The 360 game pad really is very nice, but the D-pad is horrid. They need to improve it.
All said, I think MS is a pretty good company that has a ton of promise. The problem is they need to be broken up. They're like Sony was a few years ago (things have improved, a little)... they have no direction.
MS already have enough of their own languages (VB.net and C#), as well as others coming soon (F#), a shell they're inventing (PowerShell / Monad). They have interesting research products but they don't tend to make it to consumers most of the time.
MS has too much money to throw at projects like this that probably aren't that necessary. Some products linger around for years without enough help (Windows XP), many are constantly delayed (Vista was, we'll see it again). If the Mac Business Unit didn't release something named Office, you'd never know it was related to the "real" Office because the release schedules are so incredibly far apart.
If MS were split into a few little companies (maybe all under one big umbrella company) that could really make 'em fight against each other to prove how good they are, I think they could seriously improve their image.
I don't think Microsoft will last in it's current form. Something will have to change. A major strategy shift, a giant re-org, a slice across the product line (was having 7 different versions of Vista really a good idea?). Something will happen.
Some just stand out. The Honda Element in SSX 3 was just sad. It stuck out like a sore thumb, and shouldn't have been there.
The objects in Pikmin 2 fit in pretty well, but I think I would have been happier if they were greeked instead of having the real brand names on them. Finding the Duracell and seeing Olimar's little comment was cute, but any battery that looked like a Duracell would have worked, we didn't need the real brand name.
People can debate over ads in sports games (like on the sidelines). I don't play them generally, so it doesn't effect me much, but I'd prefer to not see them. Real TV is bad enough. A few months ago I saw footage of a soccer match where the sides of the field were LED billboards flashing ads and it was obnoxious. I don't need that in my game.
Some product placement isn't that bad. I don't mind the guitar brands in Guitar Hero 2, for example.
I guess it depend on the company as to whether it's tolerable or obnoxious. Having the Duracell there or a guitar identified as a Fender is fine. Having text about how the Duracell is better than Energizer batteries or six different little symbols after the Fender (a TM, C, R, and whatever else) would be quite annoying. Ads on the load screens are the worst.
The area is so thorny, and so hard to put anything in I'd say it's best to stay away from it.
How would you put ads in Mario Kart? Psychonauts? Assassin's Creed? Metal Gear Solid? Price of Persia? Castlevania? Team Fortress 2? There are so many games it would be next to impossible to put ads in without ruining the experience and breaking the illusion.
TV still can't get it right (see Eureka and Degree for a very recent example), and they've been trying for quite a while to find ways. Why should we expect something even more interactive to do it?
I'm with the parent post. You want to put ads in my game? Stop putting ads in my $60 games, sell me "Cheetos presents Halo 3". Chester Cheetah on the box, "presented by Cheetos delicious snacks" on the title screen, and a $0.50 coupon in the game and charge me $30 for it.
If you watch the "video", one of their explicit points (#2) is that the user shouldn't be informed of this. This will not trigger the little security lock icon. From a user's point of view, you shouldn't be able to tell if the web server you are connected to is unsecured or secured this this little bit of obfuscation.
This isn't for real security, it's to make simple sniffing harder. As the video puts it, it simply raises the bar for someone who wants to read other people's traffic.
It seems like a very good idea to me. It sounds quite intelligent (from what I know of TCP/IP, etc). Some protocols have need changes (protocols where there is one connection and it isn't dropped would need some way to communicate that the encryption is OK during the first (and possibly only) connection.
Either way, it sounds like quite an improvement over what we have now.
I agree. I wonder if he just meant that he wasn't promoted into management but he was now higher than 1st level. That question is a very important one.
The other thing I would add is try smaller companies. I don't know who he is interviewing with (Fortune 500s, 1000s, 5000, companies of 100+, etc) but he may get a better shot at a small company where he can demonstrate his skills or they may be willing to give him a 90 day trial period.
An entrepreneur who has had to push past obstacles and may be more willing to give you a shot. Somewhere you may be able to talk to someone other than a middle level HR guy you may be able to argue your case more.
"Apple makes you use Apple stuff." Boo-hoo. Does that surprise anyone?
Android is more open. That's a given. That was a major design goal.
How about the real question: how well does the iPhone framework work for developing applications? I've heard it's very nice, and very similar to desktop Mac programming so it's an easy transition for Mac developers. How nice is the Android setup? It it easier/harder to make simple applications? More complex things?
How about an SDK shootout actually looks at at least the names of the functions you use and tries to guess if one is easier to develop.
Let's look at the problem with camera phones. I'm on my third, an iPhone 3G.
