While they are producing some good stuff now (lets not talk about the past will we) they are a commercial company.
Isn't "commercial company" a little redundant? Companies (in the economic sense) exist to conduct business. "Business" is synonymous with "commerce", the base of "commercial". Or in otherwords, a non-commercial company would not conduct business, and thus cannot be a company (it would be an organization instead).
Did you not notice the category of the story? This is a story for gamers, and most serious gamers know what Parsec is. If you don't know what it is, the editor provided a very handy link to the site. How can you be too lazy to click the link, but have the energy for half a page of criticism?
So because I'm not a "serious" gamer, I shouldn't bother reading this story? Or maybe I am a serious gamer, but I don't often play space simulations? As well, by the time I got to this story (literally less than an hour after it was posted), the site was down. Slashdotted. Great, how am I supposed to figure out what "Parsec" is now?
However, I was not the one with the initial complaint. Mine followed Timothy off-topic as he made a flippant reply to a post criticizing Slashdot's editorial integrity. Try looking at usernames next time so that you don't confuse posters.
Also his insult was in reply to an insult, but you didn't care to take the AC to task for the same flaw that you faulted the editor with.
Is it really an insult when it's true, though? I found the anonymous coward's post to be witty and insightful, rather than insulting and trollish. Had I any moderation points (and for some reason, it's been a very long while since I have had any... hrm), I would've moderated the post rather than reply. However, I don't, so I didn't, and did the next best thing -- reply to Timothy's flippant post, voicing my own concerns and issues that are mirrored by both the super-parent of this thread and the anonymous coward that agreed with him.
You people take this site and yourselves way too seriously.
Who exactly was complaining about moderation issues? I certainly wasn't. I agree this is off-topic, but there is no on-topic place to discuss it. A major gripe that I've had, and that many others have had (play this down as "a vocal minority" if you will, but we're just the people who voice the concerns others have) is that the Slashdot editors seem to not take their jobs seriously. You (collective "you", not necessarily you in particular, though you're as guilty as the rest) have consistently and constantly posted duplicate stories (triplicates sometimes!), poorly written stories that totally miss the point of the target news items, editorials with horrendous spelling and grammatical mistakes (I'm sure I'll make some, so I probably shouldn't talk, but I do make an effort to keep my posts clear of such errors), un-called for editorial additions to stories that don't warrant it, not adding editorial additions to stories that do (how often do you post stories about some new product, toy, or technology where not everybody knows what it is, nor is it obvious from the name, and the site has been taken down due to the Slashdot effect so no-one can figure out what the story was about anyway?), irresponsibly linking to small sites causing them to have outrageous bandwidth bills (blah blah if you don't want to be linked, don't put up a web site blah blah whatever), and more.
These are not things that can be solved with code, a trap many geeks fall into way too often. It's a people issue, and that's exactly what we're complaining about -- people. Most editors refuse to acknowledge that there's a problem (example: Rob's lengthy diary entry goes on and on about moderation issues and changes, without ever once touching on the inability of his editorial staff to keep up to date on what stories have been run so as to avoid duplicating posts), or worse think it's just all a big joke (how many times have we seen something along the lines of "Yeah, yeah, this story's a duplicate, whatever" in an update to a duplicate story?).
Like it or not, "Rob's personal site" is big, and has a huge user base. As an editor of the site, your concerns should lie with making as many users as happy as possible. You can't make everybody happy all of the time, but you can damned well try. When it comes down to it, we're the people that visit the ads and pay for the subscriptions. Without us, Slashdot would be in even more dire financial straits than it already is. (Extrapolating from the financial woes of parent company VA WhateverThey'reCalledNow, and not with any concrete information about Slashdot's financial well-being, save that without a large user base in the first place, VA * would never have been interested in Slashdot to begin with.)
Could you maybe once address your users' concerns? It may be a little difficult for you to grasp, but the real world is not black and white. Liking a site does not mean that a person doesn't have opinions on what's good or bad about how a site is run, just as a person may dislike a site yet still believe it is doing some things right (for example, Kuro5hin -- I dislike the site because of the extreme leftist/socialist viewpoint espoused by both the staff and the readers/contributors, but I think it's a very well-done site and is run much better than Slashdot). Here's a thought -- run a poll along the lines of, "Do you have any gripes with the way we run Slashdot? Yes/No" and see what happens. Now, take the number of "Yes" answers and assume those are users that would leave Slashdot if they followed your implicit advice. Where does that leave your userbase? What about the comments (ie, the lifeblood of Slashdot -- without comments, Slashdot would never have become popular in the first place), since the people who are likely to answer a poll are also likely to post a comment? Can you afford to lose such a large chunk of users (and make no mistake, you will get a large number of "yes" answers so long as the question is worded fairly)?
We're not necessarily asking that you change anything (although I'm sure most of us wouldn't mind if the Slashdot editors would periodically read their own site to avoid duplicates, or run their stories through a spelling checker before posting). Simply acknowledge that you've heard our problems, and explain to us why you're not planning on changing anything if the concerns are valid (and no side-stepping, saying something along the lines of, "Slashdot is just Rob's personal site that happens to enjoy some popularity"). Is that so hard to do? Apparently, because all we get are one-liner comments that insult ("you must be an idiot if you have problems with the management and yet are still here") or ignore the problems.
I should've been more clear. What I gave was my (anally retentive) method for keeping IE windows how I want them. Window sizes are defined in a couple ways (just from my observations, and not from any special knowledge of IE internals):
When you close a window, the size is remembered. (there appears to be some sort of special case for pop-up windows, as they generally don't affect the size of your windows, though they will affect placement.)
When you create a new window with ctrl-n or File\New\New Window, the window size is taken from the creating window. By using this together with the first method, you're guaranteed that IE is creating windows in the size you wish (because you created one like that) and that will be the new default (because you closed that window).
Therefore, in my anal retentiveness about IE window sizes, to make 100% sure that IE picks up the right window size I want and sets it as the default (and to make sure new window placing is how I want it as well, like I said -- anally retentive:), I kill all of the odd-sized windows, size my main window to how I want it, and then ctrl-n to create a new window of the size I like, which also resets the positioning, and kill it. This way, I know that my IE will always be in the size and position I choose, and I know exactly how to get it back to what I prefer when one of those asshat web developers out there choose to screw it up for me because they think I should be looking at their Top50 porn site lists with a maximized browser window.
