The initial qualifying polls seem to show a certain limiting view already. How this claim to be anywhere close to a good measure of "greatest videogame of all time"?
Granted I do realize this isn't at all serious, but having such odd catagorizations for the initial polls seems odd. We have such wonderfully unrelated qualifying polls such as "8-bit / 16-bit platformers" versus "Mario series" and "Mario Kart series". They want to know which "Pokemon series" game we love the most (or possibly hate the most, or have even seen). Who said anything about "Tony Hawk's Pro Skater series" games being some of the best games of all time?
"I.e. since I'm not a doctor, my doctor can prescribe whatever for me, or insist that I do whatever, and I'll take it as scripture. If what he recommends is the stupidest thing in the world, or he's blatantly a horrible doctor, I would have no idea and suffer the consequences. If I were also a doctor, though, I'd be able to call shenanigans the very second he did something wrong. That's why educating the consumer is the most crucial point of this whole issue."
An educated consumer seems nice in theory, but we can't all be lawyers, engineers, scientists and mathematicians. I'm sure if I were a doctor I would have a much better chance of calling the "shenanigans" of another doctor, then again I wouldn't know very much about algorithms or computational analysis.
Regarding your Band-Aid comment: Say you are trying to prevent exploits to faults in your applications. If code obfuscation buys you 8 months of breathing space, while fixing all the faults would leave your application open to attacks for 18 months, I'll take code obfuscation... for now at least.
Obfuscation might be a useful stop gap, a method of increasing the complexity of attacking released products, and probably quite a great deal more. In the end, obfuscation is just another tool -- and in my opinion a useful one.
Live code bases are usually far from ideal, and the problems which arise from maintaining a code base are far from simple: you do what has to be done; whether that is fixing flaws, using a better development process, bolting on boiler plate, or providing quick dirty hacks to fix issues.
"Counterstrike is even older and has a larger number of players online than all of Live."
To take an off the cuff colloquial statistic, PC Counter-Strike seems to average around 50,000 players online at any given time [GameSpy Industries]. The Xbox Live active subscriber base was last quoted to be above 750,000 users as of last month with projections indicating 1,000,000 by summer [Robbie Bach, Microsoft]. Counter-Strike PC claims approximately a 2 million user download base [IGN] of which an indeterminate number are active.
If you mean Counter-Strike has more total users than Live right now, then I would tend to agree. If you are saying that Counter-Strike has more users online at any given time than the entire active Live install base, I would say that is clearly wrong.
All of that being said, in a year I wouldn't be surprised if Xbox Live had more than 2 million active subscribers. That conjecture is not a small thing at all considering that Counter-Strike on PC leverages a portion of the Half-Life install base for free, while Xbox Live leverages a portion of the Xbox install base for a perpetual fee.
I found it interesting that the Xbox Timeline article mentioned:
"Despite the fact that Xbox now trails behind the competition, Takahashi says that he is confident that Microsoft will release a second-generation Xbox. What has changed, however, is the notion that Xbox will be the center point of the livingroom. "I think that the idea that game consoles are going to take over all processing in the livingroom has been tested and has failed," says Takahashi, who continues to cover the games industry for the San Jose Mercury News."
I think it's somewhat premature to say that "the notion that Xbox will be the center point of the livingroom... has been tested and has failed." What failure has occured, is in the creation of an attractive software package for making the Xbox a centre point of the livingroom. It's as if little to no effort was made at all in this respect, yet the Xbox management imply that they tried as best as anyone could and failed at the task.
The Xbox had no PVR functionality, didn't include the DVD player as part of basic package, had no ability to transfer media files (or at least stream media), and has a lack luster though useable interface for media playback. Furthermore, what functionality they did provide in these regards, did not even match what was availible in similar devices at the time. Even as a simple DVD player, it was only adequate at best; lowend DVD players could be obtained at a similar cost of just the Xbox DVD package and offered a better experience.... It's no wonder Xbox didn't succeed as "the centre point of the livingroom."
Depends on how strictly you define what a 64-bit CPU to be. The N64 uses a customized R4300i, which is quite different from the R4000 series -- one of the main differences is that the R4300i has a 32-bit multiplexed address/data bus.
