I disagree. First with the implication that getting a phone for a kid detracts "focus" from more important things. Give the kid a phone and you'll still be able to get him or her vaccinated, prevent them from playing in the street, and teach them good morals etc.
Second, you presumably grew up in a world where computers weren't as powerful as PHONES are now. It's clear that kids today are going to need to use computers for everything. Our society treats children as if they're incompetent, but that's not necessarily a good approach. My one year old grabs our ipads whenever he can. We let him play with them for a few minutes sometimes. He can unlock them and go to angry birds or some children's books. Not sure how I feel about that, but my point is that kids are more competent than we give them credit. Allowing them to get familiar with technology they're likely going to be using their whole lives when THEY'RE ready isn't necessarily a bad thing.
(BTW, I'm more concerned about my kid's eyes developing properly than about him accessing porn or anything like that, which is why we're not going to be letting him use electronics for longer than a few minutes until he's at least 3.)
One lesson everyone can take away from this is that trying to lock down devices for patronizing reasons is foolish. Surprisingly, it appears the schools are at least sort of getting that message:
"So we talked to students, and we asked them, 'Why did you do this?' And in many cases, they said, 'You guys are just locking us out of too much stuff.' "
He says, after talking with students, that the Los Angeles Unified School District's iPad policy probably should be changed, allowing for some social media and music streaming sites.
The memo from a sublinked article suggests that concerns for safety were the reasons the devices were supposed to be locked down. Can't have kids getting on facebook: they might meet up with child molesters and get raped and killed!
I suspect their concern for avoiding that scenario was mainly "... and then WE'D BE SUED!!!" So perhaps they should have gone the permission slip route and only given out ipads to kids whose parents agreed that the parents are the parents and if anything bad happens to the children in connection with the ipads, or if they caught their kids looking at nudity (and subsequently were utterly scarred for life), that was on the parents and not something they could sue over. This however is not a lesson that school districts ever seem to learn.
People here hated his remake of star trek before it came out. Fanboys like you just hate change whatsoever. Admit it: the only changes you want are that episodes 1-3 are rejected as no longer cannon, YOU are Luke Skywalker and Leia is not your sister, and she's in the bikini the whole time and you two hook up at the end of the movie.
It's a given that he's going to ruin it in that Star Wars is going to be different and you define that as ruin.
It's really too bad that you're so closed minded. People like you are going to go see the new movies just to justify hating it. You'll find reasons. If they are actually good movies, you will have ruined star wars for yourself, and it will be a self fulfilling prophecy. You likely won't even realize that "ruin" doesn't make sense. Even if Abrahms said that all the previous movies were a drug induced dream Jar-Jar Binks was having, and that was canon, and the new movies were just hours of Binks pleasuring himself with his tongue... that doesn't change the original movies. Even Lucas' changing Han shooting second doesn't mean anything other than some newer copies of the movies had stupid changes. "Canon" or not, it's still just fiction, and your enjoyment of the original series shouldn't be affected by the new movies.
That could work similar to android I suppose. Hopefully fragmentation will be less of an issue with the OS, since fragmentation of hardware is already such an issue.
If you were to ask me to choose between Steam Controller and a 360 controller, I would choose 360. Don’t take that as slight to the controller though because it’s more about the comfort of familiarity over functionality. I would choose a 360 controller because I have several thousand hours experience using it, however if tomorrow all game controllers were wiped off the earth and the only option was the Steam Controller, I don’t think this would be a bad thing. In fact, I don’t think gaming would miss a beat. I’m excited to see what final hardware feels like because I think with the upcoming iterations of the controller we’ll see something that is different, but still feels good. TL;DR; Great Start, needs some improvements, but I could play any game I wanted with it just fine.
The way to do it would be to require a micro-USB, but they can also use any other charging method you want. How many phones are going to have wireless charging ONLY?
TFA points out this is really only an issue at the moment with apple. No one else has the brand loyalty to abuse their customers by constantly breaking old accessories like apple does. Plus, Apple really doesn't lead the mobile phone field in anything besides squeezing more money out of their customers, how likely is it really that they'll put wireless charging into the phones anytime soon?
I'd argue that while some aspects of 1 and 2 may be pretty common, like graphics and play style, they're still good all around games independent of their time. HL3 doesn't need to be revolutionary for it to be a great game.