It is fixable, as I fix it all the time -- close all but one IE window (not strictly necessary to do this step), resize it to how you prefer, and then hit "ctrl-N" to open a new IE window. That will then record the current size of the window as the new default, and all new windows should pop up at that size. Personally, when I'm browsing sites that have the potential to screw up my window sizing/placement, I like to shift-click the links to bring up new windows. That way, if the window is resized weirdly, I can always close it and hit ctrl-n on the original window that didn't change size, and everything's back to normal.
As for maximizing an IE window and then opening a new one, it does what you'd expect -- the new window is maximized. If IE isn't really maximized, but in the wonky "not-really-maximized" size, it won't open a new window as maximized (because it's not maximized).
And if the methods are there because they have to be to implement an interface, but they return some "Not Yet Implemented" error or exception? How do you handle that with your compiler? I agree with you that they could've accomplished their goal in a much simpler fashion (one test for each API that only fails if NYI is thrown, regardless of any other exceptions or error codes). However, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have re-written the software. They identified issues with extending the existing software, and if they had problems then surely plenty of other people are having problems as well. Assuming that they weren't on a schedule so tight as to prohibit it, they should then do the "right" thing and fix what's broken not only for their current use, but also for their future use and the use of others.
Sorry, I was a windows and DOS user first and then moved to unix.
And there's your problem. If you're still thinking of scripting in Windows in terms of DOS batch programming, you're seriously missing out on some very powerful scripting tools. Look into WSH (Windows Scripting Host) sometime (blah blah WSH is a home for viruses blah blah, whatever). WSH let's you use any COM object that implements IDispatch. That means developers interested in automating their apps don't need to deal with handling commandline options (though you can certainly use those) or redirected stdin input (you can do that as well). All they need to do is implement IDispatch on their automatable objects, and they're immediately scriptable. That means that I don't need passwd or some perl module to programmatically change a password in Windows -- all I need to do is create an object and call a method or two. A classic example is doing something like automating password expiration on next login for 50,000+ users. The unix approach is to use passwd, a perl module, or similar utility driven by a shell script. The Windows approach is to iterate over the user objects in a WSH script and call a method on each object. Ask a unix admin to do this in Windows and he'll complain about lack of a passwd utility. Ask a (good) Windows admin to do this in unix and he'll have no idea where to start because there is no automation object for unix users. (exceptions made for unix admins that understand Windows and Windows admins that understand unix.)
The scripting I spoke of in Longhorn/Blackcomb is more of a command shell replacement/batch script replacement that will integrate properly with.NET objects and probably superceded WSH. However, just because that's coming doesn't mean that current scriptability is sub-par.
No, it's not. My task bar is two rows high, one for app buttons, one for toolbars. The Start button is on the top row, not the bottom one.
You're right, I missed this case because I never use a stretched-out taskbar. Quick Launch goes over on the side of the screen, single-line taskbar goes at the bottom. In its single-line configuration, the start button is infinitely deep along the screen edges (again, at least in the Luna theme, maybe not in classic).
It has nothing to do with IE. Many applications open windows that way. Part of the problem is that Windows allows this pseudo-maximisation without detecting that the window occupies the full desktop (or maybe almost all of it, with some tolerance) and snapping it into true maximised mode.
True, but I've never seen any app psuedo-maximized other than IE when browsing "bad" (*cough*pr0n*cough*) sites. IE shouldn't allow that, or should allow for some way to programmatically go maximized via script if people must have this feature. (I guess on lower resolution screens, you might have windows that open up covering the entire desktop without being maximized, but XP won't let you run in anything less than 800x600 unless you really force it). Yes, maybe Windows should do some sort of detection on almost-maximized windows. I bet you could write a small app that would do that.
None of this changes the fact that the rounded corners suck from a usability perspective anyway. Some of us tile windows side-by-side when using two versions of the same program on different documents. Your window isn't maximised, but you still have cornering issues.
If you're running tiled, the worst that can happen is you click on the space under the window. However, the rounding of the corners is only a few pixels, so you have to really be mousing for it to hit that. Anyway, if you don't like rounded windows, dosomethingaboutit (btw, the tgtsoft page has the freely-available uxtheme patcher, so you can patch your uxtheme.dll and use different visual styles without having to buy StyleXP).
The inclusion of a unix shell on top of all that not only makes it more useable than windows. but lets you do things in a few keystrokes that would require hundreds of lines of C++ code to do in windows.
This only true if you don't know how to script in Windows. The problem most Unix users run into when moving to Windows (and Windows users, when moving to Unix) is that the scriptability is different between each OS. Unix (and the underlying core of OS X) scripting tends towards small apps that do one thing, and are piped together with shell script. Windows can do this using batch/cmd scripting, but it's not as powerful as sh scripting. Windows, on the other hand, uses WSH and an object model for most scripting tasks. Most things are as simple as creating an object and invoking some methods on that object. Unix uses this model to some extent with scripting languages like perl, but it's much more important in day-to-day Windows administration than it is in Unix, and more powerful as well (you don't need someone to write a perl module for whatever you're trying to do, or write your own perl module -- the system or application you're automating has already exposed interfaces for you). Your "hundreds of lines of C++ code" translates into "10-20 lines of vbscript, jscript, or perlscript, if that much)".
Anyway, Blackcomb (perhaps Longhorn, too?) will have a new and very powerful scripting interface and shell. From what I've seen so far, it looks like it will be great.
Thus, having controls (including menus, buttons or whatever) just off the edges of the screen but not reaching right to the edge is a Usability Sin(TM) and should be banned. I'm amazed Microsoft's usability guys missed this one, and that they haven't yet fixed it...
When was the last time you used Windows? XP fixed most of the edge-case issues here. For example, the Start button (at least in the Luna theme, I don't think it was fixed in Classic) is infinitely wide and deep on the two edges of the screen it shares (bottom-left, top-left, top-right). Same for maximized windows. The super-parent had a problem with seemingly-maximized-but-not-really windows (like a lot of... questionable... sites like to do to IE, which really bugs the crap out of me). If the window isn't maximized, then it doesn't know that it's control buttons are bumping against an edge of the screen. I'm sure it could be determined, but that seems to break the idea of maximized vs. non-maximized. If you want infinite depth on edge buttons, maximize your window.
