It is an original with PS2 backward compatibility, but because I have actual work on it I'm going to hang onto it until I can find some way to recover the files. I'm sure there's nothing worth saving on the drive and I could probably just format or swap it out, but I've been considering hacking PS3 to check what was on it just in case there was something I wanted to save. Last I read you could get a USB Dongle to crack the system, I haven't looked into all the details yet.
That being said, If I end up selling it, it'll be to my brother in-law who runs a used game store.
Good to know. My PS3 is the only blu-ray player I have and I only own one BD, which haven't watched it since the PS3 updated. I had originally planned on buying more movies after I was able to afford a larger TV, but I'm not buying a player that requires constant firmware updates.
The last thing I want is to spend a ton of money on a player that ends up breaking because of a corrupted, or feature downgrading, forced firmware update rendering an expensive BD collection useless.
I think I'll stick with DVDs for movies I want to own and pirating when other options aren't available.
The AC wasn't even worth the response. Just to clear things up, my original comment had nothing to do with promoting open source. I bought the PS3 for a feature and made use of said feature. The manufacturer removed the feature that influenced my purchase decision years after the purchase. I will not buy products from that manufacturer ever again and will recommend to anyone that ask, and some that don't, to stay away from that manufacturer.
Early adoption is a proven market cycle factor. If early adopters don't pick up a product it will struggle and eventually fail. In the case of a PS4, early adopters would be the same technologically inclined people who were early adopters for the PS3, most of which were screwed over.
I recommended to many people that the PS3 would be worth the purchase because of the backward compatibility, BluRay player, media server and Other OS support. At least five people I know bought the system because of my recommendation. I stopped recommending the PS3 when my sister in-law bought hers and found out they had removed the backward compatibility for PS2 games. After the Other OS removal, I started strongly discouraging people from buying a PS3. As a result at least two people since have gotten Xboxs and one bought a Wii.
There is no question in my mind that early adopters prop-up initial sales of products when they're introduced and "geeks" are sought after for opinions that will strongly influence decisions when purchasing electronics. Facts fanboys choose to ignore while they're running around on tech forms screaming at people for providing poor reviews of their personal object of interest.
Up until my cousin updated my PS3 while trying to play a rented BluRay movie, which forced the update. I was using my PS3 as an alternate testing platform for software development and a mesh network 3D rendering node.
Now it's a paper weight. Even if it still plays games I have no desire to use any Sony products. I guarantee the PS4 will flop because so many early adopters will not only not buy it, they'll militantly advise anyone else against it.
Nothing excuses the fact that when I bought my PS3, I bought it instead of the Xbox and Wii because I could install Linux on it. While I had the option I did make use of it and it took some underhanded BluRay trick to get someone less knowledgeable updated it. In hindsight I should have put a firewall rule to block the PS3 from calling home, but seriously, what other BluRay player will force a firmware update before allowing someone to watch a movie they rented.
Yet another reason to just pirate movies. So my expensive hardware doesn't get destroyed by malicious firmware updates.
I see how it is now. You're old and threatened by younger developers. I should have guessed by the "get off my lawn" attitude. I've been developing since I had my first computer (an Atari 130XE) when I was 7, nearly 30 years now. I've been developing professionally since 2001. None of that accounts for they disregard you're showing to anyone using a modern browser in order to support the 20% of people that don't want to move into his millennium.
Personal advice, you might want to consider retirement. It's probably the best thing you can do for your company.
if you have to make special exceptions for IE in the first place, you're Doing It Wrong.
LOL, I love this, you're obviously not a web developer or you would really understand the true issues here. You don't or you wouldn't be making such a blatantly stupid statement.
Use subsets that are supported across the line, and write HTML/css so it degrades gracefully. It's not hard. Really.
This is also stupid, if you were using a subset of HTML/CSS supported across the line you wouldn't have to write HTML/CSS that degrades gracefully. We write code that degrades gracefully because we support Internet explorer, which doesn't ad-hear to web standards.
I'd like to say sorry your failing to understand the true problem, but it's obvious the true issue is you just refuse to see what's wrong with your line of thinking. Go develop some web sites for clients looking to implement the latest standards and technologies, then come back and argue how important it is to support 20% of the market rather than just telling them to upgrade to a modern browser.
Thankfully, there are developers who do care about the users more than their own convenience.
The ones I buy from.
This statement makes me believe:
1) You're not a developer, otherwise you'd know the headache of spending (X hours) developing a web page/site/app that works in all other major browsers, but then having to justify spending (X*2 hours) making it work in IE (6, 7, 8) to an ignorant client.
2) You're a poor business person because you don't understand that (X*2 hours) is time that could have been spent working on some other part of the project rather than tweaking layouts, writing exception rules or writing work around for one browser that holds less than 30% of the market.
As we all know time is money and a business person willing to waste time makes no money.
Rather buying from developers wiling to waste time and pretending they care more about your uses, you should be supporting the developers that care about making a better more convenient enviorment for all users and web developers alike and who are more concerned with saving you money.
The fact that the Internet does not have a central government is a positive, not a negative.
I can't dispute this. I don't know what's best or what will work, but there has to be some methodology to tell governments to back off. I should have put government in quotes when referring to the internet "government", because obviously you're right and government in the traditional sense would be a single point of failure and eventually become bloated and tyrannical.