Lens: The lenses are pathetic, but what do you expect for something that has to be 3mm across and 1mm deep. Don't forget they are made of plastic and usually designed to cost about $0.001. You'll never get a decent picture out of them. The best camera phone photos I've seen come from phones with standard hand-held digicam size sensors and lenses, which are closer to cameras with phone functionality tacked on.
Sensor: Again, when your sensor is 1x1mm, you're not going to get good pictures in anything under bright sun. If you can't take a picture indoors, what's the point? Oh, right, you added a "flash". One small semi-bright whiteish LED is not a "flash".
Getting the picture: The iPhone is great here. Plug it into my computer, and iPhoto imports it like any other camera. I could also email it. Yet with my Razr I either had to put it on the little micro-sd card, find the adapter and mess with that, use a strange program like Bitpim (not the friendliest), or just send it in an MMS (at a large cost to me).
Lets face it, things like cameras are crammed on the phone as a bullet point and no thought is given to how it operates or how easy it is for someone to use.
My mom has never used the photo function on either of here two camera capable phones (the previous one she owned, and the current). She can't get the photos off (would need a special cable and software) except by sending them for $0.25 each (or whatever insane price Sprint charges).
Heck, that's what my parents (and most "normal" people I've run across) have learned about their phones. They do neat things, and each one comes with a horrendously expensive charge. Phone calls are one thing, but text messages are $0.10 each unless you pay monthly. Web browsing is useful, except you pay $0.25 per KB unless you pay monthly. Games are fun, but they cost at least $5 to buy and most must be bought on a subscription basis (every 30 days or 3 months it's another $5).
Lesson they learned? Don't use the phone for anything but as a phone, it's too expensive.
True. But if you want to buy the full version of Creative Suite that includes Premier and everything, you're paying $2500. If you pay that much for software, you're probably not going to be running it on a $1100 PC, you're going to spend more (still could be a PC).
The higher end iMacs, the Mac Pros, and the MacBook Pros all have real graphic cards.
In fact, at this point, the low end iMacs may have real graphics cards (not those Intel chips).
That said, it's being used for things like zooming around the image smoothly and color correction. Even the little Intel chips should be able to handle that with pretty big images without problems. The higher end things the GPUs can be used for (I hear some of the new 3D features) would probably need a better GPU.
Right, but on the early PCs there was the keyboard lock. You could lock and unlock the keyboard while it was running (I think it just cut the data line, but left the rest intact).
If you had your keyboard locked in that secure way (where every computer ever produced had the same key) then all you had to do was turn the key and press F1 to continue on, without risking any damage.
I don't know what you're talking about. Where I live, I have two options.
ATT's DSL: Full rated 6Mbps speed
Comcast: No matter what speed grade, almost never faster than 6Mbps, yet more expensive.
Beats my old options: Comcast, unreliable ISDN, or 12.6Kbps dial-up.
My take on this? It's a much better policy than just randomly killing connections that look like they might be doing something that may be using large amounts of bandwidth.
I've got an iPhone and I'm an Apple fan. I've been waiting to see what would happen with this phone. I'm a bit disappointed (due to Google's involvement) but not surprised at all (due to T-Mobil's involvement).
For a phone that wants to be an MP3 player to not have a headphone jack is pathetic. Tethering is a little sad, but the lack of exchange support is unfortunate too. Multitouch is here. It's just so easy. Yet the poor G1 doesn't have it.
It will be interesting to see how much better things get with future updates and other phones. But since Google doesn't hold enough clout to force hardware design decisions, I don't hold a lot of hope.
It's sad. It answers all those "just wait for Android, it will be nearly perfect" cries people have been making for a year or so. Of course, anyone rational knew it wouldn't be very perfect either.
I'll be watching for the real in-depth reviews of this thing though. I'd love to play with one too.
I first found out about this when that video was released a week or two ago in which a fan tweaked the official video to show what the game "should" look like instead of the "colorful" look that Blizzard is going with.
I watched the video and thought only one thing: it was ugly. Look, I understand this game is supposed to take place in dungeons and such, but you are allowed to have SOME color. It really pointed out that argument I've seen a few times over the last few years about the recent consoles. They are so powerful and push so many polygons, but they only seem to work when you disable any non-yellow, brown, or grey color.
I've got to say, I really like the look of the Diablo III video and screens Blizzard has made. There are colors. You can tell what's going on. Enemies stand out, the art stands out. It all looks quite good. But at the same time, they didn't go overboard making it look too cartoony. I mean, it doesn't look happy.