IE should be fixed to not allow websites to "maximize" (change the window size to the size of the desktop, rather than actually maximizing) the window, and the super-parent's gripe would go away.
Microsoft's business model for games tends more toward MSN Gaming Zone and first-person shooters.
Care to explain the Age of Empires franchise? Or the * Simulator games? (Flight Sim, Combat Flight Sim, Train Sim) Come to think of it, the only FPS game I can think of off hand from Microsoft is Halo. Mech Assault and the Mechwarrior games may count, though the former is third-person and the latter is more of a sim.
It's unlikely Battle.net would last long, as people are converted over to MSN.
I don't see this as being a bad thing. Battle.net has had more than its share of problems, and the only reason I see for keeping it around would be for the already-existing games that use it. Starcraft 2 could and should use a different model. But I guess that's just my own opinion.
It would also increase the likelihood that the PC version of Starcraft 2 would be delayed or nonexistant, and certainly not the same as if Blizzard made it themselves.
I'm not sure what you're using as the basis for your assumptions here, but I'm not sure it really jives with what MGS has done. Look at Halo -- Bungie was working on it for quite a long time, and probably would've been even longer had they not been acquired by Microsoft and given the hard and fast ship date of "by XBox launch". And as for it not being the same as if Blizzard made it, who do you think would do the development? If Microsoft buys out Vivendi's game division (still unconfirmed rumor), they would not just be buying the IP. They'd be buying the development studios themselves. In other words, Blizzard would still be making the game, it would just be published by someone else (Microsoft).
Add to that the fact that they may be bought by Microsoft, and Starcraft 2 is very unlikely.
I'm not following here. Why would being acquired by Microsoft keep Blizzard from making Starcraft 2? In fact, I would think that would guarantee that Startcraft 2 would be made. Say what you will about Microsoft, but they're not stupid.
You seem to be a little off in your recollection. (my information courtesy of GameFAQS, Nintendo, and my own memory).
For starters, the Genesis was released in the US in 1989, while the SNES launched in 1991. The ~2 year time gap gave the Genesis ample time to get a leg up on the SNES (since the SNES simply did not exist). Also, you appear to still be suffering from delusions caused by Sega's "Blast Processing", insinuating that the Genesis was better hardware for side-scrollers. The two were pretty much equal in that regard, given that the developers had enough experience with each platform (later in the SNES's life, there were plenty of "fast" side-scrollers on par with Sonic technically, if not with as much staying power).
As for the titles you mentioned, F-Zero, Castlevania 4, Super Contra, Act Raiser, and Pilotwings (at least, if not more) were all first-generation titles (Act Raiser, Pilotwings, and F-Zero were launch titles, IIRC). Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm just pointing out that these were titles developed early on in the life of the SNES, before developers had learned to take full use of the power of the SNES (the later Street Fighter 2 games, StarFox like you mentioned, Killer Instinct, the DKC games, etc). More, few of those games were even first- or second-party games, so I don't see how that could be seen as "Nintendo flexing its muscleS".
The Genesis got the reputation for being a great platform for sports more because of the efforts on the part of EASN/EA Sports bringing their Madden franchise to the Genesis and Sega's efforts at competing titles (the Joe Montana series, which evolved into the Sports Talk series, and could be considered early precursors to the 2KN series Sega Sports has these days). The SNES fully held its own when EA got around to doing good ports (I worship the guys at Tiburon, mainly for the amount of time I spent with NHL 96. Simply awesome). The same goes for the SNES and RPGs. The SNES benefited majorly from having Square on board (btw, slight correction -- Final Fantasy 1 was a NES game, released something like 1988 or so). Sure, there were other titles, but many of them came from Square or similar big shots (Secret of Mana/Seiken Densetsu series, Breath of Fire from Capcom but with the help of Square, the Dragon Quest series in Japan from Enix who just recently merged with Square, etc). The Genesis had its share of good RPGs, mostly from the Phantasy Star series and the Shining Force series of turn-based tactical RPGs. Genesis RPGs v. SNES RPGs. The SNES list is much longer, mostly because of Square's efforts that made the SNES out to be a good RPG platform, but there are some gems on the Genesis list as well. I guess I should do Genesis Sports games v. SNES sports games to be complete (oddly, the SNES list is quite a bit bigger here, too).
XML Schemas aren't just for validation
on
DTD vs. XML Schema
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I can't believe nobody's mentioned this yet. Microsoft has a tool that will do several things:
Generate an XML Schema from an XDR or XML file.
Generate source code (C#, VB, or JScript) from an XSD file (XML Schema file).
Generate XML Schemas for one or more types in a given assembly file.
This makes writing your XSD almost trivial. The code-generation capabilities are very powerful, as well, as you can generate runtime classes for serialization/deserialization or classes derived from DataSet so you can treat XML files like any other database, etc. It's very useful if you're doing any.NET framework programming.
I'd be very surprised if there weren't other tools out there doing similar things. I simply mentioned xsd.exe because that's what I'm familiar with.
How does this change the problem with playing XBox Live with a modded XBox? I would like to mod my box to play around with a lot of the homebrew apps, but I really don't want to get my XBox's MAC address banned from XBox Live, as I really do like the service. This is assuming that Microsoft really does check for modded XBox hardware. Does this advancement help the situation?
Easy solution: buy a second XBox. No, really. There are a number of used/refurb XBoxes around if you look. The infamous "Disk is Dirty or Damaged" error (DDoDE) made for a lot of replaced XBoxes. If you look around at your local used game shops, I'm sure they have a couple used for a good price (or refurbished for a bit more money). Play XBox Live on your current working XBox, waste your time hacking around with Linux on the refurb.
The scary thing about Microsoft is that $40 billion in cash they've got burning a hole in their balance sheet.
It's only scary if you don't understand why Microsoft keeps so much money available. For one thing, they operate without any debt. As in $0 debt. They owe nothing. That means they can save money above and beyond operating expenses and reinvesting. Second, and most importantly, Mr. Gates has said a number of times that his plan is to keep enough accessible "cash" available to be able to run Microsoft for at least one year without any income at all. Think about that. With around 40,000 employees worldwide, and an average salary of probably $100,000 (to keep things nice and round. it's probably a bit lower), you're talking $4billion just to pay payroll for a single year. Plus benefits (insurance, 401K matching, taxes, etc), plus operating costs (rent, power and utilities, bandwidth, taxes, etc), and so on. Before you know it, that $40bil is eaten up very quickly when there's nothing coming in.