The 64bit PowerPC cores are capable of 64bit load/store, as well as 64bit logic, integer and float point operations.
There has never been a true 64-bit CPU based game console. Even the PS2 uses the MIPS III core with a 128bit bus and 32 128bit GPRs, but it still uses 32bit IPUs as well as 32bit FPUs (in the form of the COP1 coprocessor).
Windows NT 4.0 was designed to highly portable. In fact, Windows NT actually had a PowerPC version back when Motorola was the primary producer of PowerPC cores. Though it would be non-trivial effort to produce an OS for a PowerPC based game console, at least Microsoft wouldn't be working from the ground floor and most likely has retained at least some of the developers which worked on the PowerPC version.
I think there are quite a few people who make that very mistake -- confusing their enjoyment of games with an enjoyment of some game related job. Certainly you need to enjoy games to a certain degree to work on them, but that does not necessarily mean that you'll enjoy any particular job creating, testing, or maintaining them.
Though it seems obvious, a lot of people miss the point that playing games is entirely different than developing games.
Oops, sorry -- I remembered there were three failures, but you're right, "Road To El Dorado" wasn't one of them: it was "The Emperor's New Groove" at box with $87 million over 15 weeks, and a cost of around $100 million dollars.
By that time Disney had already decided to cut traditional animation. If I remember correctly, "Lilo and Stitch" had Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders heading the project which were originally not from the Florida office of Disney -- they were brought on specifically for "Lilo and Stitch".
On another note, it was a nice movie and did quite well in profits -- I wouldn't really call it a "runaway success". It cost a bit under $90 million to make while pulling in $145 million at the box office over the course of 23 weeks. That's hardly a "Lion King" for "Finding Nemo" here -- $328 million and $340 million respectively.
How exactly is this the same "mistake" as the computer game industry? Disney is cutting it's traditional animation division not for any technical reason, nor as some artistic statement on whether 2D animation is better than 3D annimation.
The traditional animation division of Disney has been a financial failure for Disney for several years now. "Road to El Dorado" cost $95 million dollars and has recouped only $50 million dollars. "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" cost Disney over $100 million dollars and ended up with a total box office of $83.5 million dollars at box over the course of 20 weeks. Even adding rentals, which totalled less than $11 million dollars, "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" was entirely a financial failure. What else has the divison produced recently? Treasure Planet in 2002 for a friendly cost of $140 million dollars and has received $38 million at box office and around $4 million from rentals. Would you fund a division that has lost $150 million dollars over the past 3 years on features alone?
Incredible amounts of market research modified scripts have essentially killed North America's last traditional cell animation studio. Disney's cell animation scripts lack direction, coherence, and even an audience (they try to pander to all ages and end up appealing to none).
To reinterate, the fact that the division used traditional cell animation had nothing to do with why the division is being closed. That being said, cell animation in North America has essentially died for now -- Disney was the last major cell animation house on the continent, and yes, that is somewhat sad.
All cellular phones require base-stations to communicate with a telecommunications system. These base-stations are quite deliberately placed as to have contiguous coverage in a given region with a reasonable degree of overlap. The region in which a base-station can service a cellular phone is called a cell; hence the term cellular.
When a cellular phone is in coverage, which is to say when you can actually use your phone to call 911 in the first place, there are usually at least three base-stations which your cellular phone can contact (though it only uses the strongest signal for obvious reasons).
It is true that it takes non-trivial effort to implement triangulation based upon the signal strength of your cellular phone, but it also would take non-trivial effort to put a GPS solution onto a cellular phone. What is more important is which system is more precise, accurate, and reliable -- that would be GPS.
I believe the relavent quotation would be: "There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain. Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." --John F. Kennedy
Going to the moon didn't really make much sense in terms of cost/benefit at the time, but if nothing more, it was quite symbolic of the age. Going to the moon, was in many ways, a direct response to the Soviet space program. It had some similar goals as the recent Chinnese launch -- much of the reason for going to the moon was to demonstrate the US' technological, scientific, and economic strength.
From a more idealistic perspective, it was because the US was given the dream, and challenge, of going to the moon.
