Ah, yes. The good old "you say things I think are wrong on a regular basis, so you must be an astroturfer" line of thinking! Since you're busting it out, I don't know why I'm wasting my time pointing this out, because you've already decided to be a moron about this, but consider for one damn second: why would Microsoft ever waste money astroturfing on a site where they're hated so passionately? It wouldn't make any difference at all, and would be a waste of money. And while they have money to burn, no business will do something which is obviously a waste, even if they can afford it.
Standards-compliance in the browser isn't really a feature, because it didn't improve the user experience (as people were building web sites with IE's flaws in mind anyway). It's nicer for web developers, but they aren't the people that count when you list features of the OS. It'd be like saying that Windows has more features than Mac OS because it runs the.net framework, and you like Windows development more as a result.
No matter how many times people claim otherwise, there is no such thing as "objectively better" in UI design. Here's a simple proof. You have something you claim to be objectively better, but I find it harder to use. Therefore, it can't really be called objectively better, or else it would be better for everyone.
I don't know how this idea that it's possible to have "laws" for a completely subjective experience started, but it doesn't take a whole lot of thinking through to realize how flawed it is. You may as well come up with "laws" for what makes a good painting, it would be just as meaningful.
That depends on what you want, now doesn't it? I think that having one menu bar makes for an atrociously unusable GUI, and I like to play games... so for my money, Mac OS has never been ahead. For others', maybe it has. Either way, you can't really make an objective statement on it.
Except Vista was fine. For every 10 users who claimed to "hate" Vista, you could find 1 or 2 who had a real reason to do so, rather than "my friend who knows computers told me it sucks". As much as people mocked the "Windows Mojave" commercial, I had to sympathize with what they were trying to say, because I saw the same phenomenon all over: people hating it out of sheer ignorance and word-of-mouth, rather than actual informed opinions.
That's his point. You aren't pushed into paying to upgrade, your old version will be supported for a while yet. Your "why buy x when you can buy x + 1" argument is a strawman, because that argument assumes that our theoretical user is looking to buy anyway. If he is, then he doesn't mind that there's a newer version, as he's going to buy anyway. If he's not, and he already has Windows, then he can continue to use it for a while longer yet, because support isn't disappearing overnight.
I thought the second was a pretty epic disappointment, but the other three were worthy additions to the universe. None would rank up there with the series' finest episodes, but I would say they were definitely better than the weaker episodes. Not all they could have been, perhaps, but they could've been a hell of a lot worse.
Anyone who knows enough to ask on/. what AV program to use knows enough that they aren't going to get viruses anyway. I haven't run AV for a while now (on Windows), and have had no issues simply because I'm not an idiot about clicking on pop-ups that say "Click here for free smilies/games/iPods/porn!"
I rather see innovations that make people better drivers, rather than a bunch of crutches or distractions. Anybody know how to read a fucking street map anymore rather than putting in Grandma's house into the GPS to get there? With the invention of self parking cars, that's one more skill that will be gone in a few years. I already have friends that cannot parallel park, and they don't have this feature on their car, so we just circle the block for 45min until they can find a spot we don't have to parallel park their fucking huge SUV.
People have had trouble parallel parking long before any automated systems were ever invented. It's simply hard to learn.
Also, while people should still know how to read a map in case of GPS not being available, you can't deny that GPS is a hell of a lot more useful than a map, aside from 100% availability. People use GPS and not paper maps because it's simply a better tool.
That's it. That's all it takes to get a license in the US.
Now consider that even this is too much for a lot of morons on the road. Your idea isn't necessarily bad, but unfortunately it'll never, ever happen because of those same morons who would be utterly unable to learn and follow those details.
Denied. It's important to ask the question of "Why is this better/necessary?", rather than just getting caught up in the zeitgeist of "new and cool". His geek card stands.
Also, Galadriel isn't the same kind of elf as the ones in The Hobbit, if I remember correctly. They are the elves who remained in Middle-Earth instead of going to Valinor, Galadriel is part of the gang that went to Valinor and came back to Middle-Earth later.
(For the record, that's legitimately socialist, not the "Obamacare == teh socialists!!!111eleventyone!")
The fact that socialism is used as a scare tactic does not change the fact that national health care would, in fact, be a socialist thing to have. I disapprove of the scare tactics, but it's just as bad to pretend that red is green just because people automatically think red is bad.
What the hell are you talking about? Everyone cares about global warming.
Not by a long shot.
What's with the "if true"? It's widely recognized.
Are you related to the usian government or something? They're the only ones, worldwide, spreading such FUD about global warming because they can't be assed to reduce their emissions.
