Personal gun ownership was brought in by the poster who said that owning a gun doesn't make one a bully. My comment was an extension of the analogy pointing out that owning a personal gun increases the chances of your family getting shot. In this case, the analogy is that by building the weapons we put ourselves in danger of having those same weapons used against us (terrorism, accident, whatever) or another country feeling the need to build those weapons where they'll subsequently get used. The last arms race brought us close to nuclear war several times. Another course should be thoughtfully considered before we decide to start another arms race.
Too bad we don't have methods of encryption that could work around that. It would never be perfect, but it's a lot better than a bad EULA and is already protected under the DMCA (which is retarded as well, but there you go).
I'm pretty sure that in a patent trial, a patent can be used as evidence of prior art.
Of course, I can't say I'd be all that surprised if it didn't with the way the justice system works. What he's really asking (if I'm not mistaken) is how to ensure that nobody will be able to patent it out from under him. That requires establishing prior art. He's doing that with a patent right now, he's wondering if his second project not being patented should be patented to protect it. This is a legitimate question, and a patent would almost certainly be a strong defense if this ever went to trial.
It'll lead you to someone who got paid a little money to do it but has no idea who the actual person who paid them is. At the most they'll catch one or two of the people who are actually behind the scheme, the rest will all be people who just wanted a quick job that paid a few bucks.
As long as that's understood from the beginning, that's a perfectly legitimate test. They're testing the difference in download speed for the entire stack, not just the console itself. Since most people are going to look at the speed of the console downloading from the company's servers anyway, this is a completely valid measure.
I'm going to guess you were modded flamebait because you're doing the very thing that you're saying people shouldn't do. Take, for example, these two quotes.
It's desirable for parents who feel good about sheltering their children from the world instead of equipping their children to deal with the world (and maybe, just maybe, to build a better world). By extension it's desirable for parents who don't know the difference, too.
You leave absolutely no room for people in the middle, people who believe that children should be able to participate in violent images but not at all ages. Football, soccer, and tag are all (at least arguably) stand ins for more violent behavior, but parents and society monitor the level of violence that they're able to participate in so that they can get used to it and learn to deal with it.
Does that mean that little Johnny should go see the Roman Colosseum? No, you twit (not you personally, but anyone who would respond that way). Now you're going from one extreme to the other because you were overreacting the whole time and thus, extremes are all you knew. The allure of things like violence and other "forbidden fruits" is the big deal we make out of them. It's an excitement that becomes attached to the thing itself that is not inherent to the thing itself.
Here you're getting after people for going to extremes and viewing the world as without nuance, which is what you did above.
The opposite of making a big deal of everything is to talk to little Johnny and say "that's violence, this is why it's wrong and doesn't lead to health and harmony and happiness, ok?" and then MOVE ON. Then it's possible to appreciate a fictional work that happens to have violence.
Children are not adults and they don't think the same way. I remember many instances where my parents tried to explain something and I didn't understand because I wasn't mature enough to get it. "Protect the children" is such a potent rallying cry because there's a real need to protect children. But the ridiculous opponents of violence in video games should push those of us who disagree with them to the other extreme in saying that violence is good and beneficial, or even neutral, for children, because we can't back that statement and it doesn't even seem plausible.
Powers of two are convenient for machines and how most technically literate people think of the unit.
Technically illiterate people don't give a shit, you could measure hard drive sizes in cubits for all they know/care.
The difference between 1012 and 1000 are small enough that for the layman, conversions can be carried out as if it were a power of ten. For those who need to do more precise calculations, 1012 is the preferred format anyway. This is a clear cut case of trying to impose a standard by fiat where there's already and perfectly serviceable one in place.
I appreciate those options for myself. I remember with TA: Kingdoms turning off the blood because my archers would shoot a guy so many times that blood would be spurting out nonstop, which I found gross at the time. Same with the gore in the original UT. I can see parents appreciating that in addition to people who just don't like gore.