John F. Kennedy, Address at Rice University on the Space Effort, September 12, 1962:
President Pitzer, Mr. Vice President, Governor, Congressman Thomas, Senator Wiley, and Congressman Miller, Mr. Webb. Mr. Bell, scientists, distinguished guests, and ladies and gentlemen:
I appreciate your president having made me an honorary visiting professor, and I will assure you that my first lecture will be very brief. I am delighted to be here and I'm particularly delighted to be here on this occasion.
We meet at a college noted for knowledge, in a city noted for progress, in a State noted for strength, and we stand in need of all three, for we meet in an hour of change and challenge, in a decade of hope and fear, in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds.
Despite the striking fact that most of the scientists that the world has ever known are alive and working today, despite the fact that this Nation's own scientific manpower is doubling every 12 years in a rate of growth more than three times that of our population as a whole, despite that, the vast stretches of the unknown and the unanswered and the unfinished still far out-strip our collective comprehension.
No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the 50,000 years of man's recorded history in a time span of but a half century. Stated in these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced man had learned to use the skins of animals to cover them. Then about 10 years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only 5 years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than 2 years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than 2 months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power.
Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now if America's new spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus, we will have literally reached the stars before midnight tonight.
This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old, new ignorance, new problems, new dangers. Surely the opening vistas of space promise high costs and hardships, as well as high reward.
So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to
I don't understand how his is innovation in terms of navigation at all. The web browsers navigation system is the same whether you're using the keyboard, mouse, or even mouse gestures... it's simply another input method. Throwing in voice commands or a touch screen to navigate doesn't change the fact that you're still using back, forward, and history.
In my opinion, Anderson's opinion is quite accurate if perhaps somewhat blunt. Just consider how narrow the subset of graphs, representing a user browsing the web that our current browser history model encompasses. Even the simple case where someone browses a few links deep then decides to go back a few links and browse a different topic looses quiet a bit of information. That difference alone affects browser usage patterns.
Personally, I haven't seen any significant change in the browser navigation system for even longer than Anderson is suggesting. Certainly there have been some nice incremental changes to UI and encoding schemas, but navigation itself has been untouched for... well, longer than I care to remember.
The RIM 950 does not run Windows CE -- it runs a custom proprietary operating system, which was developed, in house. If you don't believe it then read a bit: Operating System API Developer's Guide for Blackberry 2.5 This atrociously incorrect fact aside, I would have to say that this post happens to be somewhat ill informed on several counts.
Isn't it obvious that the only pages I'm looking for would be linked, from pages of a similar nature, with terms relevant to what I'm browsing or looking for? It took this long for advertisers to realise that?
Sheesh!
Seems pretty simple now that someone has actually conceptualized, researched, planned, designed, constructed, tested, updated and maintains it.
You have to respect a company that hires knowledgeable, intelligent, dedicated individuals, which provides a solid useful product while resisting the urge to expand at non-self-sustaining rate. They also have a very firm grasp on that strange pragmatic reality will live in and just for that it will be difficult to compete with them.
That being said, I always find it somewhat odd that a large number of individuals worry about Google's somewhat pivotal role in searching and cataloguing the Internet. Almost every article has some comment pertaining to how the company seemingly holds too much power. But, Google has no shareholders to please, no largely fragmented ownership nor fragmented ideals, no corporate megalomania, or even long history to shape their goals.
If there is anything to worry about, it is that Google's situation will change thus causing there to be a reason for concern. I see worrying about Google as it stands now as a waste of time.
Not ver y enlightening
on
World of Ends
·
· Score: 1
Clarity is certainly a quality one would wish an article to have, but this particular article appears to vastly over-simplify the subject at hand. It offers the reader a few wide reaching statements, which basically amount to precepts, and those, for some strange reason, I generally find obscene. To me, the article simply sounds like a repetition of a set of proverbs and nothing more.
Gary Dahl sold over 1.5 million pet rocks in the 1970s -- I guess those rocks must have been pretty damn exciting since they sold so many right DirkDaring?
I think they were crazy, not for the act of attempting to cut a vegtable or fruit off of someone, but for choosing a person in a standing position, which can move, and an apple which, I would think, does not provide very much feedback. Granted, I've only seen this done three times before, but each time it was someone lying on a table with a bunch of rigid vegtables lying (celery or carrots) on them while the swordsman was blind folded.