The "government" I'm envisioning would be different, it wouldn't be elected or appointed bodies, but there would be some kind of governing head to speak for the community, which would have the power to smack down politicians trying to mussel in and dictate how we're allowed to communicate using the internet. It wouldn't be a government to tell us what to do, but instead would tell other governments what we're going to let them do.
The fact of the matter is Governments all over the world are now trying to take steps to regulate what we're allowed to use the internet for. Maybe the results will be the rise of a second internet with true anonymity at it's heart, maybe the results will be an internet that helps other governments quash independent trouble making thinkers before ideas get out of hand. Who really knows?
I don't know about that. I think the internet has developed into something bigger, It's an entity all to itself. I think it pretty well needs to be or have it's own government to protected it from all other governments. It's not just the US government that's attacking the internet and it's users and we need a collective voice out there telling all governments to "step off", this is outside their realm of influence and anyone anywhere at anytime should be able to use the internet as a medium to share ideas.
The problem is the internet can't fight back because there is not central authoritative "leader" to fight back, but it is powerful, which is why I think governments are working to control it and it's contents. Look what happened when SOPA was proposed, all the sudden there was outrage. Using the internet we were all able to collectively say fuck off and what happened!? The government backed down. Unfortunately they've only backed down until people have forgotten what they tried to do, they'll learn form their mistake and come after the internet again. Next time we might not be able to stop them.
Being able to get all governments to agree anyone using the internet should have certain rights is the first step to creating an internet government that will have the ability to fight for what all it's users collectively want.
I don't mean to be rude, but I found your post very confusing.
First you said:
Why would a single hardware provider be worse than a single software provider?
Then:
it's better for them if there is just party to support for both hardware and software if something goes wrong.
I'm of the opinion that the only thing worse than a single hardware provider, is a single hardware provider that is also the singe software provider. I mean, WOW, just put all your eggs in one basket and then pull all competition out of the scenario and I'm pretty sure that "support for both hardware and software if something goes wrong" will go right out the window.
You know, most companies aren't hackerspaces, where every user spends all their time tinkering various devices just for the sake of tinkering.
There is a huge range of devices in my building, my group is primary Java and Matlab developers using windows machines. We write software for scientists running Linux machines to analyzing data that was collected and processed from satellite imaginary on Macs. Just because someone is running open source solutions doesn't mean they automatically spending their time "tinkering". A statement like that is dangerous if read by ignorant bosses and makes you seem a very out of touch to anyone that is actually in the know. Linux and Mac machines and their respective software are used to do real work, just like windows. Not all the scientists where I work are Linux gurus and they don't spend their time tinkering. Propagating the stereotype that someone using open source solutions is just tinkering really creates an image that people using open source solutions aren't doing real work, which just isn't true and is harmful to the community. Some pointy haired boss is going to read a comment like that and take it to heart.
My group had a hell of a time after our boss stumbled onto this article The Zero Defect Vision where the journalist suggested that it was possible to write software that has a 0.0003% bug ratio. We use agile development practices with monthly software releases and have a 5% bug ratio with a lot of our larger systems. We pointed out several times there were spelling and grammar mistakes in the article, which were missed by both the writer and editor. Then we went on to explain that although doctors make very few mistakes during surgery, the techniques they use were perfected over hundreds of years, and not all of the patients used in the process actually survived. Basically everyone of the professions talked about in the article had their period of trial and error and accidents, some of which actually lead to the loss of life. At least our software has never killed anyone, at worst there was an indexing issue or the output was in a space delimited format when it should have been comma separated. We managed to get our boss to back down from his holy crusade to have us produce 100% bug free applications when we basically stopped making monthly releases, because in an agile environment there's always some new feature or bug to fix, which would normally be pushed to the next release cycle.
AIDE works really well as a java IDE/compiler for my HTC Android phone. I also use Google docs for Writing reports and modifying spreadsheets, which works well enough.
Is it perfect? Not even close.
Given a choice I'd do my work on a desktop/laptop. The one major thing my phone lacks, to make it more productive, is a full keyboard, a mouse and a fill monitor. There's also a trade off in processing power for conveniences. Even without the docking station I still always have the phone to do work on when something needs a quick change, but the docking station would just mean I don't have spend time transferring code to my phone. Obviously this is for the specific type of work I do, it would be useless for writing larger applications, but for simple productivity apps this could work.
It's a skill set that I am almost certainly incapable of acquiring because I find that kind of thing exceptionally uncomfortable
I think you might be confusing skill sets with personality traits.
Personality traits things like being optimistic, happy, ambitious, etc.. they're things people born with or unconsciously developed. Skills on the other had are things not everyone can do well and have to be learned and actively developed, like programming, designing buildings or painting.
You can be born with a personality trait (talent) that will make developing a skill easier. I'm tone def so there's no future in music for me, although I can play a bit of piano if someone else tunes it. I am, however, ambitious, meticulous, creative, and intelligent (not to blow my own horn) which makes it easy for me to pick up new skills like programing and software design.