Also, if you do paintball mode it turns it from a game where you're killing people to a game where it's just some guys playing paintball. Does it change the gameplay? Of course not, but it does change the entire frame of reference for the violence in the game. I can see that being desirable for parents and I think it's a great idea. My friend and I were talking about how they should do something along the lines of Unreal Tournament: Nerf Edition, where all the guns are nerf guns.
Just because you don't care doesn't mean that parents don't care.
When I come to a site that's IE-only, it's a lot easier to click on the icon in the bottom right than it is to open IE, copy the url over and wait for it to load. In addition, it allows me to use Firefox before and after doing what I need to do on that page, which is really nice. Also, if all you're doing is checking to see that the layout works, there's no reason to fire up IE either when you can get there with a single click. Finally, I've never seen any differences between the IETab version of a site and regular IE with the possible exception of security popups and other setting-specific things. For 75% of the things that I'd normally fire IE up for, IETab fills the void just fine.
I'm 90% certain that there's no way for you to use firebug with IETab because firebug relies on hooks into the rendering engine that Trident won't provide. However, I do know that IE has a web developer toolbar that's moderately useful. I've used it when there's an IE specific bug that I can't narrow down without some help. It doesn't make IE as easy to develop in as Firefox + web developer toolbar + Firebug is, but it's better than nothing.
Re:Why people watch movies..
on
Daemon
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The suspension of disbelief is completely jarred when you run into technology that just doesn't work. With "The Matrix" and similar movies, they make the world so radically different that the suspension of disbelief is an all or nothing: you either believe in the world or you don't, and you have to leave your assumptions at the door. With things set in the modern world, they're trying to use your pre-existing knowledge. In the case of most movies, they mess it up badly, which is jarring to someone who knows the field. It's the same with other professions, only their not featured in movies nearly as often.
That being said, there are still some very good movies that also botch the tech, but those movies don't make the technology the center of the movie. Die Hard was one such movie for me, although there are quite a few others. I believe the criticism is valid.
I don't own any XBox360 to compare it to, but my PS3 generates a lot of heat to the point where it can get uncomfortable to the touch. This is after a few hours of playing it, but still a lot more than what you're describing.
My father in law owns a PS3 that he had to put onto a wire frame so that it would circulate the air underneath the console. It was getting so hot it would stop working, so that was his solution to being able to use it to watch a whole movie (which is what my in-laws mostly do with their console).
So, anecdotally speaking, I'd have to say that my experience has been almost the polar opposite of what yours has been.
I'm trying to picture an MPAAer with foot in mouth and head in ass. It looks very painful.
I saw that on a website the other day. It looked painful, and the girl sounded like she was in pain, but I couldn't tell if it was real or if she was faking.
As long as Apache's added the proper stipulations, then they're fine. Plus, in a patent infringement suit, being able to point to Microsoft giving them the implementation really hurts Microsoft's case.
Don't get me wrong, the board may even genuinely believe such propaganda, but the stock holders don't care. They want to see the stock go up or the board members replaced.
You're forgetting that sometimes good will is worth paying money for. Wal Mart probably won't disappear due to people thinking that it's a terrible business and horribly unethical, but it will keep Target alive. I know people who register at Target simply because registering at WalMart would split the gift givers between those who go to Wal Mart and those who refuse to, and vice versa on those giving gifts.
As for being environmentally friendly, there are a lot of people who will make purchases and other decisions based on those factors. If you're an internet company where the cost of switching is near 0 (which Google is), then part of remaining viable in the marketplace is making sure that people don't want to switch, and part of that is making sure that the news around your company doesn't cause people to have a bad taste in their mouth when they use your product. People liking Google and thinking that it's moral is absolutely vital to their business strategy, and the only sure way to make people think that you're moral is to be moral (and then publicize it).
I believe the term you were looking for was deprecate, not depreciate. I generally agree with your post, but I think I know why Microsoft has chosen to do things the way that they have.
