Because I suspect that they got their telemetry data from one or more of those annoying "user experience" trackers that I always opt out of... as do many people who make their living on a computer.
If so, then I'm guessing their data set is missing some crucial telemetry from the people who use explorer more than anyone else.
I'm completely in favor of improving the functionality of explorer but it seems like every time they make an improvement they permanently remove a function I frequently used.
Removing the giant preview bar at the bottom = good.
Replacing it as well as the menu with a piece of shit ribbon that takes up even more space? = That's fucked up and stupid!
And for the pro-ribbon folks out there: I want the speed and functionality of the Windows NT 4.0 Explorer (pre-IE4 integration) and its simple index, with the security and stability of Windows 7. And I really don't know why we can't have it both ways. Let's have the ribbon and/or the standard menu be optional. Just because most interfaces are looking more and more like kiosks, doesn't mean that all of us like the change. I'm posting this with Google Chrome and if it had a menu, I would turn it on.
You are correct! This "Microsoft controls Netflix" line of thinking is a bit silly. In order to use Netflix on the Xbox360 you have to be a an Xbox Live Gold member. Silver (basic) memberships are not allowed. This means that you have to pay an extra $60 per year to watch movies on your Xbox360 in addition to any fees that you might already pay to Netflix. It is my understanding that there are no such restrictions on the Wii and PS3 consoles. That would imply that Microsoft does NOT want Netflix users on its consoles unless we pay extra.
This was true for me until very recently. I only currently have a Gold membership because I bought it at a deep discount during a "This weekend only" deal. Now, because my PC and my TV use the same monitor, I can watch Netflix from either my PC or my Xbox360. Because of this, I can easily see the limitations of the Xbox360/Netflix interface. So while I have yet to decide if I will renew my Xbox Live subscription, considering multi-player doesn't interest me, if the interface for Netflix on the Xbox360 continues to be as clunky and slow as it is now a renewal of my Xbox Live Gold subscription is unlikely. That doesn't sound like Microsoft has much control over Nexflix to me.
The source of the article was from a website called The Daily Load and is in the same vein as The Onion or The Daily Mash, all of its articles are completely made up.
The Daily Load is a satire news site that has the line “because the real news sucks” right in it’s header, yet this story caught fire and was reposted around the internet, eventually picked up by legitimate news sources.
I, for one, am the complete opposite. While I am not lacking in friends, I have no desire to be trampled in the multiplayerverse. My skill level for gaming usually requires me to play most games on easy or medium for them to be enjoyable. Otherwise I spend all of my time dying rather than playing. So if multiplayer is your thing, great! But, as others have stated already, multiplayer usually requires a certain skill level that I frankly have no desire to obtain. I will always want a single player game, and I have very little interest in a multiplayer version of any game. And good luck playing your favorite multiplayer game one year, five years, or ten years down the road - the servers will have gone cold and your days of enjoying that game will be over. I, on the other hand, will still be able to go back and play my favorite single player games. (providing that the required hardware still works of course)
A single-player game does not need to be challenging to be fun. It doesn't actually have to be hard to complete.
As a non-gamer, I'm curious to know some examples of this. I've largely stayed away from gaming after deciding at an early age that I wasn't very good at video games (e.g. Gorf and Omega Race on Vic-20!), but I'm intrigued by what I've heard about modern games (in terms of storytelling and whatnot), and I'd like to experience it provided that I can actually make it through the game with minimal frustration.
Some of the non an not-too difficult but loads of fun games are Portal(Half-Life Orange Box), Oblivion, Halo, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Knights of the Old Republic, and Grim Fandango. However, since Grim Fandango was released in 1998 and designed to run on Windows95/98 it may require a bit of searching to find a copy and some system tweaking to get it to play correctly on a newer system. There are plenty of others as well that are still sold in stores such as: Command and Conquer - The First Decade, Diablo(1 & 2), Starcraft, and Warcraft(1, 2, & 3). All of these games I mention can be played on a PC and some can be played on a Mac and or the XBOX 360 too.
I personally never play multiplayer games, the concept never appealed to me, but I play video games quite regularly. I rarely set the difficulty higher than Easy because I play for entertainment, not the challenge.
The fact that Apple and Amazon.com are both corporations is irrelevant. It's a safe bet that all or nearly all major publishers are corporations. The issue is how both of these companies have tried to control the type of content that can be viewed on their devices. This is especially interesting in Amazon's case, considering that they have no difficulty selling paper books with objectionable content. It's only when that content started showing up on their devices and there was a perceived impression of liability did they start having a problem with it.
This would probably also be the case if CD, DVD, and Blueray disks were only produced by one manufacturer. That company, being the only source for for the disks, would then have a perceived responsibility to the content of their product, even if they played no role in the production of that content.