Slashdot Mirror
The initial qualifying polls seem to show a certain limiting view already. How this claim to be anywhere close to a good measure of "greatest videogame of all time"?
Granted I do realize this isn't at all serious, but having such odd catagorizations for the initial polls seems odd. We have such wonderfully unrelated qualifying polls such as "8-bit / 16-bit platformers" versus "Mario series" and "Mario Kart series". They want to know which "Pokemon series" game we love the most (or possibly hate the most, or have even seen). Who said anything about "Tony Hawk's Pro Skater series" games being some of the best games of all time?
Strange....
"I.e. since I'm not a doctor, my doctor can prescribe whatever for me, or insist that I do whatever, and I'll take it as scripture. If what he recommends is the stupidest thing in the world, or he's blatantly a horrible doctor, I would have no idea and suffer the consequences. If I were also a doctor, though, I'd be able to call shenanigans the very second he did something wrong. That's why educating the consumer is the most crucial point of this whole issue."
An educated consumer seems nice in theory, but we can't all be lawyers, engineers, scientists and mathematicians. I'm sure if I were a doctor I would have a much better chance of calling the "shenanigans" of another doctor, then again I wouldn't know very much about algorithms or computational analysis.
Regarding your Band-Aid comment:
Say you are trying to prevent exploits to faults in your applications. If code obfuscation buys you 8 months of breathing space, while fixing all the faults would leave your application open to attacks for 18 months, I'll take code obfuscation... for now at least.
Obfuscation might be a useful stop gap, a method of increasing the complexity of attacking released products, and probably quite a great deal more. In the end, obfuscation is just another tool -- and in my opinion a useful one.
Live code bases are usually far from ideal, and the problems which arise from maintaining a code base are far from simple: you do what has to be done; whether that is fixing flaws, using a better development process, bolting on boiler plate, or providing quick dirty hacks to fix issues.
"Counterstrike is even older and has a larger number of players online than all of Live."
To take an off the cuff colloquial statistic, PC Counter-Strike seems to average around 50,000 players online at any given time [GameSpy Industries]. The Xbox Live active subscriber base was last quoted to be above 750,000 users as of last month with projections indicating 1,000,000 by summer [Robbie Bach, Microsoft]. Counter-Strike PC claims approximately a 2 million user download base [IGN] of which an indeterminate number are active.
If you mean Counter-Strike has more total users than Live right now, then I would tend to agree. If you are saying that Counter-Strike has more users online at any given time than the entire active Live install base, I would say that is clearly wrong.
All of that being said, in a year I wouldn't be surprised if Xbox Live had more than 2 million active subscribers. That conjecture is not a small thing at all considering that Counter-Strike on PC leverages a portion of the Half-Life install base for free, while Xbox Live leverages a portion of the Xbox install base for a perpetual fee.
I think it's somewhat premature to say that "the notion that Xbox will be the center point of the livingroom... has been tested and has failed." What failure has occured, is in the creation of an attractive software package for making the Xbox a centre point of the livingroom. It's as if little to no effort was made at all in this respect, yet the Xbox management imply that they tried as best as anyone could and failed at the task.
The Xbox had no PVR functionality, didn't include the DVD player as part of basic package, had no ability to transfer media files (or at least stream media), and has a lack luster though useable interface for media playback. Furthermore, what functionality they did provide in these regards, did not even match what was availible in similar devices at the time. Even as a simple DVD player, it was only adequate at best; lowend DVD players could be obtained at a similar cost of just the Xbox DVD package and offered a better experience.... It's no wonder Xbox didn't succeed as "the centre point of the livingroom."
Depends on how strictly you define what a 64-bit CPU to be. The N64 uses a customized R4300i, which is quite different from the R4000 series -- one of the main differences is that the R4300i has a 32-bit multiplexed address/data bus.
The 64bit PowerPC cores are capable of 64bit load/store, as well as 64bit logic, integer and float point operations.
There has never been a true 64-bit CPU based game console. Even the PS2 uses the MIPS III core with a 128bit bus and 32 128bit GPRs, but it still uses 32bit IPUs as well as 32bit FPUs (in the form of the COP1 coprocessor).