Now, given that, why would Microsoft use that $40bil safety net to buy companies that would only add to their expenses (at least initially)? Maybe anything above and beyond $40bil would go toward company acquisition, but to be able to keep enough money on hand for Bill's safety net, that $40bil isn't going to be spent any time soon.
Honestly, more companies would do better to follow Microsoft's lead. Having no debt and plenty of cash on-hand means they don't have to downsize when the market slows (hiring may freeze, and budgets may be cut, but headcount is last to go). That means stability, and also gives an opportunity -- while everyone else is laying off workers or folding under, Microsoft can be going full-steam ahead.
Troll? My post was modded as Troll? Are you daffy?! The parent asked for recommendations on cases that would fit well (size and visually, I presume) in an entertainment center. I told him what I own and like. I mentioned a few issues I had with the case I own. In short, I answered his question with proper and relevant information alongside my own experiences with said product. So where, pray tell, did I troll?
I like my Cooler Master ATC-600, but it looks like they have a number of other options as well (look under "Desktop"). The ATC-600 is just slightly too big for my entertainment center, but it perches nicely on top of it. Now I just need to find a reason to use the thing (now I have a high definition cable feed, the HTPC is useless for recording shows). Also, it's a Micro-ATX form factor, but if you're planning on doing an HTPC, that should be more than enough. Especially if you want the case to fit well in your entertainment center.
How did I learn this nugget of knowledge? Look at my history, and you'll find that although I often post the alternative (i.e. "commercial") viewpoint, I'm not a "troll" in the traditional sense.
Yet I appear to have been banned from ever moderating. It has been at least 6-9 months, and I read slashdot several times a day. Every day.
My semi-alternative viewpoint in this forum has resulted in my sanction to the fringes of read-only activism.
You're not alone! I can't recall when was the last time I had mod points. I think I had them maybe once last year. Per the moderator's guide, there's absolutely no reason why I shouldn't have mod points at least some of the time, yet I never get them. Is it because I post pro-Microsoft/pro-capitalism comments? Could it be because I've criticized the editorial staff a number of times for their ineptitude? Maybe it's my anti-SUV bias? I don't know. Prior to the karma rating change, I never dropped below 45 karma (though karma is a little whack -- I can top out, and get rated up all day with no effect, but just one person rating me down will automatically pull points from karma -- seems like there should be a weight system implemented), which means that apparently somebody here thinks I make intelligent, valid comments.
I always have been able to meta-moderate and can still, so I don't think I fell prey to the last moderation-revocation debacle. I just don't get to moderate directly. Oh well.
Please note that I said nothing about not allowing these people to drive what they please. I did say that if people are going to drive trucks (and thus, SUVs) like cars, then they should be regulated like cars. I also made the opinion that most people have no business driving a pickup truck, and I'm sticking to it. Really, why does a suburbanite need a half-ton dualie supercab? Maybe if they own their own construction firm (if you don't, then you'd be driving a truck from your company's fleet instead), but I've never known a mall to contain a hardware store. Personally, I'd go so far as to say that even smaller pickups like the Chevy S10 and sport trucks like the F-150 Lightning have no business being driven as a commuter vehicle, but again, that's just opinion.
People can damn well choose what they want, but if my saner choice of vehicle is going to be regulated out the wazoo, then so can theirs. (Yeah, yeah, I could've chosen to buy an SUV myself, and then I wouldn't have to worry about being held to more stringent standards, or about getting killed in an accident with an SUV, but I choose not to follow the crowd in that way, and I can not and will not subscribe to the "Bigger is Safer" school of thought. I refuse to let myself be drawn into a vehicular arms race.)
dunno about where you come from, but every SUV I've ever seen is a 'Station Wagon' for purposes of emissions, safety standards, and mileage.
That may be true for the smaller SUVs, but not when it comes to mid- or full-size SUVs. Most of the larger SUVs (which are also the vehicles I have problems with, since the smaller SUVs are more nimble and usually less likely to roll, and also built more like a car with properly placed bumpers and crumple zones) are based on full-size truck platforms. In otherwords, that Ford Explorer you just bought is nothing more than a fancy shell on an F-150, with all the issues and limitations of a truck (poor emissions, shit for handling, high bumpers causing the vehicle to ram into the passenger compartment of low-slung vehicles rather than some stronger structural point) and more because the SUV shell changes the vehicle's center of mass, making it more prone to rolling over.
But let's not say a thing about pickup trucks (which use just as much gas), heavy trucks and 18-wheelers (especially the ones coming up from Mexico) that belch out clouds and clouds of soot, ash, and pollutants. How about all those 30-year-old cars that are still being driven, only half of their cylinders firing, consuming quarts of heavy motor oil, puking out CO, NOx, unburned hydrocarbons, etc. The "SUVs are bad" cry is the cry of hypocritical tree-huggers that don't have anything better to complain about.
Most people have no business driving pickup trucks on the road, either. IMHO, they should be held to the same standard as cars for emissions, but I can understand why they're exempted -- pickups are supposed to be workhorses. You should be using them to haul materials from the lumberyard, do farm work, etc. You should not be using them for your local trip to the mall. SUVs take advantage of the pickup truck loophole by providing a vehicle that really does have no other use but as a commuter vehicle, but minus the stringent controls on passenger cars. Heavy trucks and 18-wheelers fall into the same category -- they're exempted because they're used for real work. Should they be exempted? Probably not. Will you ever see a soccer mom driving a semi? Sweet Jebus I hope not! However, with the "bigger is safer" mentality, I would not be surprised to see this in the next few years. And finally, the 30 year old cars belching smoke could never pass an emissions inspection, so it's a safe bet those vehicles are being driven illegally in most states.