I'm glad Blizzard is sticking to their guns despite what some group of hardcore fans says. I'm actually interested in Diablo III. I've never played the previous games, but I'd like to give it a try.
But if it had been that nearly black-and-white mockup a fan made, I'd avoid it. I don't have such a nice computer so I can only view dimly lit colorless environments with very little visible detail.
That was kind of my take. They started doing the "I'm a PC" thing, but it got old. I think the commercial would work better in a 30s version than the 60s version I saw.
But the more I thought about the ad as I watched it, the more it occured to me they were all sheep. I figure the vast majority of them (especially those who looked like they were in other, poorer countries) probably hadn't tried a Windows alternative for more than 5 minutes. They just don't know there are better options, or for many that there even are other options.
It actually made the commercial less "blah" and more "a tiny bit sad".
I enjoyed the Seinfeld ads much more. I wanted to see what the next one would be. This is a generic Microsoft marketing "let's make an ad" ad. The tag line ("I'm a PC too") is meaningless. It doesn't do anything to make me want a PC more. And it certainly is about "breaking boundaries with Windows" which is what this whole campaign is supposed to be about.
I'm going to put this one up there with the DotBomb era commercials like "Everyone is looking for the new economy, but it's not through a door, it's through a Window".
Congratulations. You've poked fun at a popular set of commercials, made yourself seem less relevant by just copying off that (since obviously you didn't think your last idea was working). You're more Microsoft that ever. Isn't that exactly what you were trying to avoid?
You don't even have to go that far most of the time. If you want to know about the String class, you will need to google "Java String" or "java.lang.String".
But for classes with less common names, just the classname will often do. If it's not the top result, it will be close. This works for HttpServletRequest, NumberFormat, and many others. It's so great while programming to be able to just alt-tab over to a browser, type in a class name, and get the official JavaDoc on it easily. Adding a method name you want to know about (i.e. "HttpServletRequest getSession") often works even better. You still get the JavaDoc for it, but you can see little bits in the summary, as well as getting more discussions on using that method from other sites.
Heck, often you'll get a top result (Java 1.5 or 1.4.2), another result or two from Sun (some other version of Java, maybe 1.3), then some copies of the JavaDocs on other sites, and discussions of the class or people asking for help with it.
I know many people don't like parts of Java or some of it's design philosophies, but they really did a very good job with the idea of JavaDoc.
I wrote them on Friday but they haven't responded yet (which isn't too surprising). I'd love to have one, but the computer I want to use it with uses XP, not Vista or Linux. I've used LCDProc before, but there is no Windows port. I looked at the driver for this thing but it looks like it sends direct USB command (i.e. it doesn't just appear as a serial port). I spend my time in Java (due to my job) so that's what I'd like to program it in, but the main Java->USB API for Windows (jUSB) hasn't updated their page since 2003.
The only other solution I see is called JCommUSB and it's a paid library. If I'm going to spend $50 on an LCD, then add shipping, then $35 for the personal edition of the library, I may as well just buy a USB LCD from CrystalFontz or Matrix Orbital that costs $100 and will be easy to program.
Does anyone have one of these? Have you messed with them? I'd really love one, it's half the price these kind of things usually are.
A disruptive technology or disruptive innovation is a term describing a technological innovation, product, or service that uses a "disruptive" strategy, rather than an "evolutionary" or "sustaining" strategy, to overturn the existing dominant technologies or status quo products in a market. Disruptive innovations can be broadly classified into low-end and new-market disruptive innovations. A new-market disruptive innovation is often aimed at non-consumption, whereas a lower-end disruptive innovation is aimed at mainstream customers who were ignored by established companies.
This will not overturn an existing dominant technology or status quo product. This won't make FF king over IE. Safari has had this for years. I think Opera did too, and it's been available as an extension for a while. It's not going to create a new market (tracking hard to track people is already a market). It's not going to get rid of an existing market (people like me will still be trackable by normal means). You're using pointless hyperbole.
Web advertising will be the same. People who really care and don't want to be tracked have already been doing things to ensure that. They've set their browsers to delete cookies and history when the browser is closed, and deny all new cookies. They may even use an anonymizing proxy.
People who just don't want to be tracked for short periods had the same options. This is just easier.
Some of us don't mind being tracked. Some of us may WANT to be tracked. The ability of Amazon or other sites to suggest something to me that i may like has been handy for me more than once. I really don't mind it. It could all go to far but it's not there now.
I'll say, this one is definitely much better than the last. I still find Bill Gates to be way too wooden. I'm not asking for him to be really loose, but he barely moves. He looks like someone who just froze when a camera got pointed at him.