They could easily implement a new system with a wrapper for backwards compatibility...Probably the real reason for not removing the registry is because of their deals with companies that don't want it removed. (e.g. companies that make money out of people's computers playing up because of registry errors)
I agree that they could implement a wrapper much like OSX, and I agree that they're not doing it because companies don't want them to. However, I don't think it's for the money. Windows has made the market share that it has simply because it doesn't break backwards compatibility. I can run games on Vista that were written to run on windows 95. Backwards compatibility is one of the things that Microsoft really tries to do well, and it's one of the things that they catch the most shit over when they don't do it.
OSX is the primary example that people throw up on how you can write an emulation wrapper and let old programs run on an entirely rewritten OS. The problem with that is that they don't get the same level of compatibility. The old libraries will almost always be more compatible than the emulation layer, so they leave the libraries in. As for deprecating the old things, that's what.NET is. Do it right or do it wrong, however, and people will still complain that the old way of programming things was better and refuse to move to the new standard.
Finally, there's a different breed of people that program for Windows than program for the other platforms. The other platforms have a higher ratio of people who program on it because they love it, because it fits their ideology. These people will code to a higher standard than will people looking for a paycheck. Because Windows dominates the market, it gets a higher portion of paycheck seekers, and it's precisely these people who are most likely to fuck up when writing software. This leaves Microsoft covered in shit while the other platforms look pristine.
In summary, while I agree that there are ways that Microsoft could do things better, and while I agree that it would be nice if they did those things, if I start with the assumption that breaking backwards compatibility is the deadliest sin of them all, I believe that their choices have been very logical and reasonable.
I got your point. You said that one of the proofs that they are more resilient to viruses is that they don't have the same proportion as their market share. My reply to that was that they shouldn't have the same proportion as their market share even if they're equally or possibly even more susceptible than windows, as shown by the number of games that come out for them.
I actually already corrected that in another post, and the error was that I misread the figures as saying that digital sales rose from 20% to 25%. Thanks for keeping me honest, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Personal gun ownership was brought in by the poster who said that owning a gun doesn't make one a bully. My comment was an extension of the analogy pointing out that owning a personal gun increases the chances of your family getting shot. In this case, the analogy is that by building the weapons we put ourselves in danger of having those same weapons used against us (terrorism, accident, whatever) or another country feeling the need to build those weapons where they'll subsequently get used. The last arms race brought us close to nuclear war several times. Another course should be thoughtfully considered before we decide to start another arms race.
Yeah, but the chances of your family getting shot go way, way down if you don't keep a gun in the house.
Too bad we don't have methods of encryption that could work around that. It would never be perfect, but it's a lot better than a bad EULA and is already protected under the DMCA (which is retarded as well, but there you go).
It's about time people started doing this research. It's been woefully lacking in the last few decades.
I'm pretty sure that in a patent trial, a patent can be used as evidence of prior art.
Of course, I can't say I'd be all that surprised if it didn't with the way the justice system works. What he's really asking (if I'm not mistaken) is how to ensure that nobody will be able to patent it out from under him. That requires establishing prior art. He's doing that with a patent right now, he's wondering if his second project not being patented should be patented to protect it. This is a legitimate question, and a patent would almost certainly be a strong defense if this ever went to trial.
It'll lead you to someone who got paid a little money to do it but has no idea who the actual person who paid them is. At the most they'll catch one or two of the people who are actually behind the scheme, the rest will all be people who just wanted a quick job that paid a few bucks.
The game was as exciting as it gets. Even my sisters-in-law who don't like football were on the edge of their seats. It was a good time.
As long as that's understood from the beginning, that's a perfectly legitimate test. They're testing the difference in download speed for the entire stack, not just the console itself. Since most people are going to look at the speed of the console downloading from the company's servers anyway, this is a completely valid measure.
It's desirable for parents who feel good about sheltering their children from the world instead of equipping their children to deal with the world (and maybe, just maybe, to build a better world). By extension it's desirable for parents who don't know the difference, too.
You leave absolutely no room for people in the middle, people who believe that children should be able to participate in violent images but not at all ages. Football, soccer, and tag are all (at least arguably) stand ins for more violent behavior, but parents and society monitor the level of violence that they're able to participate in so that they can get used to it and learn to deal with it.