Anyway, I'm not a tree-hugging hippy. I don't object to SUVs on environmental grounds (I acknowledge the problems, and don't like increased gas prices for me because of what others choose to drive, but I deal). My largest problem is two-fold: driver education, and driver safety. Too many people buy SUVs because they want to feel "safe", with no concern for the other party (or parties) if/when they're involved in an accident. Couple that with America's poorly trained drivers, and you'll realize that most SUV drivers are driving too much car for them to handle, with no knowledge whatsoever about basic things like braking distance, which almost guarantees said drivers will eventually be in an accident. Not to be morbid, but I can only hope that Darwin steps in and makes sure their SUV rolls over killing the driver, since the driver has most likely already killed whoever s/he ran into. Please note that driver education is a problem that is not relegated only to SUV drivers. It's a problem with the entire populace. However, SUVs are so much bigger and more ponderous than your average passenger car that the lack of education is exaggerated.
As for your situation, please realize that you are an exception. For every one of you on the road, there are hundreds of moms running the rugrats to soccer practice, self-conscious people trying to make up for something (you could say the same about the sports car-driving lot, so I'll shut up on that point:), and people trying to attain that "rugged" image, even though their SUV never sees anything resembling dirt. Just because your situation is different does not make you the poster child for SUV drivers.
I think you mean the "Subaru everything", as their entire line of vehicles (which unfortunately also includes an SUV in the Forester model line, though it's not a huge SUV and gets much better miles to the gallon than an Explorer -- and really, you can't go wrong with a flat-6 engine, either:) has AWD. It's one of Subaru's major selling points.
As for other cars, don't forget Audi's many Quattro vehicles, and Volkswagen's 4Motion (which is just VW's name for Quattro). Even Porsche has AWD going on many of their vehicles, like the C4S and the 996TT. Of course, the AWD there is more for stability at speed than it is for navigating inclement weather, so you'll want winter tires if you're going to drive that in the snow.
Finally, AWD is not a panacea. Too many people in their AWD vehicles think that just because they have no problem getting started moving forward thanks to their AWD, they'll have no problems turning or stopping, which is definitely not the case. If anything, I'd call AWD more dangerous because of the illusion of "safety" it gives to drivers.
Slashdot Mirror
(emphasis added by me)
Isn't "commercial company" a little redundant? Companies (in the economic sense) exist to conduct business. "Business" is synonymous with "commerce", the base of "commercial". Or in otherwords, a non-commercial company would not conduct business, and thus cannot be a company (it would be an organization instead).
If Marlon Brando were dead, he'd be turning in his grave. The proper quote is, "The horror. The horror."
So because I'm not a "serious" gamer, I shouldn't bother reading this story? Or maybe I am a serious gamer, but I don't often play space simulations? As well, by the time I got to this story (literally less than an hour after it was posted), the site was down. Slashdotted. Great, how am I supposed to figure out what "Parsec" is now?
However, I was not the one with the initial complaint. Mine followed Timothy off-topic as he made a flippant reply to a post criticizing Slashdot's editorial integrity. Try looking at usernames next time so that you don't confuse posters.
Is it really an insult when it's true, though? I found the anonymous coward's post to be witty and insightful, rather than insulting and trollish. Had I any moderation points (and for some reason, it's been a very long while since I have had any ... hrm), I would've moderated the post rather than reply. However, I don't, so I didn't, and did the next best thing -- reply to Timothy's flippant post, voicing my own concerns and issues that are mirrored by both the super-parent of this thread and the anonymous coward that agreed with him.
I never said I was perfect.
Who exactly was complaining about moderation issues? I certainly wasn't. I agree this is off-topic, but there is no on-topic place to discuss it. A major gripe that I've had, and that many others have had (play this down as "a vocal minority" if you will, but we're just the people who voice the concerns others have) is that the Slashdot editors seem to not take their jobs seriously. You (collective "you", not necessarily you in particular, though you're as guilty as the rest) have consistently and constantly posted duplicate stories (triplicates sometimes!), poorly written stories that totally miss the point of the target news items, editorials with horrendous spelling and grammatical mistakes (I'm sure I'll make some, so I probably shouldn't talk, but I do make an effort to keep my posts clear of such errors), un-called for editorial additions to stories that don't warrant it, not adding editorial additions to stories that do (how often do you post stories about some new product, toy, or technology where not everybody knows what it is, nor is it obvious from the name, and the site has been taken down due to the Slashdot effect so no-one can figure out what the story was about anyway?), irresponsibly linking to small sites causing them to have outrageous bandwidth bills (blah blah if you don't want to be linked, don't put up a web site blah blah whatever), and more.
These are not things that can be solved with code, a trap many geeks fall into way too often. It's a people issue, and that's exactly what we're complaining about -- people. Most editors refuse to acknowledge that there's a problem (example: Rob's lengthy diary entry goes on and on about moderation issues and changes, without ever once touching on the inability of his editorial staff to keep up to date on what stories have been run so as to avoid duplicating posts), or worse think it's just all a big joke (how many times have we seen something along the lines of "Yeah, yeah, this story's a duplicate, whatever" in an update to a duplicate story?).
Like it or not, "Rob's personal site" is big, and has a huge user base. As an editor of the site, your concerns should lie with making as many users as happy as possible. You can't make everybody happy all of the time, but you can damned well try. When it comes down to it, we're the people that visit the ads and pay for the subscriptions. Without us, Slashdot would be in even more dire financial straits than it already is. (Extrapolating from the financial woes of parent company VA WhateverThey'reCalledNow, and not with any concrete information about Slashdot's financial well-being, save that without a large user base in the first place, VA * would never have been interested in Slashdot to begin with.)
You seem to have no other response, lately.
Could you maybe once address your users' concerns? It may be a little difficult for you to grasp, but the real world is not black and white. Liking a site does not mean that a person doesn't have opinions on what's good or bad about how a site is run, just as a person may dislike a site yet still believe it is doing some things right (for example, Kuro5hin -- I dislike the site because of the extreme leftist/socialist viewpoint espoused by both the staff and the readers/contributors, but I think it's a very well-done site and is run much better than Slashdot). Here's a thought -- run a poll along the lines of, "Do you have any gripes with the way we run Slashdot? Yes/No" and see what happens. Now, take the number of "Yes" answers and assume those are users that would leave Slashdot if they followed your implicit advice. Where does that leave your userbase? What about the comments (ie, the lifeblood of Slashdot -- without comments, Slashdot would never have become popular in the first place), since the people who are likely to answer a poll are also likely to post a comment? Can you afford to lose such a large chunk of users (and make no mistake, you will get a large number of "yes" answers so long as the question is worded fairly)?