That said, like the last one, I don't like the ending. Those little bits "if blah blah blah then do X" bits just don't work for me. I'd much prefer the commercials if they just left that bit out.
Still, much improved. Let's see what the next one is.
They got over that. It runs fullscreen now without paying. But back then it wasn't a problem. I found a free little AppleScript that told it to play things fullscreen. Or you could just use another player.
I really like Apple, but as I said I never understood the QT Pro thing. I just dropped a few grand on their computer and they wanted me to pay $30 for this little piece of software. It's not like I bought a low end iBook either, I bought a tricked out PowerBook.
I realize there are situations like that. I thought of that while writing my post. I'm not saying this is a smart thing to do. I'm just saying that to pretend it's not going to happen is more than a little naive.
I also agree this would be a really stupid way to decide between 3 candidates. But if you're HR manager for a large company who may get hundreds of submissions for a job, I could see this happening in attempts to thin the heard to people to really dig into seriously or interview.
I had to do that same thing the other day. I'm a Mac user, and I just used Audacity because I know it can do the job and it's free.
What's the official Mac way? Probably QuickTime Pro (which you have to pay for, which has always annoyed me). Or a third party piece of software. Actually I think you can cut bits out with QT (non-pro) but it's a bit unintuitive. I considered using Garage Band (which I'm sure could do it) but that would be overkill.
I've got to say, it was the first time I'd used Audacity in maybe two years. It was just as ugly as ever, unfortunately. It looks almost EXACTLY like the program that came with my SB16 in the Windows 3.1 days. It works, but could really use a little interface TLC, especially on the Mac (where the Linux/Windows style interface just looks even more out of place).
judging someone based on a bunch of pictures their friends thought it would be fun to upload (most likely because the pictures in question were considered humiliating)
To me this would indicate that you're not choosing your friends well, which indicates a judgement problem; possibly that you're not willing to make tough calls that hurt your friends or make your life a little tougher. Perhaps that judgement (and/or friends) are your real problem. Surely the people you choose to hang out with reflect on your personality.
I'm not going to argue it's always right. If there is a pic of you drinking (not wasted, just in a bar with a beer) and you are dismissed from consideration for that... that's pretty pointless. But people use information that way. People make snap judgements. I'm just going to go back to the interview suit example. It doesn't matter what should or shouldn't happen in the perfect world, that's not the way our world work and we need to live with that.
True. However I would argue that for a large number of people (possibly the majority) getting wasted and doped up indicates personality traits that could effect job performance (especially if you do it frequently, it wasn't a one time thing).
Also, the illegal drugs would show you are willing to violate the law when you deem to better for you (or more fun, or whatever). I think it's a fair assumption that someone who is willing to use illegal drugs is more likely to be willing to do some other illegal activity (especially if it doesn't seem obviously harmful, like petty theft) than someone who doesn't.
It's conjecture to a degree, yes. But to argue that your personal life never has any effect on your professional life is pointless. It can happen. And if I have 50 good candidates to sift through I'm going to do what I can to get the number down to something more manageable.
Coming to an interview for a programming position (or some other non-client facing position) maybe it shouldn't matter that much if you come in old clothes looking unkempt. But most people don't do that, do they? They know they will be judged on that.
You want to have pictures of yourself wasted and high on your MySpace page? That's fine. Just take them down before you go job hunting. Once you've got a position you can put them back up.
But if they are sitting there for public consumption, don't be surprised if someone judges you on them.
... personal lives should be strictly off limits unless the employee voluntarily discloses the information...
Now I'm leaving out a bit of your quote, but let's be reasonable here. Once you post pictures of yourself doing something on the public internet, that picture isn't private any more.
Posting that picture is voluntarily disclosing the information.
To say otherwise is just that "I want to be able to do whatever I want and not be judged by it" nonsense that no one above the age of ~5 should reasonably believe.
If it's on a personal website in a password protected area that you didn't give the interviewer/manager access to that's one thing. But when you put the picture on MySpace or Facebook for everyone to see, it's fair game.
Of course, you could simply not get so wasted they can take those pictures. You could choose not to smoke illegal substances.
You know, act like the responsible person that you want to be seen as.
You could choose your friends better. I'm not sure how much I'd think of "friends" who post pictures of others out of control on public web pages just to humiliate them.
You could always not use Facebook, as others have pointed out.
I agree with some of the others, like the GPP (Haoie). If you post it on the public internet, don't get mad when the public reads it and judges you based on it.
