No one. Which is why I'm not demanding that. I'm demanding that my experience be consistent across any platform I should choose to use. This is not an unreasonable expectation.
Based on the fact that it's not a lopsided review, and it is far from unusual to have game reviews on this site.
I wonder why a random game is reviewed over one that is easily considered the most recognized game on/.
You really think Spore is "a random game"? If so, you really are delusional. This is a game with massive amounts of hype and anticipation behind it. I haven't seen a game get this hyped up since Bioshock, last year. This is easily a game which is worthy of some coverage, and not just "a random game".
If not here, where would it be apropos?...
I didn't say that here wouldn't be apropos, I said "not necessarily". There is a very large difference between the two. Simply put, though, I don't care if Civ Rev gets reviewed, because I tried it myself, and it's a dumbed-down console version of Civ 4. I really am not gonna get worked up if a game like that doesn't get reviewed.
No research. Ignorant troll.
Calling someone a troll because they disagree with you, especially when you are firing accusations of astroturf without merit, is the last resort of the pathetic.
but don't let reasoning get in the way of your "responses".
Well, I try to do just that, but I see that you have taken your advice, and choose not to let reasoning interfere with your "responses". You practice what you preach, I gotta give you that.
I learned a while ago that Firefox has lots of zealots in the moderator ranks. That, coupled with the fact that plenty of people who moderate are worthless moderators, and use their power to censor viewpoints they don't like rather than keep a discussion going, means that saying things against Firefox have a high probability of getting you modded down. I accept this, stick my mental middle finger up at these abusive pricks, and move along with my life.:)
Ah yes, the worthless comeback of any fanboy of an OSS project. "Write some code". Well, that might be necessary if no one else was meeting my needs, but two other browsers are, so I'm gonna go ahead and go with "no" on this one. Even ignoring that fact, suggesting you need to help write the browser in order to comment is laughable.
Why should we have a standard that attempts to meet both needs, then? Trying to cater to multiple audiences is going to lead to a "jack of all trades, master of none" scenario. I'd rather have multiple standards, each of which is great for a given job, but not so great for the others.
I'm not a web designer. If we want to get technical about it, I did play around a bit building web sites in IE4/NN4, but I don't think that would get me any web design jobs. I'm a user who wants a) consistency, b) web pages that look good. I want the people who do design my web pages to have the tools they need to meet my needs, and an interpretable HTML standard is not it.
I'm aware that people have been asking for it for a long time. I recall reading people calling for this feature on/. at least a year ago. If it were a new idea, I would cut Firefox some slack, but it isn't, so they get none.
And by "threaded tabs", I mean using threads or separate processes. I know that it'll probably be easier for developers to achieve the stability I seek with processes, but I also am not willing to state that it can't be done with threads, so I'll accept either as long as it gets the job done.
We, the users, are more important than you, the designers.
Quite true. But I'm not a designer. I'm a user, and I demand consistency. Standards are great for that, but the fact that they allow latitude in interpretation is idiotic, and harms my experience by making consistency difficult to impossible. So yes, we, the users, are the most important thing, which is why I demand that there be no room for interpretation in the standard.
Fair enough, but be aware I am speaking from my perspective as a user, not from a developer's perspective (I haven't done any web development since I toyed around making web sites back in the IE4/Netscape 4 days). When I go to a site, I want it to look the same on any reasonable combination of browsers and platforms. It's understandable if the mobile phone version isn't the same as the regular version, but the regular version had better damned well look the same whether I'm on a computer that uses Firefox, IE, Safari, Chrome, Konqueror, whatever. Anything less is unacceptable to me, as a user. I highly value consistency.
True dat. Firefox isn't exactly bringing anything to the table at the moment, and needs to step it the hell up if they want to remain relevant. IE8 is ok, Chrome is amazing (and will, of course, only get better over the next few months). Firefox is simply coasting at the moment.
and they "don't want to break websites", which is one of the most backwards arguments for anything on any topic
Actually, that is far and away the best reason to not mess with it. The user experience is paramount, and when you mess with that, you have failed. Too bad MS already failed in that respect on IE 8 by caving into the standards zealots who refused to consider the practical implications of their ideas, but oh well... that bridge is crossed.
After five publicly available iterations (up to IE7), why is their overall standards support at least 25% below, on a feature by feature basis [webdevout.net], nearly every other rendering engine?
I neither know nor care. I'm simply saying the fact that it's under active development means, by definition, that it is not outdated.
Yeah, except requiring things to be rendered the same way all the time isn't "harming functionality", it's common sense. In fact, where exactly does one get off saying that you have a "standard" if there's any room for interpretation at all?
Sorry if designing for the web is a hard job, but the notion that the web should get easier for everyone to use (because we don't have to adjust to any differences in different browsers) is only appealing to everyone.
Your concern is touching, but I'm not a web developer. Also, fixed that for you.
I'm perfectly clear on the difference between threads and processes, but I was, indeed, misinformed, and had read that IE 8 uses threads, not separate processes. Thank you for the correction.
Why? Is it really that big of a deal? Don't open a tab that's going to lock up your browser.