Being able to smile, stand and look pretty for 8 hours really requires nothing more than being born with genes that give you a sunny disposition, legs and a desirable figure. Turn on the TV and watch a few commercials, TV shows or movies and I'm pretty sure you'll see there are plenty of people with those traits, and in some cases they even have the skill to act, a skill I might add is being replaced with just looking good. I'm looking at you Kristen Stewart, first Twilight and now Snow White and the Huntsmen. Next time my wife says we're going see a movie with Stewart in it, I'll unceremoniously decline and set myself on fire.
You're entirely right and I agree with you're post so please don't think I'm arguing with you.
Why does one woman have to represent EVERYWOMAN?
As humans we generalize and naturally create groups and categorize similar objects. I'm placed in the "men are disgusting pigs who treat women poorly" group, despite the fact that I have a wife, who is my friend and equal, and daughter, who I want the best for in life.
They're dressing "like that", they're asking for it". That's just a retarded way to think.
A retarded way to think is that you're not going to get hit by a car while playing in the middle of a busy eight lane highway.
The sole purpose of dressing "like that" is intended to:
1) Make women appear as they're in heat, that's what high heels are designed for (see Reasons for wearing high heels on Wikipedia)
2) Providing easy access for mating, short skirts are designed to show as much leg and point of entry for mating as possible without actually showing a hole
3) A desire to produce offspring, tight low cut shirts and short skirts showing how great breasts and hips will be to have and raise children.
Dressing "like that" is designed and intended to provoke a natural overwhelming desire in opposite sex to mate. Sex sells because it release endorphins causing members of the opposite sex to be come happy and have a pleasant association with a product. However, for the models to do this while prancing around in a public forum flirting with lonely men and thinking you won't be harassed is a retarded way to think.
In almost every moment of our lives these days we're bombarded with images of sexy young women purposely portrayed as ready to mate, but it seems it's not ok to categorize them as such.
What does seem to be ok is for men to be categorized as weak willed perverts who are always chasing tail. I have, in public and in front of my wife no less, been accused of such. My wife made me go shopping with her while she was buying bras. I was standing in the store watching a TV that was outside the store advertising games at EB while she went through a large bin of underwear when one of the staff came over and told me one of their patrons had complained about me gawking at them and that I had to leave. On one hand, fine by me I didn't want to be there anyway, on the other hand my wife was very upset as she knows me and knows I wasn't looking at any of the other women in the store... Mostly because it was just me, her and the two staff that were there the whole time.
Back to your post
People should always be judged on their individual merits, and if someone thinks to prejudge someone else based on their gender, race or sexual orientation, they're dead wrong.
I agree, but society apparently does not. My daughter will be treated unfairly in life because of how women that dress "like that" use sex and an easy way to make money without think about how that propagates the "women are sex objects" stereotype. Society in general needs to be fixed, people need to be treated as individuals, but people will always be sorted as long as we identify groups such as men, women, black, white, asian, French, English, gay, straight, catholic, protestant.
I normally agree with your comments, but in this case I don't. These women took jobs knowing what they were doing. This isn't a crap job you suffer though to get ahead in life. This is easy money for a few attractive girls in exchange for self respect and dignity of all women. What they're choosing to do is going to make it hard for my daughter to be taken seriously later in life. The hate they're getting for complaining about standing around in heels and a miniskirt while being oggled and paid $50+ an hour with no required skills or training is completely deserved. The resentment and treatment my daughter is going to get because of how these women are acting isn't.
I think people who what men and women to be treated equally should stop generalizing and harping on men for being dogs and start harping on women who use the stereotype to their advantage without caring how other women are treated because of it. Women who want respect need to realize the pretty young girls who are willing to participate as strippers at car, tech and fashion event or beer, makeup and really any commercial on TV are the ones causing them grief. It's not ok for girls to be treated as sex objects and people in general (men and women) need to stop saying it's ok for girls to act that way. Instead some women use sex to their advantage while others play the victim, others still are intelligent hard workers who are suffering, being treated unfairly and not taken seriously because of the first two groups.
I actually have a wife and daughter. I plan on taking my daughter at some point and pointing out a stripper or "model", as some are called, and saying, "If you're not smart enough to do anything else, that's what you're going to do when you grow up."
My grandfather pointed at a garbage man when I was younger and I didn't much are for school. Not because I didn't like learning, I just didn't like school. He told me that was what I was going to be. It became my mission in life to prove him wrong and I got a degree and became a developer. The truth was he knew what I was capable of all along, but I needed the motivation to buckle down and study.
These "booth babes" serve as a perfect point of reference for me to tell my daughter that when you put on a mini-skirt and act dumb no one is going to take you seriously and if she's not willing to study and work hard that's what she's going to do. The reason these women do this is because it's an easy way to make money, even if it comes at the cost of respect and dignity. There are millions of other people that are not, and some that are, hot, skinny, big boobed, bimbos that find work doing other things. These girls are being short sighted and probably don't realize what they're doing now is what is going to cause them and other girls, like my daughter, to be mistreated later in life.
Peter Griffin is a fictional character, you can't believe anything he says. Scrooge McDuck makes it very clear that money, especially the coin variety, it great for swimming in.
Although I agree with you that we'd probably see some really cool innovation. The issue would be locking down the hardware would make it next to impossible for beginners to do anything. Not to mention there's a world of difference between soldering components to a board and hacking up code. I personally don't have the skills or patients to modify hardware to force it to run the software that I can write, and I most likely wouldn't go out and spend $200 on a motherboard just to wreck it so I could try install my flavor of Linux. I spent $200 on the damn thing, it should run whatever I want it to.