We're not necessarily asking that you change anything (although I'm sure most of us wouldn't mind if the Slashdot editors would periodically read their own site to avoid duplicates, or run their stories through a spelling checker before posting). Simply acknowledge that you've heard our problems, and explain to us why you're not planning on changing anything if the concerns are valid (and no side-stepping, saying something along the lines of, "Slashdot is just Rob's personal site that happens to enjoy some popularity"). Is that so hard to do? Apparently, because all we get are one-liner comments that insult ("you must be an idiot if you have problems with the management and yet are still here") or ignore the problems.
I should've been more clear. What I gave was my (anally retentive) method for keeping IE windows how I want them. Window sizes are defined in a couple ways (just from my observations, and not from any special knowledge of IE internals):
Therefore, in my anal retentiveness about IE window sizes, to make 100% sure that IE picks up the right window size I want and sets it as the default (and to make sure new window placing is how I want it as well, like I said -- anally retentive
It is fixable, as I fix it all the time -- close all but one IE window (not strictly necessary to do this step), resize it to how you prefer, and then hit "ctrl-N" to open a new IE window. That will then record the current size of the window as the new default, and all new windows should pop up at that size. Personally, when I'm browsing sites that have the potential to screw up my window sizing/placement, I like to shift-click the links to bring up new windows. That way, if the window is resized weirdly, I can always close it and hit ctrl-n on the original window that didn't change size, and everything's back to normal.
As for maximizing an IE window and then opening a new one, it does what you'd expect -- the new window is maximized. If IE isn't really maximized, but in the wonky "not-really-maximized" size, it won't open a new window as maximized (because it's not maximized).
And if the methods are there because they have to be to implement an interface, but they return some "Not Yet Implemented" error or exception? How do you handle that with your compiler? I agree with you that they could've accomplished their goal in a much simpler fashion (one test for each API that only fails if NYI is thrown, regardless of any other exceptions or error codes). However, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have re-written the software. They identified issues with extending the existing software, and if they had problems then surely plenty of other people are having problems as well. Assuming that they weren't on a schedule so tight as to prohibit it, they should then do the "right" thing and fix what's broken not only for their current use, but also for their future use and the use of others.
(emphasis added by me)
And there's your problem. If you're still thinking of scripting in Windows in terms of DOS batch programming, you're seriously missing out on some very powerful scripting tools. Look into WSH (Windows Scripting Host) sometime (blah blah WSH is a home for viruses blah blah, whatever). WSH let's you use any COM object that implements IDispatch. That means developers interested in automating their apps don't need to deal with handling commandline options (though you can certainly use those) or redirected stdin input (you can do that as well). All they need to do is implement IDispatch on their automatable objects, and they're immediately scriptable. That means that I don't need passwd or some perl module to programmatically change a password in Windows -- all I need to do is create an object and call a method or two. A classic example is doing something like automating password expiration on next login for 50,000+ users. The unix approach is to use passwd, a perl module, or similar utility driven by a shell script. The Windows approach is to iterate over the user objects in a WSH script and call a method on each object. Ask a unix admin to do this in Windows and he'll complain about lack of a passwd utility. Ask a (good) Windows admin to do this in unix and he'll have no idea where to start because there is no automation object for unix users. (exceptions made for unix admins that understand Windows and Windows admins that understand unix.)
The scripting I spoke of in Longhorn/Blackcomb is more of a command shell replacement/batch script replacement that will integrate properly with .NET objects and probably superceded WSH. However, just because that's coming doesn't mean that current scriptability is sub-par.
You're right, I missed this case because I never use a stretched-out taskbar. Quick Launch goes over on the side of the screen, single-line taskbar goes at the bottom. In its single-line configuration, the start button is infinitely deep along the screen edges (again, at least in the Luna theme, maybe not in classic).
True, but I've never seen any app psuedo-maximized other than IE when browsing "bad" (*cough*pr0n*cough*) sites. IE shouldn't allow that, or should allow for some way to programmatically go maximized via script if people must have this feature. (I guess on lower resolution screens, you might have windows that open up covering the entire desktop without being maximized, but XP won't let you run in anything less than 800x600 unless you really force it). Yes, maybe Windows should do some sort of detection on almost-maximized windows. I bet you could write a small app that would do that.
None of this changes the fact that the rounded corners suck from a usability perspective anyway. Some of us tile windows side-by-side when using two versions of the same program on different documents. Your window isn't maximised, but you still have cornering issues.
If you're running tiled, the worst that can happen is you click on the space under the window. However, the rounding of the corners is only a few pixels, so you have to really be mousing for it to hit that. Anyway, if you don't like rounded windows, do something about it (btw, the tgtsoft page has the freely-available uxtheme patcher, so you can patch your uxtheme.dll and use different visual styles without having to buy StyleXP).
This only true if you don't know how to script in Windows. The problem most Unix users run into when moving to Windows (and Windows users, when moving to Unix) is that the scriptability is different between each OS. Unix (and the underlying core of OS X) scripting tends towards small apps that do one thing, and are piped together with shell script. Windows can do this using batch/cmd scripting, but it's not as powerful as sh scripting. Windows, on the other hand, uses WSH and an object model for most scripting tasks. Most things are as simple as creating an object and invoking some methods on that object. Unix uses this model to some extent with scripting languages like perl, but it's much more important in day-to-day Windows administration than it is in Unix, and more powerful as well (you don't need someone to write a perl module for whatever you're trying to do, or write your own perl module -- the system or application you're automating has already exposed interfaces for you). Your "hundreds of lines of C++ code" translates into "10-20 lines of vbscript, jscript, or perlscript, if that much)".
Anyway, Blackcomb (perhaps Longhorn, too?) will have a new and very powerful scripting interface and shell. From what I've seen so far, it looks like it will be great.
When was the last time you used Windows? XP fixed most of the edge-case issues here. For example, the Start button (at least in the Luna theme, I don't think it was fixed in Classic) is infinitely wide and deep on the two edges of the screen it shares (bottom-left, top-left, top-right). Same for maximized windows. The super-parent had a problem with seemingly-maximized-but-not-really windows (like a lot of ... questionable ... sites like to do to IE, which really bugs the crap out of me). If the window isn't maximized, then it doesn't know that it's control buttons are bumping against an edge of the screen. I'm sure it could be determined, but that seems to break the idea of maximized vs. non-maximized. If you want infinite depth on edge buttons, maximize your window.