Right. The display is just like old Game & Watch games (or any other cheap LCD display). They have a bunch of segments (in this case mostly blocks of words) that can be turned on or off. I'd expect that just like LCDs the more segments you have the more expensive it is to manufacture the thing (not including the cost of controller).
If you watch the little video that the Make blog post links to, you can see how limited it is.
That said, it seems to refresh quite fast, which the e-books have problems with. I don't know if this is a consequence of the controller (I doubt it, Amazon/Sony would do better), the size of the pixels (smaller pixels switch slower for some reason, perhaps the small traces prevent higher current that can switch things faster), manufacturing (faster switching is too expensive to make an 800x600 screen), or just perception (since the elements are so large it's not noticeable like when you change small blocks of text).
Slashdot Mirror
The 360 game pad really is very nice, but the D-pad is horrid. They need to improve it.
All said, I think MS is a pretty good company that has a ton of promise. The problem is they need to be broken up. They're like Sony was a few years ago (things have improved, a little)... they have no direction.
MS already have enough of their own languages (VB.net and C#), as well as others coming soon (F#), a shell they're inventing (PowerShell / Monad). They have interesting research products but they don't tend to make it to consumers most of the time.
MS has too much money to throw at projects like this that probably aren't that necessary. Some products linger around for years without enough help (Windows XP), many are constantly delayed (Vista was, we'll see it again). If the Mac Business Unit didn't release something named Office, you'd never know it was related to the "real" Office because the release schedules are so incredibly far apart.
If MS were split into a few little companies (maybe all under one big umbrella company) that could really make 'em fight against each other to prove how good they are, I think they could seriously improve their image.
I don't think Microsoft will last in it's current form. Something will have to change. A major strategy shift, a giant re-org, a slice across the product line (was having 7 different versions of Vista really a good idea?). Something will happen.
They almost never work well for me.
Some just stand out. The Honda Element in SSX 3 was just sad. It stuck out like a sore thumb, and shouldn't have been there.
The objects in Pikmin 2 fit in pretty well, but I think I would have been happier if they were greeked instead of having the real brand names on them. Finding the Duracell and seeing Olimar's little comment was cute, but any battery that looked like a Duracell would have worked, we didn't need the real brand name.
People can debate over ads in sports games (like on the sidelines). I don't play them generally, so it doesn't effect me much, but I'd prefer to not see them. Real TV is bad enough. A few months ago I saw footage of a soccer match where the sides of the field were LED billboards flashing ads and it was obnoxious. I don't need that in my game.
Some product placement isn't that bad. I don't mind the guitar brands in Guitar Hero 2, for example.
I guess it depend on the company as to whether it's tolerable or obnoxious. Having the Duracell there or a guitar identified as a Fender is fine. Having text about how the Duracell is better than Energizer batteries or six different little symbols after the Fender (a TM, C, R, and whatever else) would be quite annoying. Ads on the load screens are the worst.
The area is so thorny, and so hard to put anything in I'd say it's best to stay away from it.
How would you put ads in Mario Kart? Psychonauts? Assassin's Creed? Metal Gear Solid? Price of Persia? Castlevania? Team Fortress 2? There are so many games it would be next to impossible to put ads in without ruining the experience and breaking the illusion.
TV still can't get it right (see Eureka and Degree for a very recent example), and they've been trying for quite a while to find ways. Why should we expect something even more interactive to do it?
I'm with the parent post. You want to put ads in my game? Stop putting ads in my $60 games, sell me "Cheetos presents Halo 3". Chester Cheetah on the box, "presented by Cheetos delicious snacks" on the title screen, and a $0.50 coupon in the game and charge me $30 for it.
Why?
If you watch the "video", one of their explicit points (#2) is that the user shouldn't be informed of this. This will not trigger the little security lock icon. From a user's point of view, you shouldn't be able to tell if the web server you are connected to is unsecured or secured this this little bit of obfuscation.
This isn't for real security, it's to make simple sniffing harder. As the video puts it, it simply raises the bar for someone who wants to read other people's traffic.
It seems like a very good idea to me. It sounds quite intelligent (from what I know of TCP/IP, etc). Some protocols have need changes (protocols where there is one connection and it isn't dropped would need some way to communicate that the encryption is OK during the first (and possibly only) connection.
Either way, it sounds like quite an improvement over what we have now.
I agree. I wonder if he just meant that he wasn't promoted into management but he was now higher than 1st level. That question is a very important one.
The other thing I would add is try smaller companies. I don't know who he is interviewing with (Fortune 500s, 1000s, 5000, companies of 100+, etc) but he may get a better shot at a small company where he can demonstrate his skills or they may be willing to give him a 90 day trial period.