I'm not jumping to any conclusions, I'm just being cynical. It's better to plan for the worst and hope for the best, then not to be prepared. The original post postulated that in the ideal situation there won't be a problem and seemed to be saying, "Hay guys, these big companies know what their doing. Let's just roll with it."
I for one am not really willing to let big companies decided what I'm going to be allowed to do with my own hardware/software and how I'm going to be allowed to do it. I was burned by the Sony Other OS removal, I'm not falling for the same trick twice.
which is guaranteed to be an available feature (otherwise how will kernel developers debug their code, even at Microsoft?).
I'd rather not speculate on how developers at Microsoft are going to do their development, but I'm sure they've already worked out a "specialized Microsoft only solution" average users/developers won't have access to. As I said before:
Another big problem is by the time we know ALL the facts about how the UEFI and its implementation It will be too late to do anything about it and we'll be forever stuck paying to install anything, that's not a commercial OS, on machines we've rightfully bought."
Claiming something is free is a great way to get people to "buy in" to an idea. The Free-To-Play model being used by most Facebook games and MMOs is a great example of this. Sure it's free to get in and play around, but if you want to do anything significant you have to pay. It's not a stretch to believe initially it'll be free to allow kernel developers to do their thing, but later (possibly after some big security hack) take that functionality away.
This micro-bootloader will most likely just chain load...
This is the problem I see. Using words like "most likely" and then saying "I really don't see the problem with any of this" is a problem. You've constructed an ideal situation that you think will work correctly. "Most likely" this will not be the case and as such will cause issues with attempting to install any OS that is not Windows 8. Another big problem is by the time we know ALL the facts about how the UEFI and its implementation It will be too late to do anything about it and we'll be forever stuck paying to install anything, that's not a commercial OS, on machines we've rightfully bought.
And I'm not accepting that "For users performing local customization, they will have the ability to self-register their own trusted keys on their own systems at no cost." crap. We all know it'll be free until it's fully embedded in every system, then it won't be free anymore.
I have to admit I did have trouble running Bastion under Linux Mint and wasn't able to find any helpful information from Google. I e-mailed the publisher and HB support, both responded within a day, but I had fixed the issue by changing my display driver by then. I did notice Bastion runs extremely slow at points, possibility do to the memory leak discussed by the AC above.
I also had issues running Psychonauts, I was able to play through for a while, but the game crashes at points that I expect a video is loaded. After changing my display driver to get Bastion working Psychonauts doesn't play at all. I'm sure there will be a patch for it soon.
Overall while I agree for the most part with the ACs comments, I think they're a little harsh. I found the Humble Bundle support to be adequate and I would rate this bundle as 3.5 on a 1-5 scale.
Bastion was awesome (5 out of 5) once I got it working. I've already started playing though it again
Psychonauts was quite a bit of fun to play (4 out of 5) until I couldn't get any further
LIMBO was kind of neat (4 out of 5)
I don't like horror games so Amnesia was kind of wasted on me (Abstain from rating, someone who likes the genera should rate it)
I didn't much care for Sword & Sworcery. I didn't really like the graphics or controls and, at least at the beginning of the game, it kind of lacked a story. I might give it another chance some time, but as it stands (1 out of 5).
The AC brings up a good point though, if I as a Linux user spend $50 on the bundle and most of the games don't work or are extremely buggy, I'm much less likely to recommend it or buy the next bundle. While I appreciate the challenges the HB team has to deal with, Linux and Mac make up at least a third of the purchases, and on average both donate significantly more than Windows users.
I think a really big reason Linux and Mac purchases aren't making up at least half of the purchases is because of buggy bundles. I didn't purchase HB 4 because of the issues I had with HB 3. I only bought HB 5 because I really wanted to try out Bastion and because Bastion was so good I'll probably buy HB 6. That being said, I'm normally an early adopter, but with the issues from this bundle I'll probably wait until the last day of the HB 6 offering before buying to see what issues others are having and determine what a fair price will be in contrast to the amount of time it'll take me to get the games working.
In terms of games Windows users have a much larger selection, as such there's a much lower demand for them, which in turn brings down what windows users willing to pay. If you want to improve revenue cater to Linux and Mac, they're there and willing to pay for good entertainment, but not if you're just going to take their money and give them an inferior product.
If it's popular then anyone that likes it is a fanboy, they all deserve to be modded down.
^was a joke by the way. <wisper> Go Linux!! wooott!! </wisper>
I switched from Windows Vista to Ubuntu three years ago and since then have switched to Linux Mint. I might go back to Ubuntu once they get they cards in order, but I'll never go back to Windows on my personal computer as long as I can possibly avoid it.
Your article was about apple turning over product, tablets and what not, but you seem to be claiming that MS sells the "lion's share of devices and profits"
Overall I'm not a fan of either, but I can see both companies get bashed quite a bit here. I think it's mostly fan-boys making wild claims about how good their preferred company is while ignoring what drawbacks come with each, which leads the community to be generally cynical and disdainful of either.
