pissed off at Harmonix for something they didn't do.
Gamers want unbiased information about games... No they don't. They want the opinion of other gamers on games so that they can make a more informed purchase decision.
...how much absolutely loves his Xbox 360 and Halo 3 and thinks its the best game ever 24/7. If that's his honest opinion, then by God, he should be talking about that in his coverage of those things. And if you don't like it, that's quite honestly too damn bad for you, because he's there to express his opinion.
Second of all, no one is necessarily opposed to cracking down on piracy, we're opposed to the bullshit "you must offer an alternative" clause. Why don't we have all businesses making doing business with them mandatory while we're at it?
Once again, like in many instances, Apple got the functionality side right where the rest of the computer industry half assed it... Ha. Tell that to the one-button mouse, the hockey puck mouse, the menu in OS 9 and before where you had to choose the active program's menu from a drop-down list (which remains the single most egregious GUI mistake I've ever seen), the horribly unfriendly-to-service-techs iMac, the PowerMac G4 which took 5-10 minutes just to get the optical drive out, the iPod with its buttons on the scroll wheel, causing you to constantly hit them, the general attitude that the Apple way is better until proven otherwise for at least a couple of years...
Stop drinking the Apple Kool-Aid. Apple has successes, and they have failures, but anyone who thinks they have a substantially higher success than failure rate compared to the rest of the industry is either deluding themselves, or a liar.
If his goal is to build a franchise, he fucked up good from the sounds of it. You don't go pay $8 for a "promo of what's to come". That's a rip-off, and people have a right to be angry about it if that is indeed the case (I didn't see the movie, I wouldn't know personally).
First of all, AI is in a rather basic stage compared to what we tend to expect from it. AI isn't going to be doing anything impressive any time soon, but that doesn't make progress less significant.
Second of all, getting a perfect score on Pac-Man without losing a life isn't that impressive to me, considering that by learning a handful of patterns you can play a perfect game (as long as you don't fuck up and mis-time a turn or something).
Clearly, there's never been a scientist of religious belief! Oh, wait...
Criticizing religion is not bigotry. Making outlandish claims like "religion mocks everything scientists stand for" is bigotry. Hell, even "religion and science disagree on everything" is more reasonable than what you said, although not true.
After all, EVERY day is bash-a-christian day. Indeed! And as it should be. I'm throwing down the bullshit flag. It should NEVER be bash-a-{insert group here} day. Christians, Nazis, blacks, gays, take your damn pick. Disagreement is fine. Rational discussion about said disagreement is fine, and indeed, healthy. Assuming a stance of hostility (as I've seen countless posters here do) towards someone because of their beliefs is childish, bigoted, and shouldn't be tolerated by anyone who fancies themself enlightened. Slashdot understands this most of the time. When it comes time to talk about Christianity, however, people apparently forget how to behave properly.
Presumably, since the pope was going to speak there, someone at the university was ok with it.
speakers who don't mock everything they stand for? Please. Take your idiotic intolerance elsewhere. The pope may disagree with these scientists, they may disagree with him. In fact, I'm sure they do disagree on a great many things. This disagreement, however, is not mocking everything they stand for. In fact, even going so far as to assume the pope mocks even one thing they stand for (a ludicrous assumption, in my book), that still isn't everything. You're blowing this issue out of proportion, and by the tone of your post, it sounds like you're doing so out of bigotry... no different than these scientists.
1) As far as I could tell from TFA, they were just pissy because he's Catholic, not because of anything he's said.
2) Even if I interpreted wrongly, they're still out of line. What the pope has said in the past has no bearing on his right to speak now, unless you know that what he's planning to say now is more of the same.
Well, considering these scientists were protesting the Pope giving a speech without knowing what he was even going to say (as far as I could glean from TFA), I'd say that makes them irrational nutcases (or at least, assholes). So, really, you need to look in another direction than the pope for irrationality here.
Application of knowledge is skill. You're only fooling yourself if you think otherwise. It doesn't matter how simple the mechanics of gameplay are, it requires some non-zero amount of skill to learn what they are, and how to use them appropriately.
Saying that playing WoW well doesn't require skill is like saying driving doesn't require skill. They're both the same kind of skill: applied knowledge.
I think such a mindset is a flaw of the player far more than the game, though. I've honestly never understood those who feel they have to log in to WoW... I go for weeks at a time without logging in, when I do, I have lots of fun. One might argue that I'm wasting money, it's true, but if it's a waste of money, then you should obviously be not spending the money.
I really feel that "I have to log in to justify my $15/month" is kind of the pinnacle of irrationality. If you're not having fun, don't log in. If you aren't playing enough to justify the subscription, don't pay. Simple as that.
The users never will be educated. No matter how many we catch, there are thousands more that go past us unnoticed.
Since we can't ever educate all users (or nearly all), all operating systems are insecure.
Let me reiterate my point.