An entrepreneur who has had to push past obstacles and may be more willing to give you a shot. Somewhere you may be able to talk to someone other than a middle level HR guy you may be able to argue your case more.
I read it too. It's a troll.
"Apple makes you use Apple stuff." Boo-hoo. Does that surprise anyone?
Android is more open. That's a given. That was a major design goal.
How about the real question: how well does the iPhone framework work for developing applications? I've heard it's very nice, and very similar to desktop Mac programming so it's an easy transition for Mac developers. How nice is the Android setup? It it easier/harder to make simple applications? More complex things?
How about an SDK shootout actually looks at at least the names of the functions you use and tries to guess if one is easier to develop.
This isn't a "shootout", it's more punditry.
Let's look at the problem with camera phones. I'm on my third, an iPhone 3G.
Lets face it, things like cameras are crammed on the phone as a bullet point and no thought is given to how it operates or how easy it is for someone to use.
My mom has never used the photo function on either of here two camera capable phones (the previous one she owned, and the current). She can't get the photos off (would need a special cable and software) except by sending them for $0.25 each (or whatever insane price Sprint charges).
Heck, that's what my parents (and most "normal" people I've run across) have learned about their phones. They do neat things, and each one comes with a horrendously expensive charge. Phone calls are one thing, but text messages are $0.10 each unless you pay monthly. Web browsing is useful, except you pay $0.25 per KB unless you pay monthly. Games are fun, but they cost at least $5 to buy and most must be bought on a subscription basis (every 30 days or 3 months it's another $5).
Lesson they learned? Don't use the phone for anything but as a phone, it's too expensive.
True. But if you want to buy the full version of Creative Suite that includes Premier and everything, you're paying $2500. If you pay that much for software, you're probably not going to be running it on a $1100 PC, you're going to spend more (still could be a PC).
The higher end iMacs, the Mac Pros, and the MacBook Pros all have real graphic cards.
In fact, at this point, the low end iMacs may have real graphics cards (not those Intel chips).
That said, it's being used for things like zooming around the image smoothly and color correction. Even the little Intel chips should be able to handle that with pretty big images without problems. The higher end things the GPUs can be used for (I hear some of the new 3D features) would probably need a better GPU.
Right, but on the early PCs there was the keyboard lock. You could lock and unlock the keyboard while it was running (I think it just cut the data line, but left the rest intact).
If you had your keyboard locked in that secure way (where every computer ever produced had the same key) then all you had to do was turn the key and press F1 to continue on, without risking any damage.
I don't know what you're talking about. Where I live, I have two options.
Beats my old options: Comcast, unreliable ISDN, or 12.6Kbps dial-up.
My take on this? It's a much better policy than just randomly killing connections that look like they might be doing something that may be using large amounts of bandwidth.
So is the keyboard.
I've got an iPhone and I'm an Apple fan. I've been waiting to see what would happen with this phone. I'm a bit disappointed (due to Google's involvement) but not surprised at all (due to T-Mobil's involvement).
For a phone that wants to be an MP3 player to not have a headphone jack is pathetic. Tethering is a little sad, but the lack of exchange support is unfortunate too. Multitouch is here. It's just so easy. Yet the poor G1 doesn't have it.
It will be interesting to see how much better things get with future updates and other phones. But since Google doesn't hold enough clout to force hardware design decisions, I don't hold a lot of hope.
It's sad. It answers all those "just wait for Android, it will be nearly perfect" cries people have been making for a year or so. Of course, anyone rational knew it wouldn't be very perfect either.
I'll be watching for the real in-depth reviews of this thing though. I'd love to play with one too.
I'm glad Blizzard is sticking to their guns.
I first found out about this when that video was released a week or two ago in which a fan tweaked the official video to show what the game "should" look like instead of the "colorful" look that Blizzard is going with.
I watched the video and thought only one thing: it was ugly. Look, I understand this game is supposed to take place in dungeons and such, but you are allowed to have SOME color. It really pointed out that argument I've seen a few times over the last few years about the recent consoles. They are so powerful and push so many polygons, but they only seem to work when you disable any non-yellow, brown, or grey color.
I've got to say, I really like the look of the Diablo III video and screens Blizzard has made. There are colors. You can tell what's going on. Enemies stand out, the art stands out. It all looks quite good. But at the same time, they didn't go overboard making it look too cartoony. I mean, it doesn't look happy.
I'm glad Blizzard is sticking to their guns despite what some group of hardcore fans says. I'm actually interested in Diablo III. I've never played the previous games, but I'd like to give it a try.