I'm not a fan of MS being able to lock their operating system in to a machine. As the GP lead to, maybe they're not locking into everything at the moment, but this will make it difficult to install any other OS on a machine bought from a brick and mortar store and in the future this lock-in could be expanded to all hardware. Basically killing anyone's abilities to change to a Linux based OS if that's what they desire.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like Hockey... Eh...
It is an original with PS2 backward compatibility, but because I have actual work on it I'm going to hang onto it until I can find some way to recover the files. I'm sure there's nothing worth saving on the drive and I could probably just format or swap it out, but I've been considering hacking PS3 to check what was on it just in case there was something I wanted to save. Last I read you could get a USB Dongle to crack the system, I haven't looked into all the details yet.
That being said, If I end up selling it, it'll be to my brother in-law who runs a used game store.
Good to know. My PS3 is the only blu-ray player I have and I only own one BD, which haven't watched it since the PS3 updated. I had originally planned on buying more movies after I was able to afford a larger TV, but I'm not buying a player that requires constant firmware updates.
The last thing I want is to spend a ton of money on a player that ends up breaking because of a corrupted, or feature downgrading, forced firmware update rendering an expensive BD collection useless.
I think I'll stick with DVDs for movies I want to own and pirating when other options aren't available.
The AC wasn't even worth the response. Just to clear things up, my original comment had nothing to do with promoting open source. I bought the PS3 for a feature and made use of said feature. The manufacturer removed the feature that influenced my purchase decision years after the purchase. I will not buy products from that manufacturer ever again and will recommend to anyone that ask, and some that don't, to stay away from that manufacturer.
Early adoption is a proven market cycle factor. If early adopters don't pick up a product it will struggle and eventually fail. In the case of a PS4, early adopters would be the same technologically inclined people who were early adopters for the PS3, most of which were screwed over.
I recommended to many people that the PS3 would be worth the purchase because of the backward compatibility, BluRay player, media server and Other OS support. At least five people I know bought the system because of my recommendation. I stopped recommending the PS3 when my sister in-law bought hers and found out they had removed the backward compatibility for PS2 games. After the Other OS removal, I started strongly discouraging people from buying a PS3. As a result at least two people since have gotten Xboxs and one bought a Wii.
There is no question in my mind that early adopters prop-up initial sales of products when they're introduced and "geeks" are sought after for opinions that will strongly influence decisions when purchasing electronics. Facts fanboys choose to ignore while they're running around on tech forms screaming at people for providing poor reviews of their personal object of interest.
Up until my cousin updated my PS3 while trying to play a rented BluRay movie, which forced the update. I was using my PS3 as an alternate testing platform for software development and a mesh network 3D rendering node.
Now it's a paper weight. Even if it still plays games I have no desire to use any Sony products. I guarantee the PS4 will flop because so many early adopters will not only not buy it, they'll militantly advise anyone else against it.
Nothing excuses the fact that when I bought my PS3, I bought it instead of the Xbox and Wii because I could install Linux on it. While I had the option I did make use of it and it took some underhanded BluRay trick to get someone less knowledgeable updated it. In hindsight I should have put a firewall rule to block the PS3 from calling home, but seriously, what other BluRay player will force a firmware update before allowing someone to watch a movie they rented.
Yet another reason to just pirate movies. So my expensive hardware doesn't get destroyed by malicious firmware updates.
You must be a post-milllennium
I see how it is now. You're old and threatened by younger developers. I should have guessed by the "get off my lawn" attitude. I've been developing since I had my first computer (an Atari 130XE) when I was 7, nearly 30 years now. I've been developing professionally since 2001. None of that accounts for they disregard you're showing to anyone using a modern browser in order to support the 20% of people that don't want to move into his millennium.
Personal advice, you might want to consider retirement. It's probably the best thing you can do for your company.
if you have to make special exceptions for IE in the first place, you're Doing It Wrong.
LOL, I love this, you're obviously not a web developer or you would really understand the true issues here. You don't or you wouldn't be making such a blatantly stupid statement.
Use subsets that are supported across the line, and write HTML/css so it degrades gracefully. It's not hard. Really.
This is also stupid, if you were using a subset of HTML/CSS supported across the line you wouldn't have to write HTML/CSS that degrades gracefully. We write code that degrades gracefully because we support Internet explorer, which doesn't ad-hear to web standards.
I'd like to say sorry your failing to understand the true problem, but it's obvious the true issue is you just refuse to see what's wrong with your line of thinking. Go develop some web sites for clients looking to implement the latest standards and technologies, then come back and argue how important it is to support 20% of the market rather than just telling them to upgrade to a modern browser.
Thankfully, there are developers who do care about the users more than their own convenience. The ones I buy from.
This statement makes me believe:
As we all know time is money and a business person willing to waste time makes no money.
Rather buying from developers wiling to waste time and pretending they care more about your uses, you should be supporting the developers that care about making a better more convenient enviorment for all users and web developers alike and who are more concerned with saving you money.
The fact that the Internet does not have a central government is a positive, not a negative.
I can't dispute this. I don't know what's best or what will work, but there has to be some methodology to tell governments to back off. I should have put government in quotes when referring to the internet "government", because obviously you're right and government in the traditional sense would be a single point of failure and eventually become bloated and tyrannical.