Gee, why didn't I think of that? Develop a magical foresight that allows me to know what actions will cause my applications to crash! Brilliant!
Oh noes! We need this now, if IE has it then FF needs it! Guess we should go ahead and make FF IE5 complient then, since IE is as well. Forget that standards nonsense, IE has it so we need it
This is bloody retarded. I never said anything resembling your idiotic "IE has it, so everyone else must have it" mockery. I said that it's a good feature, so the fact that even IE has it means there's no reason for Firefox not to have it. There's a huge fucking difference.
(which is pretty hard to do in Chrome with all the tabs having the same process name mind you)
Not used Chrome, have you? Chrome has a task manager built-in, which is itself in a separate process, so you can close the processes based on what tab they have, unlike with the Windows task manager.
Me, I'm just not going to open sites that are likely to lock up my browser.
There you go with that magical foresight again. Do tell me how you managed to develop it!
If you aren't picky about the details then you don't understand the problem, and thus the solutions
That's bull. I'm just not arrogant enough to say that because I don't see a way to make separate threads as reliable as separate processes, means that no such way exists.
Because it's impossible to design something which looks really good without having control. Wanting control doesn't make you a control freak, wanting control without reason does. Web designers have excellent reason to want control.
...it's trivial to figure that out. Let me explain it to you: you have tab A, and tab B. If tab A and B share the same thread, they will hang each other if one of them hangs. By putting them in separate threads, tab A and B can hang, but not affect each other.
How is that hard to see? It's not exactly a great insight.
IE 8 has threaded tabs. Now, granted, that's in beta, but that means that the biggest browser has picked up this feature. Chrome also has it, albeit with processes instead of threads. Note I'm not picky about the technical details of threads vs processes, I just want the browser to not completely hang (or worse, crash) based on one tab's misbehavior.
Like I said, given that IE 8 is implementing threaded tabs, there's no excuse for Firefox not to have it. It just brings too much to the table in terms of reliability to not have.
So port them? I doubt it'd be super hard for a motivated user to port them, unlike developing them from scratch. If you pin your use of Chrome to "until someone implements"... you could be potentially denying yourself use of a far superior browser based on the whims of others, which isn't ideal.
Slashdot Mirror
Fork, fork, fork!
The fact that a new limit was discovered doesn't make the technique "flawed"
Well, to be proper, it does make it flawed, it just doesn't mean that the technique is worthless.
No one. Which is why I'm not demanding that. I'm demanding that my experience be consistent across any platform I should choose to use. This is not an unreasonable expectation.
Based on what? Your own delusions?
Based on the fact that it's not a lopsided review, and it is far from unusual to have game reviews on this site.
I wonder why a random game is reviewed over one that is easily considered the most recognized game on /.
You really think Spore is "a random game"? If so, you really are delusional. This is a game with massive amounts of hype and anticipation behind it. I haven't seen a game get this hyped up since Bioshock, last year. This is easily a game which is worthy of some coverage, and not just "a random game".
If not here, where would it be apropos?...
I didn't say that here wouldn't be apropos, I said "not necessarily". There is a very large difference between the two. Simply put, though, I don't care if Civ Rev gets reviewed, because I tried it myself, and it's a dumbed-down console version of Civ 4. I really am not gonna get worked up if a game like that doesn't get reviewed.
No research. Ignorant troll.
Calling someone a troll because they disagree with you, especially when you are firing accusations of astroturf without merit, is the last resort of the pathetic.
but don't let reasoning get in the way of your "responses".
Well, I try to do just that, but I see that you have taken your advice, and choose not to let reasoning interfere with your "responses". You practice what you preach, I gotta give you that.
I don't see why this was modded troll...
You must be new here. ;)
I learned a while ago that Firefox has lots of zealots in the moderator ranks. That, coupled with the fact that plenty of people who moderate are worthless moderators, and use their power to censor viewpoints they don't like rather than keep a discussion going, means that saying things against Firefox have a high probability of getting you modded down. I accept this, stick my mental middle finger up at these abusive pricks, and move along with my life. :)
Ah yes, the worthless comeback of any fanboy of an OSS project. "Write some code". Well, that might be necessary if no one else was meeting my needs, but two other browsers are, so I'm gonna go ahead and go with "no" on this one. Even ignoring that fact, suggesting you need to help write the browser in order to comment is laughable.
Why should we have a standard that attempts to meet both needs, then? Trying to cater to multiple audiences is going to lead to a "jack of all trades, master of none" scenario. I'd rather have multiple standards, each of which is great for a given job, but not so great for the others.
I'm not a web designer. If we want to get technical about it, I did play around a bit building web sites in IE4/NN4, but I don't think that would get me any web design jobs. I'm a user who wants a) consistency, b) web pages that look good. I want the people who do design my web pages to have the tools they need to meet my needs, and an interpretable HTML standard is not it.
I'm aware that people have been asking for it for a long time. I recall reading people calling for this feature on /. at least a year ago. If it were a new idea, I would cut Firefox some slack, but it isn't, so they get none.