I imagine the GP was trying to be diplomatic, so as not to provoke people getting off-topic with cries of "You moron, global warming is a hoax!" or "You moron, global warming is real and is serious business!". It's not that hard to understand... although apparently ineffective, as you tried debating him on the topic anyway.
Read his statement a bit more closely. He obviously recognizes his lack of basis for comparison, his wording says so: "I've never actually had [a smartphone], SO this is by far the nicest". He may have used other smartphones (he doesn't really say), but his wording clearly is meant to convey that he's choosing his Android phone as "best I've owned" by default.
Also, it's a completely legitimate sentiment (if rather over-dramatically stated). Most phone users don't care, which is how the iPhone manages to stay popular in the face of Apple's iron-fisted control, but it's still true.
Because in the US, it's only infringement if it's similar enough to cause confusion. No one in their right mind could possibly confuse "iPod" with "DOPi". Whether it's infringement in other countries or not, I wouldn't venture to guess, but to the best of my understanding of US trademark law, it is NOT infringing.
I disagree. I thought the plot was terrible (escaping from a facility simply isn't all that interesting), and while there was a lot of great dark humor, it really was the gameplay that made Portal great. If it was the same game with different mechanics, it would have sucked.
I disagree. I think that silent protagonists are always ineffective (or, have been in the games I've played), simply because it turns the main character of the game into a very boring character. You simply can't get very attached to a character who says nothing, and could be taken completely out of the story without having an effect on it. I guess you could argue that it's effective in that they're not intended to be good characters, but simply an agent for the player to control, but I don't think the fact that a design choice is deliberate means it isn't bad.
Portal was by no means perfect. It had amazing gameplay, but had a very weak story (although GLaDOS was a great character). It was also really short, so it pretty much a rip-off at $20. I loved it in spite of its shortcomings, but it did have glaring flaws.
Considering the behavior we see now from Activision, it's not unreasonable to hypothesize that the crippling of the PC version was driven by Activision, not IW. We'll never know for sure, though, as it's "he said" versus "she said".
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, yes. The good old "you say things I think are wrong on a regular basis, so you must be an astroturfer" line of thinking! Since you're busting it out, I don't know why I'm wasting my time pointing this out, because you've already decided to be a moron about this, but consider for one damn second: why would Microsoft ever waste money astroturfing on a site where they're hated so passionately? It wouldn't make any difference at all, and would be a waste of money. And while they have money to burn, no business will do something which is obviously a waste, even if they can afford it.
Standards-compliance in the browser isn't really a feature, because it didn't improve the user experience (as people were building web sites with IE's flaws in mind anyway). It's nicer for web developers, but they aren't the people that count when you list features of the OS. It'd be like saying that Windows has more features than Mac OS because it runs the .net framework, and you like Windows development more as a result.
No matter how many times people claim otherwise, there is no such thing as "objectively better" in UI design. Here's a simple proof. You have something you claim to be objectively better, but I find it harder to use. Therefore, it can't really be called objectively better, or else it would be better for everyone.
I don't know how this idea that it's possible to have "laws" for a completely subjective experience started, but it doesn't take a whole lot of thinking through to realize how flawed it is. You may as well come up with "laws" for what makes a good painting, it would be just as meaningful.
And it was DOG slow. This is of course AFTER I'd turned off insane garbage like UAC.
What? That's bullshit. No, it wasn't able to run on as wide a range of computers as XP (or even 7), but it wasn't dog slow on a decent machine.
That depends on what you want, now doesn't it? I think that having one menu bar makes for an atrociously unusable GUI, and I like to play games... so for my money, Mac OS has never been ahead. For others', maybe it has. Either way, you can't really make an objective statement on it.
Except Vista was fine. For every 10 users who claimed to "hate" Vista, you could find 1 or 2 who had a real reason to do so, rather than "my friend who knows computers told me it sucks". As much as people mocked the "Windows Mojave" commercial, I had to sympathize with what they were trying to say, because I saw the same phenomenon all over: people hating it out of sheer ignorance and word-of-mouth, rather than actual informed opinions.
That's his point. You aren't pushed into paying to upgrade, your old version will be supported for a while yet. Your "why buy x when you can buy x + 1" argument is a strawman, because that argument assumes that our theoretical user is looking to buy anyway. If he is, then he doesn't mind that there's a newer version, as he's going to buy anyway. If he's not, and he already has Windows, then he can continue to use it for a while longer yet, because support isn't disappearing overnight.