But if it had been that nearly black-and-white mockup a fan made, I'd avoid it. I don't have such a nice computer so I can only view dimly lit colorless environments with very little visible detail.
That was kind of my take. They started doing the "I'm a PC" thing, but it got old. I think the commercial would work better in a 30s version than the 60s version I saw.
But the more I thought about the ad as I watched it, the more it occured to me they were all sheep. I figure the vast majority of them (especially those who looked like they were in other, poorer countries) probably hadn't tried a Windows alternative for more than 5 minutes. They just don't know there are better options, or for many that there even are other options.
It actually made the commercial less "blah" and more "a tiny bit sad".
I enjoyed the Seinfeld ads much more. I wanted to see what the next one would be. This is a generic Microsoft marketing "let's make an ad" ad. The tag line ("I'm a PC too") is meaningless. It doesn't do anything to make me want a PC more. And it certainly is about "breaking boundaries with Windows" which is what this whole campaign is supposed to be about.
I'm going to put this one up there with the DotBomb era commercials like "Everyone is looking for the new economy, but it's not through a door, it's through a Window".
Congratulations. You've poked fun at a popular set of commercials, made yourself seem less relevant by just copying off that (since obviously you didn't think your last idea was working). You're more Microsoft that ever. Isn't that exactly what you were trying to avoid?
You don't even have to go that far most of the time. If you want to know about the String class, you will need to google "Java String" or "java.lang.String".
But for classes with less common names, just the classname will often do. If it's not the top result, it will be close. This works for HttpServletRequest, NumberFormat, and many others. It's so great while programming to be able to just alt-tab over to a browser, type in a class name, and get the official JavaDoc on it easily. Adding a method name you want to know about (i.e. "HttpServletRequest getSession") often works even better. You still get the JavaDoc for it, but you can see little bits in the summary, as well as getting more discussions on using that method from other sites.
Heck, often you'll get a top result (Java 1.5 or 1.4.2), another result or two from Sun (some other version of Java, maybe 1.3), then some copies of the JavaDocs on other sites, and discussions of the class or people asking for help with it.
I know many people don't like parts of Java or some of it's design philosophies, but they really did a very good job with the idea of JavaDoc.
Does anyone out there actually HAVE one of these?
I wrote them on Friday but they haven't responded yet (which isn't too surprising). I'd love to have one, but the computer I want to use it with uses XP, not Vista or Linux. I've used LCDProc before, but there is no Windows port. I looked at the driver for this thing but it looks like it sends direct USB command (i.e. it doesn't just appear as a serial port). I spend my time in Java (due to my job) so that's what I'd like to program it in, but the main Java->USB API for Windows (jUSB) hasn't updated their page since 2003.
The only other solution I see is called JCommUSB and it's a paid library. If I'm going to spend $50 on an LCD, then add shipping, then $35 for the personal edition of the library, I may as well just buy a USB LCD from CrystalFontz or Matrix Orbital that costs $100 and will be easy to program.
Does anyone have one of these? Have you messed with them? I'd really love one, it's half the price these kind of things usually are.
***bzzt***
Sorry. Let's go look at a definition of disruptive technology:
This will not overturn an existing dominant technology or status quo product. This won't make FF king over IE. Safari has had this for years. I think Opera did too, and it's been available as an extension for a while. It's not going to create a new market (tracking hard to track people is already a market). It's not going to get rid of an existing market (people like me will still be trackable by normal means). You're using pointless hyperbole.
Web advertising will be the same. People who really care and don't want to be tracked have already been doing things to ensure that. They've set their browsers to delete cookies and history when the browser is closed, and deny all new cookies. They may even use an anonymizing proxy.
People who just don't want to be tracked for short periods had the same options. This is just easier.
Some of us don't mind being tracked. Some of us may WANT to be tracked. The ability of Amazon or other sites to suggest something to me that i may like has been handy for me more than once. I really don't mind it. It could all go to far but it's not there now.
I'll say, this one is definitely much better than the last. I still find Bill Gates to be way too wooden. I'm not asking for him to be really loose, but he barely moves. He looks like someone who just froze when a camera got pointed at him.
That said, like the last one, I don't like the ending. Those little bits "if blah blah blah then do X" bits just don't work for me. I'd much prefer the commercials if they just left that bit out.
Still, much improved. Let's see what the next one is.
They got over that. It runs fullscreen now without paying. But back then it wasn't a problem. I found a free little AppleScript that told it to play things fullscreen. Or you could just use another player.