IE should be fixed to not allow websites to "maximize" (change the window size to the size of the desktop, rather than actually maximizing) the window, and the super-parent's gripe would go away.
Care to explain the Age of Empires franchise? Or the * Simulator games? (Flight Sim, Combat Flight Sim, Train Sim) Come to think of it, the only FPS game I can think of off hand from Microsoft is Halo. Mech Assault and the Mechwarrior games may count, though the former is third-person and the latter is more of a sim.
I don't see this as being a bad thing. Battle.net has had more than its share of problems, and the only reason I see for keeping it around would be for the already-existing games that use it. Starcraft 2 could and should use a different model. But I guess that's just my own opinion.
I'm not sure what you're using as the basis for your assumptions here, but I'm not sure it really jives with what MGS has done. Look at Halo -- Bungie was working on it for quite a long time, and probably would've been even longer had they not been acquired by Microsoft and given the hard and fast ship date of "by XBox launch". And as for it not being the same as if Blizzard made it, who do you think would do the development? If Microsoft buys out Vivendi's game division (still unconfirmed rumor), they would not just be buying the IP. They'd be buying the development studios themselves. In other words, Blizzard would still be making the game, it would just be published by someone else (Microsoft).
I'm not following here. Why would being acquired by Microsoft keep Blizzard from making Starcraft 2? In fact, I would think that would guarantee that Startcraft 2 would be made. Say what you will about Microsoft, but they're not stupid.
You seem to be a little off in your recollection. (my information courtesy of GameFAQS, Nintendo, and my own memory).
For starters, the Genesis was released in the US in 1989, while the SNES launched in 1991. The ~2 year time gap gave the Genesis ample time to get a leg up on the SNES (since the SNES simply did not exist). Also, you appear to still be suffering from delusions caused by Sega's "Blast Processing", insinuating that the Genesis was better hardware for side-scrollers. The two were pretty much equal in that regard, given that the developers had enough experience with each platform (later in the SNES's life, there were plenty of "fast" side-scrollers on par with Sonic technically, if not with as much staying power).
As for the titles you mentioned, F-Zero, Castlevania 4, Super Contra, Act Raiser, and Pilotwings (at least, if not more) were all first-generation titles (Act Raiser, Pilotwings, and F-Zero were launch titles, IIRC). Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm just pointing out that these were titles developed early on in the life of the SNES, before developers had learned to take full use of the power of the SNES (the later Street Fighter 2 games, StarFox like you mentioned, Killer Instinct, the DKC games, etc). More, few of those games were even first- or second-party games, so I don't see how that could be seen as "Nintendo flexing its muscleS".
The Genesis got the reputation for being a great platform for sports more because of the efforts on the part of EASN/EA Sports bringing their Madden franchise to the Genesis and Sega's efforts at competing titles (the Joe Montana series, which evolved into the Sports Talk series, and could be considered early precursors to the 2KN series Sega Sports has these days). The SNES fully held its own when EA got around to doing good ports (I worship the guys at Tiburon, mainly for the amount of time I spent with NHL 96. Simply awesome). The same goes for the SNES and RPGs. The SNES benefited majorly from having Square on board (btw, slight correction -- Final Fantasy 1 was a NES game, released something like 1988 or so). Sure, there were other titles, but many of them came from Square or similar big shots (Secret of Mana/Seiken Densetsu series, Breath of Fire from Capcom but with the help of Square, the Dragon Quest series in Japan from Enix who just recently merged with Square, etc). The Genesis had its share of good RPGs, mostly from the Phantasy Star series and the Shining Force series of turn-based tactical RPGs. Genesis RPGs v. SNES RPGs. The SNES list is much longer, mostly because of Square's efforts that made the SNES out to be a good RPG platform, but there are some gems on the Genesis list as well. I guess I should do Genesis Sports games v. SNES sports games to be complete (oddly, the SNES list is quite a bit bigger here, too).
I can't believe nobody's mentioned this yet. Microsoft has a tool that will do several things:
This makes writing your XSD almost trivial. The code-generation capabilities are very powerful, as well, as you can generate runtime classes for serialization/deserialization or classes derived from DataSet so you can treat XML files like any other database, etc. It's very useful if you're doing any
I'd be very surprised if there weren't other tools out there doing similar things. I simply mentioned xsd.exe because that's what I'm familiar with.
Easy solution: buy a second XBox. No, really. There are a number of used/refurb XBoxes around if you look. The infamous "Disk is Dirty or Damaged" error (DDoDE) made for a lot of replaced XBoxes. If you look around at your local used game shops, I'm sure they have a couple used for a good price (or refurbished for a bit more money). Play XBox Live on your current working XBox, waste your time hacking around with Linux on the refurb.
It's only scary if you don't understand why Microsoft keeps so much money available. For one thing, they operate without any debt. As in $0 debt. They owe nothing. That means they can save money above and beyond operating expenses and reinvesting. Second, and most importantly, Mr. Gates has said a number of times that his plan is to keep enough accessible "cash" available to be able to run Microsoft for at least one year without any income at all. Think about that. With around 40,000 employees worldwide, and an average salary of probably $100,000 (to keep things nice and round. it's probably a bit lower), you're talking $4billion just to pay payroll for a single year. Plus benefits (insurance, 401K matching, taxes, etc), plus operating costs (rent, power and utilities, bandwidth, taxes, etc), and so on. Before you know it, that $40bil is eaten up very quickly when there's nothing coming in.
Now, given that, why would Microsoft use that $40bil safety net to buy companies that would only add to their expenses (at least initially)? Maybe anything above and beyond $40bil would go toward company acquisition, but to be able to keep enough money on hand for Bill's safety net, that $40bil isn't going to be spent any time soon.
Honestly, more companies would do better to follow Microsoft's lead. Having no debt and plenty of cash on-hand means they don't have to downsize when the market slows (hiring may freeze, and budgets may be cut, but headcount is last to go). That means stability, and also gives an opportunity -- while everyone else is laying off workers or folding under, Microsoft can be going full-steam ahead.