Windows NT 4.0 was designed to highly portable. In fact, Windows NT actually had a PowerPC version back when Motorola was the primary producer of PowerPC cores. Though it would be non-trivial effort to produce an OS for a PowerPC based game console, at least Microsoft wouldn't be working from the ground floor and most likely has retained at least some of the developers which worked on the PowerPC version.
I think there are quite a few people who make that very mistake -- confusing their enjoyment of games with an enjoyment of some game related job. Certainly you need to enjoy games to a certain degree to work on them, but that does not necessarily mean that you'll enjoy any particular job creating, testing, or maintaining them.
Though it seems obvious, a lot of people miss the point that playing games is entirely different than developing games.
Oops, sorry -- I remembered there were three failures, but you're right, "Road To El Dorado" wasn't one of them: it was "The Emperor's New Groove" at box with $87 million over 15 weeks, and a cost of around $100 million dollars.
By that time Disney had already decided to cut traditional animation. If I remember correctly, "Lilo and Stitch" had Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders heading the project which were originally not from the Florida office of Disney -- they were brought on specifically for "Lilo and Stitch".
On another note, it was a nice movie and did quite well in profits -- I wouldn't really call it a "runaway success". It cost a bit under $90 million to make while pulling in $145 million at the box office over the course of 23 weeks. That's hardly a "Lion King" for "Finding Nemo" here -- $328 million and $340 million respectively.
How exactly is this the same "mistake" as the computer game industry? Disney is cutting it's traditional animation division not for any technical reason, nor as some artistic statement on whether 2D animation is better than 3D annimation.
The traditional animation division of Disney has been a financial failure for Disney for several years now. "Road to El Dorado" cost $95 million dollars and has recouped only $50 million dollars. "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" cost Disney over $100 million dollars and ended up with a total box office of $83.5 million dollars at box over the course of 20 weeks. Even adding rentals, which totalled less than $11 million dollars, "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" was entirely a financial failure. What else has the divison produced recently? Treasure Planet in 2002 for a friendly cost of $140 million dollars and has received $38 million at box office and around $4 million from rentals. Would you fund a division that has lost $150 million dollars over the past 3 years on features alone?
Incredible amounts of market research modified scripts have essentially killed North America's last traditional cell animation studio. Disney's cell animation scripts lack direction, coherence, and even an audience (they try to pander to all ages and end up appealing to none).
To reinterate, the fact that the division used traditional cell animation had nothing to do with why the division is being closed. That being said, cell animation in North America has essentially died for now -- Disney was the last major cell animation house on the continent, and yes, that is somewhat sad.
For those more technically inclined I would suggest reading Intel's Hyper-Threading Technology Architecture and Microarchitecture whitepaper instead.
All cellular phones require base-stations to communicate with a telecommunications system. These base-stations are quite deliberately placed as to have contiguous coverage in a given region with a reasonable degree of overlap. The region in which a base-station can service a cellular phone is called a cell; hence the term cellular.
When a cellular phone is in coverage, which is to say when you can actually use your phone to call 911 in the first place, there are usually at least three base-stations which your cellular phone can contact (though it only uses the strongest signal for obvious reasons).
It is true that it takes non-trivial effort to implement triangulation based upon the signal strength of your cellular phone, but it also would take non-trivial effort to put a GPS solution onto a cellular phone. What is more important is which system is more precise, accurate, and reliable -- that would be GPS.
Whoa -- answered the wrong question.
I believe the relavent quotation would be:
"There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain. Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
--John F. Kennedy
Going to the moon didn't really make much sense in terms of cost/benefit at the time, but if nothing more, it was quite symbolic of the age. Going to the moon, was in many ways, a direct response to the Soviet space program. It had some similar goals as the recent Chinnese launch -- much of the reason for going to the moon was to demonstrate the US' technological, scientific, and economic strength.
From a more idealistic perspective, it was because the US was given the dream, and challenge, of going to the moon.
John F. Kennedy,
Address at Rice University on the Space Effort,
September 12, 1962:
President Pitzer, Mr. Vice President, Governor, Congressman Thomas, Senator Wiley, and Congressman Miller, Mr. Webb. Mr. Bell, scientists, distinguished guests, and ladies and gentlemen:
I appreciate your president having made me an honorary visiting professor, and I will assure you that my first lecture will be very brief. I am delighted to be here and I'm particularly delighted to be here on this occasion.