The "government" I'm envisioning would be different, it wouldn't be elected or appointed bodies, but there would be some kind of governing head to speak for the community, which would have the power to smack down politicians trying to mussel in and dictate how we're allowed to communicate using the internet. It wouldn't be a government to tell us what to do, but instead would tell other governments what we're going to let them do.
The fact of the matter is Governments all over the world are now trying to take steps to regulate what we're allowed to use the internet for. Maybe the results will be the rise of a second internet with true anonymity at it's heart, maybe the results will be an internet that helps other governments quash independent trouble making thinkers before ideas get out of hand. Who really knows?
We don't need an "Internet Bill of Rights."
I don't know about that. I think the internet has developed into something bigger, It's an entity all to itself. I think it pretty well needs to be or have it's own government to protected it from all other governments. It's not just the US government that's attacking the internet and it's users and we need a collective voice out there telling all governments to "step off", this is outside their realm of influence and anyone anywhere at anytime should be able to use the internet as a medium to share ideas.
The problem is the internet can't fight back because there is not central authoritative "leader" to fight back, but it is powerful, which is why I think governments are working to control it and it's contents. Look what happened when SOPA was proposed, all the sudden there was outrage. Using the internet we were all able to collectively say fuck off and what happened!? The government backed down. Unfortunately they've only backed down until people have forgotten what they tried to do, they'll learn form their mistake and come after the internet again. Next time we might not be able to stop them.
Being able to get all governments to agree anyone using the internet should have certain rights is the first step to creating an internet government that will have the ability to fight for what all it's users collectively want.
First you said:
Why would a single hardware provider be worse than a single software provider?
Then:
it's better for them if there is just party to support for both hardware and software if something goes wrong.
I'm of the opinion that the only thing worse than a single hardware provider, is a single hardware provider that is also the singe software provider. I mean, WOW, just put all your eggs in one basket and then pull all competition out of the scenario and I'm pretty sure that "support for both hardware and software if something goes wrong" will go right out the window.
You know, most companies aren't hackerspaces, where every user spends all their time tinkering various devices just for the sake of tinkering.
There is a huge range of devices in my building, my group is primary Java and Matlab developers using windows machines. We write software for scientists running Linux machines to analyzing data that was collected and processed from satellite imaginary on Macs. Just because someone is running open source solutions doesn't mean they automatically spending their time "tinkering". A statement like that is dangerous if read by ignorant bosses and makes you seem a very out of touch to anyone that is actually in the know. Linux and Mac machines and their respective software are used to do real work, just like windows. Not all the scientists where I work are Linux gurus and they don't spend their time tinkering. Propagating the stereotype that someone using open source solutions is just tinkering really creates an image that people using open source solutions aren't doing real work, which just isn't true and is harmful to the community. Some pointy haired boss is going to read a comment like that and take it to heart.
My group had a hell of a time after our boss stumbled onto this article The Zero Defect Vision where the journalist suggested that it was possible to write software that has a 0.0003% bug ratio. We use agile development practices with monthly software releases and have a 5% bug ratio with a lot of our larger systems. We pointed out several times there were spelling and grammar mistakes in the article, which were missed by both the writer and editor. Then we went on to explain that although doctors make very few mistakes during surgery, the techniques they use were perfected over hundreds of years, and not all of the patients used in the process actually survived. Basically everyone of the professions talked about in the article had their period of trial and error and accidents, some of which actually lead to the loss of life. At least our software has never killed anyone, at worst there was an indexing issue or the output was in a space delimited format when it should have been comma separated. We managed to get our boss to back down from his holy crusade to have us produce 100% bug free applications when we basically stopped making monthly releases, because in an agile environment there's always some new feature or bug to fix, which would normally be pushed to the next release cycle.
AIDE works really well as a java IDE/compiler for my HTC Android phone. I also use Google docs for Writing reports and modifying spreadsheets, which works well enough.
Is it perfect? Not even close.
Given a choice I'd do my work on a desktop/laptop. The one major thing my phone lacks, to make it more productive, is a full keyboard, a mouse and a fill monitor. There's also a trade off in processing power for conveniences. Even without the docking station I still always have the phone to do work on when something needs a quick change, but the docking station would just mean I don't have spend time transferring code to my phone. Obviously this is for the specific type of work I do, it would be useless for writing larger applications, but for simple productivity apps this could work.
It's a skill set that I am almost certainly incapable of acquiring because I find that kind of thing exceptionally uncomfortable
I think you might be confusing skill sets with personality traits.
Personality traits things like being optimistic, happy, ambitious, etc.. they're things people born with or unconsciously developed. Skills on the other had are things not everyone can do well and have to be learned and actively developed, like programming, designing buildings or painting.
You can be born with a personality trait (talent) that will make developing a skill easier. I'm tone def so there's no future in music for me, although I can play a bit of piano if someone else tunes it. I am, however, ambitious, meticulous, creative, and intelligent (not to blow my own horn) which makes it easy for me to pick up new skills like programing and software design.
Being able to smile, stand and look pretty for 8 hours really requires nothing more than being born with genes that give you a sunny disposition, legs and a desirable figure. Turn on the TV and watch a few commercials, TV shows or movies and I'm pretty sure you'll see there are plenty of people with those traits, and in some cases they even have the skill to act, a skill I might add is being replaced with just looking good. I'm looking at you Kristen Stewart, first Twilight and now Snow White and the Huntsmen. Next time my wife says we're going see a movie with Stewart in it, I'll unceremoniously decline and set myself on fire.