I think the hype is over "will it come out ever?!?" and "What's going to happen next for gordon freeman?!?" not "What new technical or storytelling innovation will valve come up with?"
As snakeplissken said, they already appear to be doing steam on linux just fine. The streaming seems like it will get around some of that too: any game DRM that requires windows WILL be running windows.
Lastly, I really have no clue about system architecture. Are you saying it will be trivial to crack every game through steam OS? Or are you saying "there will be holes in security?" It seems like every game is cracked and online in days if not hours. So I don't think steam can make a system that is 100% secure for DRM. I don't think they really need to make it as secure for DRM as windows either.
We don't like the DRM, we just realize that DRM is not a black and white issue that trumps all else in the equation. We also realize that without any DRM whatsoever, PC gaming would be limited to what you see on GOG. GOG is good an all, old games are fun, indie games are good and sometimes better than anything else, and the small handful of big titles that are released DRM free are really to be applauded... but often I want big new games that some company has invested a lot of money in. A lot of them aren't entirely comfortable with it being completely DRM free. If you can't understand their perspective, you've clearly never made a game (neither have I) and you're closed minded.
I think it's a little of both. The trackpad on my laptop sucks for FPS for that reason, but it's still much preferable to a thumbstick, which is physically hard to tilt halfway reliably.
It's a step up, but yeah, I'll be using the mouse and keyboard for most shooters.
It would be ideal for me is if the steamboxes wirelessly communicated with the controller, and had a USB port in the side so I could plug my mouse into the controller and use it on my couch. That's several ifs though. And judging by the fact that none of the consoles offer mouse attachments, perhaps I'm the only one who would want to use a mouse from the couch to game.
As with regular ads, it's only annoying when it's things I don't want immediately as soon as I hear about them. Ads for a new car or a coke? Shove those up your ass. Ads for a controller I wanted as soon as I saw the headline? Not annoying to me.
Anyway, isn't the implication with "slashvertizing" that someone has posted a story to their own product? Pretty sure this was posted out of genuine interest, not financial interest.
Also, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We could spend billions preventing it, or we could spend trillions and trillions dealing with the effects.
Unfortunately, those trillions would be future costs, and externalized largely to other people, so obviously we're going to do the latter.
You're asking how is self reporting different from someone else reporting?
Seriously?
Faster, and without an extra filter changing the propaganda. It will be pure islamic fundamentalist cultist propaganda rather than co-opted for the propaganda that CNN has an interest in promoting.
I think it's a good thing. One thing that infuriated me about the 9/11 attack coverage was that the news channels carried what had happened, and essentially said they attacked us because "they hate our freedom." FUCK YOU! That's not at all why they attacked! I don't agree with the reasons they DID have, but essentially patting ourselves on the back and saying "They're picking on us because they're jealous of how AWESOME we are!" ensures it's going to happen over and over again. And it totally skipped over the part where maybe we reconsider our foreign policy that offended them.
I'm not suggesting that such a dialogue would have been productive. It would have probably gone something like
"They attacked us in part because we support Israel, who they hate. Why are we supporting Israel anyway? Maybe we shouldn't be wasting our money supporting Israel as it doesn't do anything good for us and it's just making a lot more enemies in the region?"
Response: "FUCK YOU TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER!"
Still, I think truth is better than self-delusion, and I would have preferred that conversation to the one we did have. In my opinion, more direct communication is better than putting it through filters which allow us to continue lying to ourselves and totally misunderstanding what is really happening. This is perhaps why CNN and other groups that use the FUD to their advantage are afraid of it, not because violent idiots will have a better chance of bombing places if they can broadcast on twitter.
I'm just reading the summary, but "unexpectedly" seems like a word that might not be carelessly used. Legal trade is probably known and wouldn't be too hard to compare.
Alternatively, perhaps the researchers speculated that part of it might be illegal trafficking in addition to the usual stuff. Perhaps they suggested this could be a good method of identifying illegal trade spots. And then the downstream journalists siezed on that idle speculation even though it was not the point. Relevant PhD comics comic.
I should skim the actual paper, but I'm procrastinating FROM reading papers on a totally different field, so I'm not going to:-P
I've heard this problem exists for American doctors too. My response is the same: boo fucking hoo. If your patients want antibiotics, tell them no. If they insist, tell them no again. If they threaten to go to another doctor, and that doctor does give them antibiotics, report that doctor.
At any rate, the larger contributor appears to be the agricultural industry.