Does that mean that little Johnny should go see the Roman Colosseum? No, you twit (not you personally, but anyone who would respond that way). Now you're going from one extreme to the other because you were overreacting the whole time and thus, extremes are all you knew. The allure of things like violence and other "forbidden fruits" is the big deal we make out of them. It's an excitement that becomes attached to the thing itself that is not inherent to the thing itself.
Here you're getting after people for going to extremes and viewing the world as without nuance, which is what you did above.
The opposite of making a big deal of everything is to talk to little Johnny and say "that's violence, this is why it's wrong and doesn't lead to health and harmony and happiness, ok?" and then MOVE ON. Then it's possible to appreciate a fictional work that happens to have violence.
Children are not adults and they don't think the same way. I remember many instances where my parents tried to explain something and I didn't understand because I wasn't mature enough to get it. "Protect the children" is such a potent rallying cry because there's a real need to protect children. But the ridiculous opponents of violence in video games should push those of us who disagree with them to the other extreme in saying that violence is good and beneficial, or even neutral, for children, because we can't back that statement and it doesn't even seem plausible.
Let me explain this in simple terms:
Powers of two are convenient for machines and how most technically literate people think of the unit.
Technically illiterate people don't give a shit, you could measure hard drive sizes in cubits for all they know/care.
The difference between 1012 and 1000 are small enough that for the layman, conversions can be carried out as if it were a power of ten. For those who need to do more precise calculations, 1012 is the preferred format anyway. This is a clear cut case of trying to impose a standard by fiat where there's already and perfectly serviceable one in place.
I appreciate those options for myself. I remember with TA: Kingdoms turning off the blood because my archers would shoot a guy so many times that blood would be spurting out nonstop, which I found gross at the time. Same with the gore in the original UT. I can see parents appreciating that in addition to people who just don't like gore.
Also, if you do paintball mode it turns it from a game where you're killing people to a game where it's just some guys playing paintball. Does it change the gameplay? Of course not, but it does change the entire frame of reference for the violence in the game. I can see that being desirable for parents and I think it's a great idea. My friend and I were talking about how they should do something along the lines of Unreal Tournament: Nerf Edition, where all the guns are nerf guns.
Just because you don't care doesn't mean that parents don't care.
When I come to a site that's IE-only, it's a lot easier to click on the icon in the bottom right than it is to open IE, copy the url over and wait for it to load. In addition, it allows me to use Firefox before and after doing what I need to do on that page, which is really nice. Also, if all you're doing is checking to see that the layout works, there's no reason to fire up IE either when you can get there with a single click. Finally, I've never seen any differences between the IETab version of a site and regular IE with the possible exception of security popups and other setting-specific things. For 75% of the things that I'd normally fire IE up for, IETab fills the void just fine.
I'm 90% certain that there's no way for you to use firebug with IETab because firebug relies on hooks into the rendering engine that Trident won't provide. However, I do know that IE has a web developer toolbar that's moderately useful. I've used it when there's an IE specific bug that I can't narrow down without some help. It doesn't make IE as easy to develop in as Firefox + web developer toolbar + Firebug is, but it's better than nothing.
The suspension of disbelief is completely jarred when you run into technology that just doesn't work. With "The Matrix" and similar movies, they make the world so radically different that the suspension of disbelief is an all or nothing: you either believe in the world or you don't, and you have to leave your assumptions at the door. With things set in the modern world, they're trying to use your pre-existing knowledge. In the case of most movies, they mess it up badly, which is jarring to someone who knows the field. It's the same with other professions, only their not featured in movies nearly as often.
That being said, there are still some very good movies that also botch the tech, but those movies don't make the technology the center of the movie. Die Hard was one such movie for me, although there are quite a few others. I believe the criticism is valid.
That's why I have the milk man deliver me some every week.