Why does one woman have to represent EVERYWOMAN?
As humans we generalize and naturally create groups and categorize similar objects. I'm placed in the "men are disgusting pigs who treat women poorly" group, despite the fact that I have a wife, who is my friend and equal, and daughter, who I want the best for in life.
They're dressing "like that", they're asking for it". That's just a retarded way to think.
A retarded way to think is that you're not going to get hit by a car while playing in the middle of a busy eight lane highway.
The sole purpose of dressing "like that" is intended to:
1) Make women appear as they're in heat, that's what high heels are designed for (see Reasons for wearing high heels on Wikipedia)
2) Providing easy access for mating, short skirts are designed to show as much leg and point of entry for mating as possible without actually showing a hole
3) A desire to produce offspring, tight low cut shirts and short skirts showing how great breasts and hips will be to have and raise children.
Dressing "like that" is designed and intended to provoke a natural overwhelming desire in opposite sex to mate. Sex sells because it release endorphins causing members of the opposite sex to be come happy and have a pleasant association with a product. However, for the models to do this while prancing around in a public forum flirting with lonely men and thinking you won't be harassed is a retarded way to think.
In almost every moment of our lives these days we're bombarded with images of sexy young women purposely portrayed as ready to mate, but it seems it's not ok to categorize them as such.
What does seem to be ok is for men to be categorized as weak willed perverts who are always chasing tail. I have, in public and in front of my wife no less, been accused of such. My wife made me go shopping with her while she was buying bras. I was standing in the store watching a TV that was outside the store advertising games at EB while she went through a large bin of underwear when one of the staff came over and told me one of their patrons had complained about me gawking at them and that I had to leave. On one hand, fine by me I didn't want to be there anyway, on the other hand my wife was very upset as she knows me and knows I wasn't looking at any of the other women in the store... Mostly because it was just me, her and the two staff that were there the whole time.
Back to your post
People should always be judged on their individual merits, and if someone thinks to prejudge someone else based on their gender, race or sexual orientation, they're dead wrong.
I agree, but society apparently does not. My daughter will be treated unfairly in life because of how women that dress "like that" use sex and an easy way to make money without think about how that propagates the "women are sex objects" stereotype. Society in general needs to be fixed, people need to be treated as individuals, but people will always be sorted as long as we identify groups such as men, women, black, white, asian, French, English, gay, straight, catholic, protestant.
I normally agree with your comments, but in this case I don't. These women took jobs knowing what they were doing. This isn't a crap job you suffer though to get ahead in life. This is easy money for a few attractive girls in exchange for self respect and dignity of all women. What they're choosing to do is going to make it hard for my daughter to be taken seriously later in life. The hate they're getting for complaining about standing around in heels and a miniskirt while being oggled and paid $50+ an hour with no required skills or training is completely deserved. The resentment and treatment my daughter is going to get because of how these women are acting isn't.
I think people who what men and women to be treated equally should stop generalizing and harping on men for being dogs and start harping on women who use the stereotype to their advantage without caring how other women are treated because of it. Women who want respect need to realize the pretty young girls who are willing to participate as strippers at car, tech and fashion event or beer, makeup and really any commercial on TV are the ones causing them grief. It's not ok for girls to be treated as sex objects and people in general (men and women) need to stop saying it's ok for girls to act that way. Instead some women use sex to their advantage while others play the victim, others still are intelligent hard workers who are suffering, being treated unfairly and not taken seriously because of the first two groups.
I actually have a wife and daughter. I plan on taking my daughter at some point and pointing out a stripper or "model", as some are called, and saying, "If you're not smart enough to do anything else, that's what you're going to do when you grow up."
My grandfather pointed at a garbage man when I was younger and I didn't much are for school. Not because I didn't like learning, I just didn't like school. He told me that was what I was going to be. It became my mission in life to prove him wrong and I got a degree and became a developer. The truth was he knew what I was capable of all along, but I needed the motivation to buckle down and study.
These "booth babes" serve as a perfect point of reference for me to tell my daughter that when you put on a mini-skirt and act dumb no one is going to take you seriously and if she's not willing to study and work hard that's what she's going to do. The reason these women do this is because it's an easy way to make money, even if it comes at the cost of respect and dignity. There are millions of other people that are not, and some that are, hot, skinny, big boobed, bimbos that find work doing other things. These girls are being short sighted and probably don't realize what they're doing now is what is going to cause them and other girls, like my daughter, to be mistreated later in life.
touché
Peter Griffin is a fictional character, you can't believe anything he says. Scrooge McDuck makes it very clear that money, especially the coin variety, it great for swimming in.
Although I agree with you that we'd probably see some really cool innovation. The issue would be locking down the hardware would make it next to impossible for beginners to do anything. Not to mention there's a world of difference between soldering components to a board and hacking up code. I personally don't have the skills or patients to modify hardware to force it to run the software that I can write, and I most likely wouldn't go out and spend $200 on a motherboard just to wreck it so I could try install my flavor of Linux. I spent $200 on the damn thing, it should run whatever I want it to.