Troll? My post was modded as Troll? Are you daffy?! The parent asked for recommendations on cases that would fit well (size and visually, I presume) in an entertainment center. I told him what I own and like. I mentioned a few issues I had with the case I own. In short, I answered his question with proper and relevant information alongside my own experiences with said product. So where, pray tell, did I troll?
I like my Cooler Master ATC-600, but it looks like they have a number of other options as well (look under "Desktop"). The ATC-600 is just slightly too big for my entertainment center, but it perches nicely on top of it. Now I just need to find a reason to use the thing (now I have a high definition cable feed, the HTPC is useless for recording shows). Also, it's a Micro-ATX form factor, but if you're planning on doing an HTPC, that should be more than enough. Especially if you want the case to fit well in your entertainment center.
You're not alone! I can't recall when was the last time I had mod points. I think I had them maybe once last year. Per the moderator's guide, there's absolutely no reason why I shouldn't have mod points at least some of the time, yet I never get them. Is it because I post pro-Microsoft/pro-capitalism comments? Could it be because I've criticized the editorial staff a number of times for their ineptitude? Maybe it's my anti-SUV bias? I don't know. Prior to the karma rating change, I never dropped below 45 karma (though karma is a little whack -- I can top out, and get rated up all day with no effect, but just one person rating me down will automatically pull points from karma -- seems like there should be a weight system implemented), which means that apparently somebody here thinks I make intelligent, valid comments.
I always have been able to meta-moderate and can still, so I don't think I fell prey to the last moderation-revocation debacle. I just don't get to moderate directly. Oh well.
Please note that I said nothing about not allowing these people to drive what they please. I did say that if people are going to drive trucks (and thus, SUVs) like cars, then they should be regulated like cars. I also made the opinion that most people have no business driving a pickup truck, and I'm sticking to it. Really, why does a suburbanite need a half-ton dualie supercab? Maybe if they own their own construction firm (if you don't, then you'd be driving a truck from your company's fleet instead), but I've never known a mall to contain a hardware store. Personally, I'd go so far as to say that even smaller pickups like the Chevy S10 and sport trucks like the F-150 Lightning have no business being driven as a commuter vehicle, but again, that's just opinion.
People can damn well choose what they want, but if my saner choice of vehicle is going to be regulated out the wazoo, then so can theirs. (Yeah, yeah, I could've chosen to buy an SUV myself, and then I wouldn't have to worry about being held to more stringent standards, or about getting killed in an accident with an SUV, but I choose not to follow the crowd in that way, and I can not and will not subscribe to the "Bigger is Safer" school of thought. I refuse to let myself be drawn into a vehicular arms race.)
That may be true for the smaller SUVs, but not when it comes to mid- or full-size SUVs. Most of the larger SUVs (which are also the vehicles I have problems with, since the smaller SUVs are more nimble and usually less likely to roll, and also built more like a car with properly placed bumpers and crumple zones) are based on full-size truck platforms. In otherwords, that Ford Explorer you just bought is nothing more than a fancy shell on an F-150, with all the issues and limitations of a truck (poor emissions, shit for handling, high bumpers causing the vehicle to ram into the passenger compartment of low-slung vehicles rather than some stronger structural point) and more because the SUV shell changes the vehicle's center of mass, making it more prone to rolling over.
Most people have no business driving pickup trucks on the road, either. IMHO, they should be held to the same standard as cars for emissions, but I can understand why they're exempted -- pickups are supposed to be workhorses. You should be using them to haul materials from the lumberyard, do farm work, etc. You should not be using them for your local trip to the mall. SUVs take advantage of the pickup truck loophole by providing a vehicle that really does have no other use but as a commuter vehicle, but minus the stringent controls on passenger cars. Heavy trucks and 18-wheelers fall into the same category -- they're exempted because they're used for real work. Should they be exempted? Probably not. Will you ever see a soccer mom driving a semi? Sweet Jebus I hope not! However, with the "bigger is safer" mentality, I would not be surprised to see this in the next few years. And finally, the 30 year old cars belching smoke could never pass an emissions inspection, so it's a safe bet those vehicles are being driven illegally in most states.
Anyway, I'm not a tree-hugging hippy. I don't object to SUVs on environmental grounds (I acknowledge the problems, and don't like increased gas prices for me because of what others choose to drive, but I deal). My largest problem is two-fold: driver education, and driver safety. Too many people buy SUVs because they want to feel "safe", with no concern for the other party (or parties) if/when they're involved in an accident. Couple that with America's poorly trained drivers, and you'll realize that most SUV drivers are driving too much car for them to handle, with no knowledge whatsoever about basic things like braking distance, which almost guarantees said drivers will eventually be in an accident. Not to be morbid, but I can only hope that Darwin steps in and makes sure their SUV rolls over killing the driver, since the driver has most likely already killed whoever s/he ran into. Please note that driver education is a problem that is not relegated only to SUV drivers. It's a problem with the entire populace. However, SUVs are so much bigger and more ponderous than your average passenger car that the lack of education is exaggerated.
As for your situation, please realize that you are an exception. For every one of you on the road, there are hundreds of moms running the rugrats to soccer practice, self-conscious people trying to make up for something (you could say the same about the sports car-driving lot, so I'll shut up on that point :), and people trying to attain that "rugged" image, even though their SUV never sees anything resembling dirt. Just because your situation is different does not make you the poster child for SUV drivers.
I think you mean the "Subaru everything", as their entire line of vehicles (which unfortunately also includes an SUV in the Forester model line, though it's not a huge SUV and gets much better miles to the gallon than an Explorer -- and really, you can't go wrong with a flat-6 engine, either :) has AWD. It's one of Subaru's major selling points.
As for other cars, don't forget Audi's many Quattro vehicles, and Volkswagen's 4Motion (which is just VW's name for Quattro). Even Porsche has AWD going on many of their vehicles, like the C4S and the 996TT. Of course, the AWD there is more for stability at speed than it is for navigating inclement weather, so you'll want winter tires if you're going to drive that in the snow.
Finally, AWD is not a panacea. Too many people in their AWD vehicles think that just because they have no problem getting started moving forward thanks to their AWD, they'll have no problems turning or stopping, which is definitely not the case. If anything, I'd call AWD more dangerous because of the illusion of "safety" it gives to drivers.