And by "threaded tabs", I mean using threads or separate processes. I know that it'll probably be easier for developers to achieve the stability I seek with processes, but I also am not willing to state that it can't be done with threads, so I'll accept either as long as it gets the job done.
We, the users, are more important than you, the designers.
Quite true. But I'm not a designer. I'm a user, and I demand consistency. Standards are great for that, but the fact that they allow latitude in interpretation is idiotic, and harms my experience by making consistency difficult to impossible. So yes, we, the users, are the most important thing, which is why I demand that there be no room for interpretation in the standard.
It is, unless you're exceptionally bored at work. I admit, I broke the rules, but as long as I'm breaking the rules, I may as well enrich your life. ;)
As a web USER, I couldn't disagree with you more.
Fair enough, but be aware I am speaking from my perspective as a user, not from a developer's perspective (I haven't done any web development since I toyed around making web sites back in the IE4/Netscape 4 days). When I go to a site, I want it to look the same on any reasonable combination of browsers and platforms. It's understandable if the mobile phone version isn't the same as the regular version, but the regular version had better damned well look the same whether I'm on a computer that uses Firefox, IE, Safari, Chrome, Konqueror, whatever. Anything less is unacceptable to me, as a user. I highly value consistency.
True dat. Firefox isn't exactly bringing anything to the table at the moment, and needs to step it the hell up if they want to remain relevant. IE8 is ok, Chrome is amazing (and will, of course, only get better over the next few months). Firefox is simply coasting at the moment.
and they "don't want to break websites", which is one of the most backwards arguments for anything on any topic
Actually, that is far and away the best reason to not mess with it. The user experience is paramount, and when you mess with that, you have failed. Too bad MS already failed in that respect on IE 8 by caving into the standards zealots who refused to consider the practical implications of their ideas, but oh well... that bridge is crossed.
After five publicly available iterations (up to IE7), why is their overall standards support at least 25% below, on a feature by feature basis [webdevout.net], nearly every other rendering engine?
I neither know nor care. I'm simply saying the fact that it's under active development means, by definition, that it is not outdated.
Sorry if designing for the web is a hard job, but the notion that the web should get easier for everyone to use (because we don't have to adjust to any differences in different browsers) is only appealing to everyone.
Your concern is touching, but I'm not a web developer. Also, fixed that for you.
I'm perfectly clear on the difference between threads and processes, but I was, indeed, misinformed, and had read that IE 8 uses threads, not separate processes. Thank you for the correction.
Why? Is it really that big of a deal? Don't open a tab that's going to lock up your browser.
Gee, why didn't I think of that? Develop a magical foresight that allows me to know what actions will cause my applications to crash! Brilliant!
Oh noes! We need this now, if IE has it then FF needs it! Guess we should go ahead and make FF IE5 complient then, since IE is as well. Forget that standards nonsense, IE has it so we need it
This is bloody retarded. I never said anything resembling your idiotic "IE has it, so everyone else must have it" mockery. I said that it's a good feature, so the fact that even IE has it means there's no reason for Firefox not to have it. There's a huge fucking difference.
(which is pretty hard to do in Chrome with all the tabs having the same process name mind you)
Not used Chrome, have you? Chrome has a task manager built-in, which is itself in a separate process, so you can close the processes based on what tab they have, unlike with the Windows task manager.
Me, I'm just not going to open sites that are likely to lock up my browser.
There you go with that magical foresight again. Do tell me how you managed to develop it!
If you aren't picky about the details then you don't understand the problem, and thus the solutions
That's bull. I'm just not arrogant enough to say that because I don't see a way to make separate threads as reliable as separate processes, means that no such way exists.
I never said it was trivial to implement, just necessary. One doesn't imply the other.
Fair enough.
Because it's impossible to design something which looks really good without having control. Wanting control doesn't make you a control freak, wanting control without reason does. Web designers have excellent reason to want control.
...it's trivial to figure that out. Let me explain it to you: you have tab A, and tab B. If tab A and B share the same thread, they will hang each other if one of them hangs. By putting them in separate threads, tab A and B can hang, but not affect each other.
How is that hard to see? It's not exactly a great insight.
You do know the standards allow you to render things in slightly different ways, don't you?
What you say is true, but more or less meaningless. The fact that the standards allow this mean that the standards suck, not that the behavior is ok.
If you need pixel-perfect rendering, the web isn't the right medium. It's not designed for that.
Maybe it wasn't designed for that at the beginning, but it needs that now, and we should adjust how we address it accordingly.
IE 8 has threaded tabs. Now, granted, that's in beta, but that means that the biggest browser has picked up this feature. Chrome also has it, albeit with processes instead of threads. Note I'm not picky about the technical details of threads vs processes, I just want the browser to not completely hang (or worse, crash) based on one tab's misbehavior.
Like I said, given that IE 8 is implementing threaded tabs, there's no excuse for Firefox not to have it. It just brings too much to the table in terms of reliability to not have.
So port them? I doubt it'd be super hard for a motivated user to port them, unlike developing them from scratch. If you pin your use of Chrome to "until someone implements"... you could be potentially denying yourself use of a far superior browser based on the whims of others, which isn't ideal.