We meet at a college noted for knowledge, in a city noted for progress, in a State noted for strength, and we stand in need of all three, for we meet in an hour of change and challenge, in a decade of hope and fear, in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds.
Despite the striking fact that most of the scientists that the world has ever known are alive and working today, despite the fact that this Nation's own scientific manpower is doubling every 12 years in a rate of growth more than three times that of our population as a whole, despite that, the vast stretches of the unknown and the unanswered and the unfinished still far out-strip our collective comprehension.
No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the 50,000 years of man's recorded history in a time span of but a half century. Stated in these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced man had learned to use the skins of animals to cover them. Then about 10 years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only 5 years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than 2 years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than 2 months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power.
Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now if America's new spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus, we will have literally reached the stars before midnight tonight.
This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old, new ignorance, new problems, new dangers. Surely the opening vistas of space promise high costs and hardships, as well as high reward.
So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to
I don't understand how his is innovation in terms of navigation at all. The web browsers navigation system is the same whether you're using the keyboard, mouse, or even mouse gestures... it's simply another input method. Throwing in voice commands or a touch screen to navigate doesn't change the fact that you're still using back, forward, and history.
In my opinion, Anderson's opinion is quite accurate if perhaps somewhat blunt. Just consider how narrow the subset of graphs, representing a user browsing the web that our current browser history model encompasses. Even the simple case where someone browses a few links deep then decides to go back a few links and browse a different topic looses quiet a bit of information. That difference alone affects browser usage patterns.
Personally, I haven't seen any significant change in the browser navigation system for even longer than Anderson is suggesting. Certainly there have been some nice incremental changes to UI and encoding schemas, but navigation itself has been untouched for... well, longer than I care to remember.
The RIM 950 does not run Windows CE -- it runs a custom proprietary operating system, which was developed, in house. If you don't believe it then read a bit:
Operating System API Developer's Guide for Blackberry 2.5 This atrociously incorrect fact aside, I would have to say that this post happens to be somewhat ill informed on several counts.
Isn't it obvious that the only pages I'm looking for would be linked, from pages of a similar nature, with terms relevant to what I'm browsing or looking for? It took this long for advertisers to realise that?
Sheesh!
Seems pretty simple now that someone has actually conceptualized, researched, planned, designed, constructed, tested, updated and maintains it.
You have to respect a company that hires knowledgeable, intelligent, dedicated individuals, which provides a solid useful product while resisting the urge to expand at non-self-sustaining rate. They also have a very firm grasp on that strange pragmatic reality will live in and just for that it will be difficult to compete with them.
That being said, I always find it somewhat odd that a large number of individuals worry about Google's somewhat pivotal role in searching and cataloguing the Internet. Almost every article has some comment pertaining to how the company seemingly holds too much power. But, Google has no shareholders to please, no largely fragmented ownership nor fragmented ideals, no corporate megalomania, or even long history to shape their goals.
If there is anything to worry about, it is that Google's situation will change thus causing there to be a reason for concern. I see worrying about Google as it stands now as a waste of time.
You need to be a bit more observant.
http://www.google.com/ads/
Clarity is certainly a quality one would wish an article to have, but this particular article appears to vastly over-simplify the subject at hand. It offers the reader a few wide reaching statements, which basically amount to precepts, and those, for some strange reason, I generally find obscene. To me, the article simply sounds like a repetition of a set of proverbs and nothing more.
Gary Dahl sold over 1.5 million pet rocks in the 1970s -- I guess those rocks must have been pretty damn exciting since they sold so many right DirkDaring?
Sort of like this then?
7 -22
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-0
I think they were crazy, not for the act of attempting to cut a vegtable or fruit off of someone, but for choosing a person in a standing position, which can move, and an apple which, I would think, does not provide very much feedback. Granted, I've only seen this done three times before, but each time it was someone lying on a table with a bunch of rigid vegtables lying (celery or carrots) on them while the swordsman was blind folded.
"Should we stop making gaming sites because Gabe & Tycho at Penny Arcade might not like it?"
Yes, yes we should.