If you don't dogfood your own tech why should I care to use it or believe it's any good? If it was so great and wonderful then the Valve people would be the first using it since they supposedly so lament how keybard and mice apparently haven't changed much. I'll also ditch my desktop and large screens for touchscreen iPads to do my work the moment Apple's own engineers do so. Since it's highly doubtful they will do so, I see no need to subject myself to such a poorly responsive and non-ergonomic interfaces in this 'post-pc world'.
Why wouldn't the console and PC versions of a game share lots of code? It would be dumb to not write your game in a way that plenty of the code has no need to be rewritten when ported. Why having portable code is a bad thing in your mind is interesting to say the least.
When Valve's own people stop using keyboards and mice to do their work then I'll believe they aren't just trying to foist a solution looking for a problem.
So there is all this science behind your idea yet you don't provide any of it. You just lash out like a petulant child trying to act cool because "I mades mockups!!!".
Free speech in the US has limits such as when it comes to malicious defamation.
Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch
on
The Case Against DNA
·
· Score: 1
Which is why juries should be far more skeptical than they are of evidence offered by the prosecution in light of the numerous documented cases of wrongful conviction that has stolen countless years from people and in some cases their life. Too many people view their job on a jury in a criminal case as being nothing more than to get a conviction in. This is not to say they should just believe anything the defense says, but one side has a much larger amount of power that can potentially ruin innocent lives versus the other.
Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch
on
The Case Against DNA
·
· Score: 1
Not outright, but when shows like CSI will often wrap up at the point of finding DNA evidence and having the police arresting the suspect the audience never really gets exposed to the other side of things. Thus, they are left with an inaccurate perception whether or not it was intentional on the part of the show writers versus just being a convenient way to wrap up.
Sure, if the standpoint was that all DNA evidence was faulty and wrong, but that isn't the point. Is is merely about how people should be more skeptical and questioning of DNA evidence validity on convicting someone. It's not saying DNA evidence should never be used or accepted.
Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch
on
The Case Against DNA
·
· Score: 2
Yes. Pop culture has been shown to have had a huge effect on how juries view DNA evidence or its lack thereof in a case. It's pretty well documented at this point.
Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch
on
The Case Against DNA
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but many on a jury are still more likely to be swayed by the prosecution if they have DNA evidence on their side versus some defense expert throwing probabilities and other things at them that goes over most people's heads. It's an unfortunate reality.
Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch
on
The Case Against DNA
·
· Score: 2
No, no one is blaming Americans. CSI is just a convenient example considering it's the most watched show internationally. Stop being such a pedant about that specific sentence. They could have said 'Shows like Midsomer Murders' but do you think more or less people would have heard of that versus CSI? Even people who don't watch CSI can tell tou what it is whereas the other would get you mostly blank stares.
Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch
on
The Case Against DNA
·
· Score: 1
Bcause CSI is shown in the UK and in dozens of other countries so it's a convenient example that most people would have heard of. Midsomer Murders has used DNA evidence just as misleading as CSI but it eould have had less recognition than a show that is one of the highest rated and most watched shows worldwide.
Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch
on
The Case Against DNA
·
· Score: 1
Juries were be misled by the supposed infallibility of DNA evidence long before shows like CSI existed, though shows like CSI have definitely only served to make things worse.
Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch
on
The Case Against DNA
·
· Score: 2
Prosecutors themselves tend to be at fault for this, too. They will eiteher highly downplay the probabilities part or will outright not mention that DNA matching is not exact. Pop culture is surely a big part of the claim but its abuse by police and prosecutors should not be understated.
Yes, but it's not just CSI that has played up the whole DNA evidence angle. It pops up in movies, other television shows, mystery novels, etc. Only focusing on the 'shows like CSI' is missing the point and shows ounare just being an obtuse pedant.
Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch
on
The Case Against DNA
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Why is an unrealistic American television show being referenced about a case in Liverpool by a UK news source? Is horrible American television that prevalent?
Because you're being an intentionally obtuse pedant. First of all, the statement said 'shows like CSI' and if you think international crime shows don't use DNA evidence the same way you're quite naive. The specific show wasn't the point and the reason this is a problem is that popular culture shows has inflated DNA evidence as being some 100% accurate measure of guilt such that juries now will demand DNA evidence in order to even fathom the idea that the persn was guilty. Also, theynare easily misled by DNA evodence in wrongfully convicting people since they don't understand the probabilities or other curcumstances involved that could lead to the DNA being at the crime scene. Hell, The Independent in the UK wrote an article about juries being misled by DNA evidence back in 1994.
Also, yes, CSI has aired internationally for many years with the U.K. being one of those places. Many American shows air internationally. That this is somehow news to you is hilarious.
It's easy to be the fastest growing when the sales on the platform were in the shitter for years and was a tiny fraction of console sales. Also, where are your stats to prove this? This claim keeps being made but with no evidence while the game comanies are saying otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't dogfood your own tech why should I care to use it or believe it's any good? If it was so great and wonderful then the Valve people would be the first using it since they supposedly so lament how keybard and mice apparently haven't changed much. I'll also ditch my desktop and large screens for touchscreen iPads to do my work the moment Apple's own engineers do so. Since it's highly doubtful they will do so, I see no need to subject myself to such a poorly responsive and non-ergonomic interfaces in this 'post-pc world'.