Do you have a citation for that? From my understanding, the bugs move person to person with very little time on anything that could be copper. For non-organic surfaces that could be copper, measures are used that pathogens have not so far developed resistance to: extreme heat, alchohol, or harsh chemicals. Everything that contacts bodily fluids is, ideally, autoclaved or thrown away before being re-used.
Antibiotics are necessarily weaker: they can't kill YOU. You'd have a point if we started seeing bugs that could survive the autoclave, ethanol, or bleach, which are used on things that could be copper, but that's not the issue here.
Piracy has it's own set of problems obviously. If we're going list what could theoretically go wrong with DRM and hold piracy up as the alternative, you should list what could theoretically go wrong with piracy. 1: developers use piracy as an excuse to skip the PC market, a much bigger problem to me than call of duty 3 not being accessible in a decade. And 2. viruses and other malware.
If you're honestly having a hard time understanding it, realize that not everyone values things like you do. When considering a 5 or even 60 dollar game, I don't exactly need to buy it for life. If Valve dissapears in 10 years, the games I play now will still be experiences that are worth it. Faith has little to do with it. I buy games I want to play in the near future.
That seems like an odd reason to not play a game NOW. Keep in mind you're not getting a choice between Steam as it is and steam as it is but minus the DRM. That's not an option that exists. Were steam to do away with any DRM, they'd also do away with most of the games on steam, and steam would look like GOG.
Time limits on games has not been the case thus far on most games on steam. Some games have been removed from the store, but certainly not most of them. Suggesting you're limited in how long you can play a game because of DRM, reality doesn't seem to match your theory. Do they actually remove it from your library anyway?
We accept DRM on art because there's no sacrosanct rule which says art cannot have DRM, and the price is right, same reason we accept DRM on movies.
Slashdot Mirror
And I wouldn't be surprised if it had most of the functionality of fakeblock.
I disagree. First with the implication that getting a phone for a kid detracts "focus" from more important things. Give the kid a phone and you'll still be able to get him or her vaccinated, prevent them from playing in the street, and teach them good morals etc.
Second, you presumably grew up in a world where computers weren't as powerful as PHONES are now. It's clear that kids today are going to need to use computers for everything. Our society treats children as if they're incompetent, but that's not necessarily a good approach. My one year old grabs our ipads whenever he can. We let him play with them for a few minutes sometimes. He can unlock them and go to angry birds or some children's books. Not sure how I feel about that, but my point is that kids are more competent than we give them credit. Allowing them to get familiar with technology they're likely going to be using their whole lives when THEY'RE ready isn't necessarily a bad thing.
(BTW, I'm more concerned about my kid's eyes developing properly than about him accessing porn or anything like that, which is why we're not going to be letting him use electronics for longer than a few minutes until he's at least 3.)
"So we talked to students, and we asked them, 'Why did you do this?' And in many cases, they said, 'You guys are just locking us out of too much stuff.' " He says, after talking with students, that the Los Angeles Unified School District's iPad policy probably should be changed, allowing for some social media and music streaming sites.
The memo from a sublinked article suggests that concerns for safety were the reasons the devices were supposed to be locked down. Can't have kids getting on facebook: they might meet up with child molesters and get raped and killed!
I suspect their concern for avoiding that scenario was mainly "... and then WE'D BE SUED!!!" So perhaps they should have gone the permission slip route and only given out ipads to kids whose parents agreed that the parents are the parents and if anything bad happens to the children in connection with the ipads, or if they caught their kids looking at nudity (and subsequently were utterly scarred for life), that was on the parents and not something they could sue over. This however is not a lesson that school districts ever seem to learn.
People here hated his remake of star trek before it came out. Fanboys like you just hate change whatsoever. Admit it: the only changes you want are that episodes 1-3 are rejected as no longer cannon, YOU are Luke Skywalker and Leia is not your sister, and she's in the bikini the whole time and you two hook up at the end of the movie.
It's a given that he's going to ruin it in that Star Wars is going to be different and you define that as ruin.