I for one am not really willing to let big companies decided what I'm going to be allowed to do with my own hardware/software and how I'm going to be allowed to do it. I was burned by the Sony Other OS removal, I'm not falling for the same trick twice.
which is guaranteed to be an available feature (otherwise how will kernel developers debug their code, even at Microsoft?).
I'd rather not speculate on how developers at Microsoft are going to do their development, but I'm sure they've already worked out a "specialized Microsoft only solution" average users/developers won't have access to. As I said before:
Another big problem is by the time we know ALL the facts about how the UEFI and its implementation It will be too late to do anything about it and we'll be forever stuck paying to install anything, that's not a commercial OS, on machines we've rightfully bought."
Claiming something is free is a great way to get people to "buy in" to an idea. The Free-To-Play model being used by most Facebook games and MMOs is a great example of this. Sure it's free to get in and play around, but if you want to do anything significant you have to pay. It's not a stretch to believe initially it'll be free to allow kernel developers to do their thing, but later (possibly after some big security hack) take that functionality away.
This micro-bootloader will most likely just chain load...
This is the problem I see. Using words like "most likely" and then saying "I really don't see the problem with any of this" is a problem. You've constructed an ideal situation that you think will work correctly. "Most likely" this will not be the case and as such will cause issues with attempting to install any OS that is not Windows 8. Another big problem is by the time we know ALL the facts about how the UEFI and its implementation It will be too late to do anything about it and we'll be forever stuck paying to install anything, that's not a commercial OS, on machines we've rightfully bought.
And I'm not accepting that "For users performing local customization, they will have the ability to self-register their own trusted keys on their own systems at no cost." crap. We all know it'll be free until it's fully embedded in every system, then it won't be free anymore.
Dude, I'd buy that shirt. Seriously not joking, I'd buy that.
I have to admit I did have trouble running Bastion under Linux Mint and wasn't able to find any helpful information from Google. I e-mailed the publisher and HB support, both responded within a day, but I had fixed the issue by changing my display driver by then. I did notice Bastion runs extremely slow at points, possibility do to the memory leak discussed by the AC above.
I also had issues running Psychonauts, I was able to play through for a while, but the game crashes at points that I expect a video is loaded. After changing my display driver to get Bastion working Psychonauts doesn't play at all. I'm sure there will be a patch for it soon.
Overall while I agree for the most part with the ACs comments, I think they're a little harsh. I found the Humble Bundle support to be adequate and I would rate this bundle as 3.5 on a 1-5 scale.
Bastion was awesome (5 out of 5) once I got it working. I've already started playing though it again
Psychonauts was quite a bit of fun to play (4 out of 5) until I couldn't get any further
LIMBO was kind of neat (4 out of 5)
I don't like horror games so Amnesia was kind of wasted on me (Abstain from rating, someone who likes the genera should rate it)
I didn't much care for Sword & Sworcery. I didn't really like the graphics or controls and, at least at the beginning of the game, it kind of lacked a story. I might give it another chance some time, but as it stands (1 out of 5).
The AC brings up a good point though, if I as a Linux user spend $50 on the bundle and most of the games don't work or are extremely buggy, I'm much less likely to recommend it or buy the next bundle. While I appreciate the challenges the HB team has to deal with, Linux and Mac make up at least a third of the purchases, and on average both donate significantly more than Windows users.
I think a really big reason Linux and Mac purchases aren't making up at least half of the purchases is because of buggy bundles. I didn't purchase HB 4 because of the issues I had with HB 3. I only bought HB 5 because I really wanted to try out Bastion and because Bastion was so good I'll probably buy HB 6. That being said, I'm normally an early adopter, but with the issues from this bundle I'll probably wait until the last day of the HB 6 offering before buying to see what issues others are having and determine what a fair price will be in contrast to the amount of time it'll take me to get the games working.
In terms of games Windows users have a much larger selection, as such there's a much lower demand for them, which in turn brings down what windows users willing to pay. If you want to improve revenue cater to Linux and Mac, they're there and willing to pay for good entertainment, but not if you're just going to take their money and give them an inferior product.
We're equal opportunity OS haters here on /.
If it's popular then anyone that likes it is a fanboy, they all deserve to be modded down.
^was a joke by the way. <wisper> Go Linux!! wooott!! </wisper>
I switched from Windows Vista to Ubuntu three years ago and since then have switched to Linux Mint. I might go back to Ubuntu once they get they cards in order, but I'll never go back to Windows on my personal computer as long as I can possibly avoid it.
I can't tell are you talking about Apple or MS?
Your article was about apple turning over product, tablets and what not, but you seem to be claiming that MS sells the "lion's share of devices and profits"
Overall I'm not a fan of either, but I can see both companies get bashed quite a bit here. I think it's mostly fan-boys making wild claims about how good their preferred company is while ignoring what drawbacks come with each, which leads the community to be generally cynical and disdainful of either.
I'm not a fan of MS being able to lock their operating system in to a machine. As the GP lead to, maybe they're not locking into everything at the moment, but this will make it difficult to install any other OS on a machine bought from a brick and mortar store and in the future this lock-in could be expanded to all hardware. Basically killing anyone's abilities to change to a Linux based OS if that's what they desire.