I thought the second was a pretty epic disappointment, but the other three were worthy additions to the universe. None would rank up there with the series' finest episodes, but I would say they were definitely better than the weaker episodes. Not all they could have been, perhaps, but they could've been a hell of a lot worse.
Anyone who knows enough to ask on /. what AV program to use knows enough that they aren't going to get viruses anyway. I haven't run AV for a while now (on Windows), and have had no issues simply because I'm not an idiot about clicking on pop-ups that say "Click here for free smilies/games/iPods/porn!"
I rather see innovations that make people better drivers, rather than a bunch of crutches or distractions. Anybody know how to read a fucking street map anymore rather than putting in Grandma's house into the GPS to get there? With the invention of self parking cars, that's one more skill that will be gone in a few years. I already have friends that cannot parallel park, and they don't have this feature on their car, so we just circle the block for 45min until they can find a spot we don't have to parallel park their fucking huge SUV.
People have had trouble parallel parking long before any automated systems were ever invented. It's simply hard to learn.
Also, while people should still know how to read a map in case of GPS not being available, you can't deny that GPS is a hell of a lot more useful than a map, aside from 100% availability. People use GPS and not paper maps because it's simply a better tool.
That's it. That's all it takes to get a license in the US.
Now consider that even this is too much for a lot of morons on the road. Your idea isn't necessarily bad, but unfortunately it'll never, ever happen because of those same morons who would be utterly unable to learn and follow those details.
Denied. It's important to ask the question of "Why is this better/necessary?", rather than just getting caught up in the zeitgeist of "new and cool". His geek card stands.
Also, Galadriel isn't the same kind of elf as the ones in The Hobbit, if I remember correctly. They are the elves who remained in Middle-Earth instead of going to Valinor, Galadriel is part of the gang that went to Valinor and came back to Middle-Earth later.
I love the book, but I don't think it's a good idea for someone else to try making a sequel.
(For the record, that's legitimately socialist, not the "Obamacare == teh socialists!!!111eleventyone!")
The fact that socialism is used as a scare tactic does not change the fact that national health care would, in fact, be a socialist thing to have. I disapprove of the scare tactics, but it's just as bad to pretend that red is green just because people automatically think red is bad.
What the hell are you talking about? Everyone cares about global warming.
Not by a long shot.
What's with the "if true"? It's widely recognized.
Are you related to the usian government or something? They're the only ones, worldwide, spreading such FUD about global warming because they can't be assed to reduce their emissions.
I imagine the GP was trying to be diplomatic, so as not to provoke people getting off-topic with cries of "You moron, global warming is a hoax!" or "You moron, global warming is real and is serious business!". It's not that hard to understand... although apparently ineffective, as you tried debating him on the topic anyway.
Read his statement a bit more closely. He obviously recognizes his lack of basis for comparison, his wording says so: "I've never actually had [a smartphone], SO this is by far the nicest". He may have used other smartphones (he doesn't really say), but his wording clearly is meant to convey that he's choosing his Android phone as "best I've owned" by default.
Well, I've lost the will to live after reading these two posts. Thanks, guys. :(
Also, it's a completely legitimate sentiment (if rather over-dramatically stated). Most phone users don't care, which is how the iPhone manages to stay popular in the face of Apple's iron-fisted control, but it's still true.
Because in the US, it's only infringement if it's similar enough to cause confusion. No one in their right mind could possibly confuse "iPod" with "DOPi". Whether it's infringement in other countries or not, I wouldn't venture to guess, but to the best of my understanding of US trademark law, it is NOT infringing.
It looks like you're trying to produce fake processors! Would you like assistance?
I disagree. I thought the plot was terrible (escaping from a facility simply isn't all that interesting), and while there was a lot of great dark humor, it really was the gameplay that made Portal great. If it was the same game with different mechanics, it would have sucked.
I disagree. I think that silent protagonists are always ineffective (or, have been in the games I've played), simply because it turns the main character of the game into a very boring character. You simply can't get very attached to a character who says nothing, and could be taken completely out of the story without having an effect on it. I guess you could argue that it's effective in that they're not intended to be good characters, but simply an agent for the player to control, but I don't think the fact that a design choice is deliberate means it isn't bad.
Portal was by no means perfect. It had amazing gameplay, but had a very weak story (although GLaDOS was a great character). It was also really short, so it pretty much a rip-off at $20. I loved it in spite of its shortcomings, but it did have glaring flaws.
Considering the behavior we see now from Activision, it's not unreasonable to hypothesize that the crippling of the PC version was driven by Activision, not IW. We'll never know for sure, though, as it's "he said" versus "she said".