It's really too bad that you're so closed minded. People like you are going to go see the new movies just to justify hating it. You'll find reasons. If they are actually good movies, you will have ruined star wars for yourself, and it will be a self fulfilling prophecy. You likely won't even realize that "ruin" doesn't make sense. Even if Abrahms said that all the previous movies were a drug induced dream Jar-Jar Binks was having, and that was canon, and the new movies were just hours of Binks pleasuring himself with his tongue... that doesn't change the original movies. Even Lucas' changing Han shooting second doesn't mean anything other than some newer copies of the movies had stupid changes. "Canon" or not, it's still just fiction, and your enjoyment of the original series shouldn't be affected by the new movies.
That could work similar to android I suppose. Hopefully fragmentation will be less of an issue with the OS, since fragmentation of hardware is already such an issue.
TLDR quote for the super lazy:
If you were to ask me to choose between Steam Controller and a 360 controller, I would choose 360. Don’t take that as slight to the controller though because it’s more about the comfort of familiarity over functionality. I would choose a 360 controller because I have several thousand hours experience using it, however if tomorrow all game controllers were wiped off the earth and the only option was the Steam Controller, I don’t think this would be a bad thing. In fact, I don’t think gaming would miss a beat. I’m excited to see what final hardware feels like because I think with the upcoming iterations of the controller we’ll see something that is different, but still feels good.
TL;DR; Great Start, needs some improvements, but I could play any game I wanted with it just fine.
The way to do it would be to require a micro-USB, but they can also use any other charging method you want. How many phones are going to have wireless charging ONLY?
TFA points out this is really only an issue at the moment with apple. No one else has the brand loyalty to abuse their customers by constantly breaking old accessories like apple does. Plus, Apple really doesn't lead the mobile phone field in anything besides squeezing more money out of their customers, how likely is it really that they'll put wireless charging into the phones anytime soon?
I'd argue that while some aspects of 1 and 2 may be pretty common, like graphics and play style, they're still good all around games independent of their time. HL3 doesn't need to be revolutionary for it to be a great game.
I think the hype is over "will it come out ever?!?" and "What's going to happen next for gordon freeman?!?" not "What new technical or storytelling innovation will valve come up with?"
As snakeplissken said, they already appear to be doing steam on linux just fine. The streaming seems like it will get around some of that too: any game DRM that requires windows WILL be running windows.
Lastly, I really have no clue about system architecture. Are you saying it will be trivial to crack every game through steam OS? Or are you saying "there will be holes in security?" It seems like every game is cracked and online in days if not hours. So I don't think steam can make a system that is 100% secure for DRM. I don't think they really need to make it as secure for DRM as windows either.
It appears to be a calm and reasonable response to a comment asserting that this controller will be used to force you to watch ads.
You don't read good.
I'm handicapped and I'm kind of pissed that someone would use a terrible accident/recovery as marketing leverage.
You think people shouldn't turn disadvantages into advantages? Honestly: what the fuck?
We don't like the DRM, we just realize that DRM is not a black and white issue that trumps all else in the equation. We also realize that without any DRM whatsoever, PC gaming would be limited to what you see on GOG. GOG is good an all, old games are fun, indie games are good and sometimes better than anything else, and the small handful of big titles that are released DRM free are really to be applauded... but often I want big new games that some company has invested a lot of money in. A lot of them aren't entirely comfortable with it being completely DRM free. If you can't understand their perspective, you've clearly never made a game (neither have I) and you're closed minded.
I think it's a little of both. The trackpad on my laptop sucks for FPS for that reason, but it's still much preferable to a thumbstick, which is physically hard to tilt halfway reliably.
It's a step up, but yeah, I'll be using the mouse and keyboard for most shooters.
It would be ideal for me is if the steamboxes wirelessly communicated with the controller, and had a USB port in the side so I could plug my mouse into the controller and use it on my couch. That's several ifs though. And judging by the fact that none of the consoles offer mouse attachments, perhaps I'm the only one who would want to use a mouse from the couch to game.
I'm not really sure how, but it's been confirmed with this announcement. You have to read it carefully. Specifically, picking certain letters out.
(starts crying)
As with regular ads, it's only annoying when it's things I don't want immediately as soon as I hear about them. Ads for a new car or a coke? Shove those up your ass. Ads for a controller I wanted as soon as I saw the headline? Not annoying to me.
Anyway, isn't the implication with "slashvertizing" that someone has posted a story to their own product? Pretty sure this was posted out of genuine interest, not financial interest.
Also, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We could spend billions preventing it, or we could spend trillions and trillions dealing with the effects.
Unfortunately, those trillions would be future costs, and externalized largely to other people, so obviously we're going to do the latter.