Also, Firefox isn't supported by Microsoft. Why would MS release Windows bundled with programs they do not support?
that's the best counter-argument I've heard on the thread. You are to be commended, sir.
I don't own any XBox360 to compare it to, but my PS3 generates a lot of heat to the point where it can get uncomfortable to the touch. This is after a few hours of playing it, but still a lot more than what you're describing.
My father in law owns a PS3 that he had to put onto a wire frame so that it would circulate the air underneath the console. It was getting so hot it would stop working, so that was his solution to being able to use it to watch a whole movie (which is what my in-laws mostly do with their console).
So, anecdotally speaking, I'd have to say that my experience has been almost the polar opposite of what yours has been.
I'm trying to picture an MPAAer with foot in mouth and head in ass. It looks very painful.
I saw that on a website the other day. It looked painful, and the girl sounded like she was in pain, but I couldn't tell if it was real or if she was faking.
That idea's as old as the sexy librarian itself.
As long as Apache's added the proper stipulations, then they're fine. Plus, in a patent infringement suit, being able to point to Microsoft giving them the implementation really hurts Microsoft's case.
and I know a lot of people would tell their coworkers in a heartbeat.
Don't get me wrong, the board may even genuinely believe such propaganda, but the stock holders don't care. They want to see the stock go up or the board members replaced.
You're forgetting that sometimes good will is worth paying money for. Wal Mart probably won't disappear due to people thinking that it's a terrible business and horribly unethical, but it will keep Target alive. I know people who register at Target simply because registering at WalMart would split the gift givers between those who go to Wal Mart and those who refuse to, and vice versa on those giving gifts.
As for being environmentally friendly, there are a lot of people who will make purchases and other decisions based on those factors. If you're an internet company where the cost of switching is near 0 (which Google is), then part of remaining viable in the marketplace is making sure that people don't want to switch, and part of that is making sure that the news around your company doesn't cause people to have a bad taste in their mouth when they use your product. People liking Google and thinking that it's moral is absolutely vital to their business strategy, and the only sure way to make people think that you're moral is to be moral (and then publicize it).
They could easily implement a new system with a wrapper for backwards compatibility...Probably the real reason for not removing the registry is because of their deals with companies that don't want it removed. (e.g. companies that make money out of people's computers playing up because of registry errors)
I agree that they could implement a wrapper much like OSX, and I agree that they're not doing it because companies don't want them to. However, I don't think it's for the money. Windows has made the market share that it has simply because it doesn't break backwards compatibility. I can run games on Vista that were written to run on windows 95. Backwards compatibility is one of the things that Microsoft really tries to do well, and it's one of the things that they catch the most shit over when they don't do it.
.NET is. Do it right or do it wrong, however, and people will still complain that the old way of programming things was better and refuse to move to the new standard.
OSX is the primary example that people throw up on how you can write an emulation wrapper and let old programs run on an entirely rewritten OS. The problem with that is that they don't get the same level of compatibility. The old libraries will almost always be more compatible than the emulation layer, so they leave the libraries in. As for deprecating the old things, that's what
Finally, there's a different breed of people that program for Windows than program for the other platforms. The other platforms have a higher ratio of people who program on it because they love it, because it fits their ideology. These people will code to a higher standard than will people looking for a paycheck. Because Windows dominates the market, it gets a higher portion of paycheck seekers, and it's precisely these people who are most likely to fuck up when writing software. This leaves Microsoft covered in shit while the other platforms look pristine.
In summary, while I agree that there are ways that Microsoft could do things better, and while I agree that it would be nice if they did those things, if I start with the assumption that breaking backwards compatibility is the deadliest sin of them all, I believe that their choices have been very logical and reasonable.
I got your point. You said that one of the proofs that they are more resilient to viruses is that they don't have the same proportion as their market share. My reply to that was that they shouldn't have the same proportion as their market share even if they're equally or possibly even more susceptible than windows, as shown by the number of games that come out for them.
I actually already corrected that in another post, and the error was that I misread the figures as saying that digital sales rose from 20% to 25%. Thanks for keeping me honest, though.