The solution should be obvious; ultimate control of the software on these devices needs to be the responsibility of the consumer. Only then will we regain the freedoms that make devices like the iPod, iPad, and the Kindle great. Interestingly, it's quite well known that the reason that both VHS videotape and IBM personal computers were so successful was because their licensing terms were both reasonable and affordable. Because of that freedom both of those products were allowed to grow beyond the confines of their original designs. What Apple and Amazon are doing is trying to control the hardware, software, and the content that appears on their devices. This is classic Command & Control behavior.
Remember those two words: Command & Control. You will see and hear them again. Command & Control describes a managing and organizing style that seeks to manipulate both the product and the customer. Companies that behave in this manner should be avoided whenever possible.
First of all lets make one think perfectly clear: we are talking about educational materials where taxpayer dollars were spent to produce them. This would not and could not have any impact on works that were created with private funding.
WOW! Hackable? Really? Hackable?
(You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. - Inego Montoya; The Princess Bride)
If you mean that once it is in the public domain anyone could edit it: then you would be correct. If, on the other hand, you are implying that allowing anyone, and everyone, to read and rewrite a book would soon result in a vandalized tome that is completely useless: then you would be very, very, wrong.
Open source is not the same as a wiki. While it is true that many wiki's, like Wikipedia, could be considered open source, Many of them are not. Several companies use them as a collaboration tool. The public never sees these and they certainly could not be considered open source.
Open source simply means that anyone who is interested in contributing, and can adhere to the license agreement, may edit the open source item and submit the changes for the latest version. Open source also means that a person or a group can modify the software or text and turn it into their own creation. The latter choice, however, does not remove the requirement to adhere to the license agreement so long as any part of the open source material remains.
As far as open source being hackable goes: anyone who thinks Linux (an open source operating system) is less secure than the operating systems offered by Microsoft or Apple is truly misinformed.
I personally think this is a great idea. Schools could select a text for their curriculum and allow their students to decide if they need a printed copy or not. If the student decides they do want a printed copy, they could also purchase a copy from their school bookstore or from an approved publisher. It would save costs to the schools and it would save costs for the students.
This would not preclude schools from choosing a more traditional textbook or scholars from writing them. Open source would simply allow more options.
Slashdot Mirror
Therefore, I predict that it will tie in closely with Facebook, something I also think is dumb, and be a huge market success.
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who noticed. The article seems more like an ad campaign than a consumer interest essay.
If so, then I'm guessing their data set is missing some crucial telemetry from the people who use explorer more than anyone else.
I'm completely in favor of improving the functionality of explorer but it seems like every time they make an improvement they permanently remove a function I frequently used.
Removing the giant preview bar at the bottom = good.
Replacing it as well as the menu with a piece of shit ribbon that takes up even more space? = That's fucked up and stupid!
And for the pro-ribbon folks out there: I want the speed and functionality of the Windows NT 4.0 Explorer (pre-IE4 integration) and its simple index, with the security and stability of Windows 7. And I really don't know why we can't have it both ways. Let's have the ribbon and/or the standard menu be optional. Just because most interfaces are looking more and more like kiosks, doesn't mean that all of us like the change. I'm posting this with Google Chrome and if it had a menu, I would turn it on.
Meant to say iPod not iPad.
Yes, but just like Windows: the iPad is closed source. Android is not. And Android has already surpassed the iPhone in sales. http://gigaom.com/apple/iphone-flat-in-u-s-as-android-takes-market-share-lead/
You are correct! This "Microsoft controls Netflix" line of thinking is a bit silly. In order to use Netflix on the Xbox360 you have to be a an Xbox Live Gold member. Silver (basic) memberships are not allowed. This means that you have to pay an extra $60 per year to watch movies on your Xbox360 in addition to any fees that you might already pay to Netflix. It is my understanding that there are no such restrictions on the Wii and PS3 consoles. That would imply that Microsoft does NOT want Netflix users on its consoles unless we pay extra.
This was true for me until very recently. I only currently have a Gold membership because I bought it at a deep discount during a "This weekend only" deal. Now, because my PC and my TV use the same monitor, I can watch Netflix from either my PC or my Xbox360. Because of this, I can easily see the limitations of the Xbox360/Netflix interface. So while I have yet to decide if I will renew my Xbox Live subscription, considering multi-player doesn't interest me, if the interface for Netflix on the Xbox360 continues to be as clunky and slow as it is now a renewal of my Xbox Live Gold subscription is unlikely. That doesn't sound like Microsoft has much control over Nexflix to me.
The source of the article was from a website called The Daily Load and is in the same vein as The Onion or The Daily Mash, all of its articles are completely made up.
Here is a post from the site stating their surprise that anyone took them seriously. http://www.thedailyload.com/bourbon-powered-car-a-hoax/
The Daily Load is a satire news site that has the line “because the real news sucks” right in it’s header, yet this story caught fire and was reposted around the internet, eventually picked up by legitimate news sources.