Why wouldn't the console and PC versions of a game share lots of code? It would be dumb to not write your game in a way that plenty of the code has no need to be rewritten when ported. Why having portable code is a bad thing in your mind is interesting to say the least.
I hate to break it to you but tank treads do use wheels. How do you think the tread moves? Have you ever seen a tank before?
When Valve's own people stop using keyboards and mice to do their work then I'll believe they aren't just trying to foist a solution looking for a problem.
And that has plenty of reviews about it not being very good.
Just because you thought of it doesn't mean that it's a revolutionary idea that will change the nature of gaming mice.
But he's made mockups!! Stop spouting bs! </sarcasm>
So there is all this science behind your idea yet you don't provide any of it. You just lash out like a petulant child trying to act cool because "I mades mockups!!!".
The Internet Tough Guy act is pretty lame just so you know. No one is impressed by the fact that you can make a mockup. Any dipshit can.
Free speech in the US has limits such as when it comes to malicious defamation.
Which is why juries should be far more skeptical than they are of evidence offered by the prosecution in light of the numerous documented cases of wrongful conviction that has stolen countless years from people and in some cases their life. Too many people view their job on a jury in a criminal case as being nothing more than to get a conviction in. This is not to say they should just believe anything the defense says, but one side has a much larger amount of power that can potentially ruin innocent lives versus the other.
Not outright, but when shows like CSI will often wrap up at the point of finding DNA evidence and having the police arresting the suspect the audience never really gets exposed to the other side of things. Thus, they are left with an inaccurate perception whether or not it was intentional on the part of the show writers versus just being a convenient way to wrap up.
Sure, if the standpoint was that all DNA evidence was faulty and wrong, but that isn't the point. Is is merely about how people should be more skeptical and questioning of DNA evidence validity on convicting someone. It's not saying DNA evidence should never be used or accepted.
Yes. Pop culture has been shown to have had a huge effect on how juries view DNA evidence or its lack thereof in a case. It's pretty well documented at this point.
Yes, but many on a jury are still more likely to be swayed by the prosecution if they have DNA evidence on their side versus some defense expert throwing probabilities and other things at them that goes over most people's heads. It's an unfortunate reality.
No, no one is blaming Americans. CSI is just a convenient example considering it's the most watched show internationally. Stop being such a pedant about that specific sentence. They could have said 'Shows like Midsomer Murders' but do you think more or less people would have heard of that versus CSI? Even people who don't watch CSI can tell tou what it is whereas the other would get you mostly blank stares.
Bcause CSI is shown in the UK and in dozens of other countries so it's a convenient example that most people would have heard of. Midsomer Murders has used DNA evidence just as misleading as CSI but it eould have had less recognition than a show that is one of the highest rated and most watched shows worldwide.
Juries were be misled by the supposed infallibility of DNA evidence long before shows like CSI existed, though shows like CSI have definitely only served to make things worse.
Prosecutors themselves tend to be at fault for this, too. They will eiteher highly downplay the probabilities part or will outright not mention that DNA matching is not exact. Pop culture is surely a big part of the claim but its abuse by police and prosecutors should not be understated.
Yes, but it's not just CSI that has played up the whole DNA evidence angle. It pops up in movies, other television shows, mystery novels, etc. Only focusing on the 'shows like CSI' is missing the point and shows ounare just being an obtuse pedant.
Why is an unrealistic American television show being referenced about a case in Liverpool by a UK news source? Is horrible American television that prevalent?
Because you're being an intentionally obtuse pedant. First of all, the statement said 'shows like CSI' and if you think international crime shows don't use DNA evidence the same way you're quite naive. The specific show wasn't the point and the reason this is a problem is that popular culture shows has inflated DNA evidence as being some 100% accurate measure of guilt such that juries now will demand DNA evidence in order to even fathom the idea that the persn was guilty. Also, theynare easily misled by DNA evodence in wrongfully convicting people since they don't understand the probabilities or other curcumstances involved that could lead to the DNA being at the crime scene. Hell, The Independent in the UK wrote an article about juries being misled by DNA evidence back in 1994.
Also, yes, CSI has aired internationally for many years with the U.K. being one of those places. Many American shows air internationally. That this is somehow news to you is hilarious.
Yes, and he asserted it with zero evidence.
It's easy to be the fastest growing when the sales on the platform were in the shitter for years and was a tiny fraction of console sales. Also, where are your stats to prove this? This claim keeps being made but with no evidence while the game comanies are saying otherwise.
And it was my words, too. You basically were nitpicking some minor word choice to try to claim I was wrong in my statement.
As a very smart person once said:
Just because security does not require that something be kept secret, it doesn't mean that it is automatically smart to publicize it.
Unfortunately, if an attacker is looking for you and already knows your service is there, you'd better have a more reliable defensive plan available.
Which is why your system should always involve defense in depth.