You're asking how is self reporting different from someone else reporting?
Seriously?
Faster, and without an extra filter changing the propaganda. It will be pure islamic fundamentalist cultist propaganda rather than co-opted for the propaganda that CNN has an interest in promoting.
I think it's a good thing. One thing that infuriated me about the 9/11 attack coverage was that the news channels carried what had happened, and essentially said they attacked us because "they hate our freedom." FUCK YOU! That's not at all why they attacked! I don't agree with the reasons they DID have, but essentially patting ourselves on the back and saying "They're picking on us because they're jealous of how AWESOME we are!" ensures it's going to happen over and over again. And it totally skipped over the part where maybe we reconsider our foreign policy that offended them.
I'm not suggesting that such a dialogue would have been productive. It would have probably gone something like
"They attacked us in part because we support Israel, who they hate. Why are we supporting Israel anyway? Maybe we shouldn't be wasting our money supporting Israel as it doesn't do anything good for us and it's just making a lot more enemies in the region?"
Response: "FUCK YOU TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER!"
Still, I think truth is better than self-delusion, and I would have preferred that conversation to the one we did have. In my opinion, more direct communication is better than putting it through filters which allow us to continue lying to ourselves and totally misunderstanding what is really happening. This is perhaps why CNN and other groups that use the FUD to their advantage are afraid of it, not because violent idiots will have a better chance of bombing places if they can broadcast on twitter.
I'm just reading the summary, but "unexpectedly" seems like a word that might not be carelessly used. Legal trade is probably known and wouldn't be too hard to compare.
:-P
Alternatively, perhaps the researchers speculated that part of it might be illegal trafficking in addition to the usual stuff. Perhaps they suggested this could be a good method of identifying illegal trade spots. And then the downstream journalists siezed on that idle speculation even though it was not the point. Relevant PhD comics comic.
I should skim the actual paper, but I'm procrastinating FROM reading papers on a totally different field, so I'm not going to
I've heard this problem exists for American doctors too. My response is the same: boo fucking hoo. If your patients want antibiotics, tell them no. If they insist, tell them no again. If they threaten to go to another doctor, and that doctor does give them antibiotics, report that doctor.
At any rate, the larger contributor appears to be the agricultural industry.
Do you have a citation for that? From my understanding, the bugs move person to person with very little time on anything that could be copper. For non-organic surfaces that could be copper, measures are used that pathogens have not so far developed resistance to: extreme heat, alchohol, or harsh chemicals. Everything that contacts bodily fluids is, ideally, autoclaved or thrown away before being re-used.
Antibiotics are necessarily weaker: they can't kill YOU. You'd have a point if we started seeing bugs that could survive the autoclave, ethanol, or bleach, which are used on things that could be copper, but that's not the issue here.
Already has some resistance.
Piracy has it's own set of problems obviously. If we're going list what could theoretically go wrong with DRM and hold piracy up as the alternative, you should list what could theoretically go wrong with piracy. 1: developers use piracy as an excuse to skip the PC market, a much bigger problem to me than call of duty 3 not being accessible in a decade. And 2. viruses and other malware.
If you're honestly having a hard time understanding it, realize that not everyone values things like you do. When considering a 5 or even 60 dollar game, I don't exactly need to buy it for life. If Valve dissapears in 10 years, the games I play now will still be experiences that are worth it. Faith has little to do with it. I buy games I want to play in the near future.
That seems like an odd reason to not play a game NOW. Keep in mind you're not getting a choice between Steam as it is and steam as it is but minus the DRM. That's not an option that exists. Were steam to do away with any DRM, they'd also do away with most of the games on steam, and steam would look like GOG.
Time limits on games has not been the case thus far on most games on steam. Some games have been removed from the store, but certainly not most of them. Suggesting you're limited in how long you can play a game because of DRM, reality doesn't seem to match your theory. Do they actually remove it from your library anyway?
We accept DRM on art because there's no sacrosanct rule which says art cannot have DRM, and the price is right, same reason we accept DRM on movies.
Not heaven forbid. I'm just pointing out that a lot of kids aren't really interested in church compared to "hacking."
Politics isn't explicitly part of it, but the culture is, from my experience, conservative.
Anyway, this was a joke, not a serious critique of the boyscouts.
I'm excited about it. Doesn't mean I think it's a totally revolutionary thing that will change the game games and cure cancer.