I, for one, am the complete opposite. While I am not lacking in friends, I have no desire to be trampled in the multiplayerverse. My skill level for gaming usually requires me to play most games on easy or medium for them to be enjoyable. Otherwise I spend all of my time dying rather than playing. So if multiplayer is your thing, great! But, as others have stated already, multiplayer usually requires a certain skill level that I frankly have no desire to obtain. I will always want a single player game, and I have very little interest in a multiplayer version of any game. And good luck playing your favorite multiplayer game one year, five years, or ten years down the road - the servers will have gone cold and your days of enjoying that game will be over. I, on the other hand, will still be able to go back and play my favorite single player games. (providing that the required hardware still works of course)
A single-player game does not need to be challenging to be fun. It doesn't actually have to be hard to complete.
As a non-gamer, I'm curious to know some examples of this. I've largely stayed away from gaming after deciding at an early age that I wasn't very good at video games (e.g. Gorf and Omega Race on Vic-20!), but I'm intrigued by what I've heard about modern games (in terms of storytelling and whatnot), and I'd like to experience it provided that I can actually make it through the game with minimal frustration.
Some of the non an not-too difficult but loads of fun games are Portal(Half-Life Orange Box), Oblivion, Halo, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Knights of the Old Republic, and Grim Fandango. However, since Grim Fandango was released in 1998 and designed to run on Windows95/98 it may require a bit of searching to find a copy and some system tweaking to get it to play correctly on a newer system. There are plenty of others as well that are still sold in stores such as: Command and Conquer - The First Decade, Diablo(1 & 2), Starcraft, and Warcraft(1, 2, & 3). All of these games I mention can be played on a PC and some can be played on a Mac and or the XBOX 360 too.
I personally never play multiplayer games, the concept never appealed to me, but I play video games quite regularly. I rarely set the difficulty higher than Easy because I play for entertainment, not the challenge.
The fact that Apple and Amazon.com are both corporations is irrelevant. It's a safe bet that all or nearly all major publishers are corporations. The issue is how both of these companies have tried to control the type of content that can be viewed on their devices. This is especially interesting in Amazon's case, considering that they have no difficulty selling paper books with objectionable content. It's only when that content started showing up on their devices and there was a perceived impression of liability did they start having a problem with it. This would probably also be the case if CD, DVD, and Blueray disks were only produced by one manufacturer. That company, being the only source for for the disks, would then have a perceived responsibility to the content of their product, even if they played no role in the production of that content. The solution should be obvious; ultimate control of the software on these devices needs to be the responsibility of the consumer. Only then will we regain the freedoms that make devices like the iPod, iPad, and the Kindle great. Interestingly, it's quite well known that the reason that both VHS videotape and IBM personal computers were so successful was because their licensing terms were both reasonable and affordable. Because of that freedom both of those products were allowed to grow beyond the confines of their original designs. What Apple and Amazon are doing is trying to control the hardware, software, and the content that appears on their devices. This is classic Command & Control behavior. Remember those two words: Command & Control. You will see and hear them again. Command & Control describes a managing and organizing style that seeks to manipulate both the product and the customer. Companies that behave in this manner should be avoided whenever possible.
I find it far more shocking that this is something new! I thought of this several years ago and I figured this kind of hardware was already relatively widespread. Isn't 'hiding in plain sight' a proven military strategy? And if this is truly the first instance of a rig like this then our military engineers need to play with Transformers© toys a little more often.
Oops!
"one think" should have been "one thing"
Damn you similarly spelled words!
First of all lets make one think perfectly clear: we are talking about educational materials where taxpayer dollars were spent to produce them. This would not and could not have any impact on works that were created with private funding.
WOW! Hackable? Really? Hackable?
(You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. - Inego Montoya; The Princess Bride)
If you mean that once it is in the public domain anyone could edit it: then you would be correct. If, on the other hand, you are implying that allowing anyone, and everyone, to read and rewrite a book would soon result in a vandalized tome that is completely useless: then you would be very, very, wrong.
Open source is not the same as a wiki. While it is true that many wiki's, like Wikipedia, could be considered open source, Many of them are not. Several companies use them as a collaboration tool. The public never sees these and they certainly could not be considered open source.
Open source simply means that anyone who is interested in contributing, and can adhere to the license agreement, may edit the open source item and submit the changes for the latest version. Open source also means that a person or a group can modify the software or text and turn it into their own creation. The latter choice, however, does not remove the requirement to adhere to the license agreement so long as any part of the open source material remains.
As far as open source being hackable goes: anyone who thinks Linux (an open source operating system) is less secure than the operating systems offered by Microsoft or Apple is truly misinformed.
I personally think this is a great idea. Schools could select a text for their curriculum and allow their students to decide if they need a printed copy or not. If the student decides they do want a printed copy, they could also purchase a copy from their school bookstore or from an approved publisher. It would save costs to the schools and it would save costs for the students.
This would not preclude schools from choosing a more traditional textbook or scholars from writing them. Open source would simply allow more options.