I really like Apple, but as I said I never understood the QT Pro thing. I just dropped a few grand on their computer and they wanted me to pay $30 for this little piece of software. It's not like I bought a low end iBook either, I bought a tricked out PowerBook.
I realize there are situations like that. I thought of that while writing my post. I'm not saying this is a smart thing to do. I'm just saying that to pretend it's not going to happen is more than a little naive.
I also agree this would be a really stupid way to decide between 3 candidates. But if you're HR manager for a large company who may get hundreds of submissions for a job, I could see this happening in attempts to thin the heard to people to really dig into seriously or interview.
I had to do that same thing the other day. I'm a Mac user, and I just used Audacity because I know it can do the job and it's free.
What's the official Mac way? Probably QuickTime Pro (which you have to pay for, which has always annoyed me). Or a third party piece of software. Actually I think you can cut bits out with QT (non-pro) but it's a bit unintuitive. I considered using Garage Band (which I'm sure could do it) but that would be overkill.
I've got to say, it was the first time I'd used Audacity in maybe two years. It was just as ugly as ever, unfortunately. It looks almost EXACTLY like the program that came with my SB16 in the Windows 3.1 days. It works, but could really use a little interface TLC, especially on the Mac (where the Linux/Windows style interface just looks even more out of place).
To me this would indicate that you're not choosing your friends well, which indicates a judgement problem; possibly that you're not willing to make tough calls that hurt your friends or make your life a little tougher. Perhaps that judgement (and/or friends) are your real problem. Surely the people you choose to hang out with reflect on your personality.
I'm not going to argue it's always right. If there is a pic of you drinking (not wasted, just in a bar with a beer) and you are dismissed from consideration for that... that's pretty pointless. But people use information that way. People make snap judgements. I'm just going to go back to the interview suit example. It doesn't matter what should or shouldn't happen in the perfect world, that's not the way our world work and we need to live with that.
True. However I would argue that for a large number of people (possibly the majority) getting wasted and doped up indicates personality traits that could effect job performance (especially if you do it frequently, it wasn't a one time thing).
Also, the illegal drugs would show you are willing to violate the law when you deem to better for you (or more fun, or whatever). I think it's a fair assumption that someone who is willing to use illegal drugs is more likely to be willing to do some other illegal activity (especially if it doesn't seem obviously harmful, like petty theft) than someone who doesn't.
It's conjecture to a degree, yes. But to argue that your personal life never has any effect on your professional life is pointless. It can happen. And if I have 50 good candidates to sift through I'm going to do what I can to get the number down to something more manageable.
Coming to an interview for a programming position (or some other non-client facing position) maybe it shouldn't matter that much if you come in old clothes looking unkempt. But most people don't do that, do they? They know they will be judged on that.
You want to have pictures of yourself wasted and high on your MySpace page? That's fine. Just take them down before you go job hunting. Once you've got a position you can put them back up.
But if they are sitting there for public consumption, don't be surprised if someone judges you on them.
Now I'm leaving out a bit of your quote, but let's be reasonable here. Once you post pictures of yourself doing something on the public internet, that picture isn't private any more.
Posting that picture is voluntarily disclosing the information.
To say otherwise is just that "I want to be able to do whatever I want and not be judged by it" nonsense that no one above the age of ~5 should reasonably believe.
If it's on a personal website in a password protected area that you didn't give the interviewer/manager access to that's one thing. But when you put the picture on MySpace or Facebook for everyone to see, it's fair game.
Of course, you could simply not get so wasted they can take those pictures. You could choose not to smoke illegal substances.
You know, act like the responsible person that you want to be seen as.
You could choose your friends better. I'm not sure how much I'd think of "friends" who post pictures of others out of control on public web pages just to humiliate them.
You could always not use Facebook, as others have pointed out.
I agree with some of the others, like the GPP (Haoie). If you post it on the public internet, don't get mad when the public reads it and judges you based on it.
Right. The display is just like old Game & Watch games (or any other cheap LCD display). They have a bunch of segments (in this case mostly blocks of words) that can be turned on or off. I'd expect that just like LCDs the more segments you have the more expensive it is to manufacture the thing (not including the cost of controller).
If you watch the little video that the Make blog post links to, you can see how limited it is.
That said, it seems to refresh quite fast, which the e-books have problems with. I don't know if this is a consequence of the controller (I doubt it, Amazon/Sony would do better), the size of the pixels (smaller pixels switch slower for some reason, perhaps the small traces prevent higher current that can switch things faster), manufacturing (faster switching is too expensive to make an 800x600 screen), or just perception (since the elements are so large it's not noticeable like when you change small blocks of text).