The number of "self-propagating malware" pieces in the wild is just e-peen waving. All operating systems are insecure against the only thing that matters, and if you think that the situation will be any better the moment (SELECT * FROM osnames WHERE os != "Windows") is the primary OS in the world, you're only fooling yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
It is ALWAYS much cheaper to make a tiny modification to a project which is underway than to hire someone just to do that modification, because although it takes only 5 minutes of work, the guy who did it will happily charge a full hour of labor for the occasion. A developer on an active project will still charge the full hour, but those other 55 minutes will be filled with useful work, not dead space.
IE8 should work in "real standards compliant" mode by default... without needing yet another hack to make it so. No. IE8 should make backwards compatibility its top priority, at any other cost, as anyone else should. Backwards compatibility is THE #1 priority for any piece of software which is going to get used with legacy stuff. Ah... I'm starting to see what the problem is here. Oh, yes, because NO ONE except a professional web developer could POSSIBLY have a thoughtful, well-informed opinion on the subject. What a ludicrous idea.If the government could bail out a major lender for $.01, I'd be clamoring for the government to do so, because that $.01 cost on society would produce a huge benefit. Not to mention, the government STILL isn't analagous in any way to web developers or Microsoft.
IE8 has the strict standards mode, web developers adopt it for all their new sites, and update old ones as best they can.
Wait 6 years or so (or pick your timeframe, if you don't like that one).
Now the majority of pages that are on the interweb have the strict standards rendering tag in, and IE8 or later makes up 90% of the IE users.
Next version of IE doesn't require the special tag to render in strict standards mode.
You may disagree with this course of action, which is your prerogative, but to say that they're "digging another hole", and not trying to fix the problem, is insane.
Your analogy about government bail-outs is a poor one, too, considering Microsoft isn't an institution of the people, for the good of the people. The government has very different expectations and responsibilities than Microsoft, the analogy fails.
No, the initial run of Rock Band guitars was poorly built. The second run, as far as I've read on the forums, is quite nice. Indeed, after my original guitar broke within 24 hrs of buying the game, the replacement I got works beautifully. Best fake guitar I could ask for.
I understand that you're joking, but it's important to keep things like that straight, so an uninformed party doesn't get pissed off at Harmonix for something they didn't do.
...how much absolutely loves his Xbox 360 and Halo 3 and thinks its the best game ever 24/7. If that's his honest opinion, then by God, he should be talking about that in his coverage of those things. And if you don't like it, that's quite honestly too damn bad for you, because he's there to express his opinion.Second of all, no one is necessarily opposed to cracking down on piracy, we're opposed to the bullshit "you must offer an alternative" clause. Why don't we have all businesses making doing business with them mandatory while we're at it?
Well, they apparently are, as evidenced by this piece of legislative shit.
I mean, seriously, I could deal with it if it was just "crack down on piracy harder", but mandating alternatives?? What the FUCK.
Stop drinking the Apple Kool-Aid. Apple has successes, and they have failures, but anyone who thinks they have a substantially higher success than failure rate compared to the rest of the industry is either deluding themselves, or a liar.
Then Massachusetts isn't in compliance with REAL ID yet. Not that they should be, of course.
If his goal is to build a franchise, he fucked up good from the sounds of it. You don't go pay $8 for a "promo of what's to come". That's a rip-off, and people have a right to be angry about it if that is indeed the case (I didn't see the movie, I wouldn't know personally).
Second of all, getting a perfect score on Pac-Man without losing a life isn't that impressive to me, considering that by learning a handful of patterns you can play a perfect game (as long as you don't fuck up and mis-time a turn or something).
Criticizing religion is not bigotry. Making outlandish claims like "religion mocks everything scientists stand for" is bigotry. Hell, even "religion and science disagree on everything" is more reasonable than what you said, although not true.
True, it's better to leave them be, but if you're gonna respond, there's no need to craft a great post.
2) Even if I interpreted wrongly, they're still out of line. What the pope has said in the past has no bearing on his right to speak now, unless you know that what he's planning to say now is more of the same.
Well, considering these scientists were protesting the Pope giving a speech without knowing what he was even going to say (as far as I could glean from TFA), I'd say that makes them irrational nutcases (or at least, assholes). So, really, you need to look in another direction than the pope for irrationality here.
Saying that playing WoW well doesn't require skill is like saying driving doesn't require skill. They're both the same kind of skill: applied knowledge.
I really feel that "I have to log in to justify my $15/month" is kind of the pinnacle of irrationality. If you're not having fun, don't log in. If you aren't playing enough to justify the subscription, don't pay. Simple as that.
Since we can't ever educate all users (or nearly all), all operating systems are insecure.
Let me reiterate my point.
The number of "self-propagating malware" pieces in the wild is just e-peen waving. All operating systems are insecure against the only thing that matters, and if you think that the situation will be any better the moment (SELECT * FROM osnames WHERE os != "Windows") is the primary OS in the world, you're only fooling yourself.