"Standard Definition Gaming" appears to be a stupid invented term with - pun intended - no certain definition.
I'd call a PC game running in 1680x1050 "standard" or even "low" definition.
But a TV is apparently "high" even at a pathetic Wx768.
So when they offer - as they no doubt will in glowing, flash-animated virtual-mile-high letters on their websites - "High Definition Gaming!" - are they talking about a pitiful 768 pixel high display or just an almost-good-enough 1050?
I wouldn't guess quite so high, but well up there certainly. I also deal extensively with NHS customers. We took the decision a year ago to have our app demand something newer than IE6 and so far haven't had any resistance from NHS IT teams in getting them to at least provide a newer version of IE, if not some other browser.
Of course it's hardly the end of the world but really, if your DVD player randomly went on pause for a minute or two each time you watched a movie - would you not possibly end up using it less?
Seems a reasonable bet that that sort of thing is on the near horizon. Recall Sony & Skype announcing a couple months ago that whole ranges of new Sony TVs will come equipped with Skype for video calling.
I sat here for barely a minute and came up with three ways to mislead and confuse the drones that would almost certainly have a high degree of success. And I'm no expert.
Assuming the designers are also not experts and themselves spent less than your generous minute wondering whether anyone might not want to be blinded/deafened/tasered by their device, then you should be well ahead of the game.
The other solution is that people are installed that might not be the most qualified person but present the equally valuable diverse viewpoint in decisions and products. Not everyone values this as highly as I do and I understand that it upsets people when companies and governments try to make equal opportunity employment quotas.
So you're saying that women are different, think different and behave differently and that that specific diversity is valuable and should be considered when appointing humans to fulfil working responsibilities.
Yet at the same time I sense you are against recruitment discrimination based on gender.
Either it is irrelevant to be a woman and all appointments should be based upon qualification, competance, skills etc or gender is relevant and the appointment process should factor in gender wherever it can be shown that aptitude statistically divides along gender lines.
I don't think you can realistically ask to have it both ways.
For myself I think gender is irrelevant. I have recruited, subsequently trained and long worked with a number of both men and women in IT workplaces. Some were great. Some were not. I never felt it useful to factor in their gender when estimating their abilities, professionalism and usefulness.
The linked article is about speculation that Skype->Skype calls can be tapped. Since Phone->Phone calls can be tapped just as easily, as can Skype->Phone and Phone->Skype, this would appear to be a non-issue. Unless of course you're a tinfoil-hat-wearing loony who's #1 reason for switching to Skype was so that the gubmint couldn't listen in on your no-doubt fascinating and national-security-implicating calls to your mom.
The article makes no suggestion whatsoever of Skype being a "back door into your system".
That's an interesting fact about Wave, for sure, but it seems unrelated to the assertion of yours that I was responding to.
You called wave a "paradigm-shifting technology" and suggested that no existing technologies provide similar feature sets. I think that's not necessarily true (though I remain to be convinced, not having played with Wave myself).
Since Google just do a quick-and-dirty page render into a JPEG and serve that to you, many of your browser's capabilities go straight out the window. You can't apply your own stylesheet, can't zoom text (unless you scale the image, which is not the same thing), can't copy'n'paste or... oddly enough... select, right-click and Google search.
An apology penned by the persons who currently constitute government in the UK would be utterly meaningless since those are not persons who had anything to do with Turing's treatment.
"The Government" is not some sentient, undying, collectively intelligent entity which can itself apologise for its behaviour. It is merely a label for a group of individuals currently fulfilling certain roles.
By all means seek out politicians and civil servants who had a direct hand in injustices of the past and pursue them for apologies over their behaviour. But don't waste time asking for an apology from people which - whatever they may be guilty of - are not guilty of the injustices in question.
Good point - a sustained outage ought to actually be visible in the detailed breakdown of their end-of-year reports as a momentary decrease in the rate of losses.
right where it logically and intuitively should be
I'm glad I'm not your analyst;-)
Seriously though - navigation begins at the top of it to select the correct "tab" (?) then jumps to the bottom to find the right "group" (?) - assuming I picked the right tab anyway - then back up into the middle and across potentially the full width of the screen through an irregular morass of varyingly sized, shaped and colored controls some of which are buttons, some of which look like buttons but are menus, some are icons that look just decorative until you mouse over... ooo me head's spinning just thinking about it.
So, "right where it logically and intuitively should be" eh?
Ok, here's an Excel 2007 one that infuriates me. I've hurled some data onto a spreadsheets, the columns don't automatically resize so I actually can't read much. In any sane and ordered universe I'd right click the column heading and there'd be something on the context menu to say "make column width go now!".
Column width is obviously part of how I view my data so it'll be on the "View tab" I guess? Nope. Hmm. Okay, well maybe it's about how the page, the view, is laid out - so it'll be on the "Page layout tab" won't it? Err... nope. Turns out it's actually at the far right end of the "Home tab" in a group called "Cells". What I'm apparently looking for is a button in that group labelled "Format". It's not really a button, but an icon with a menu attached.
I know I'm nitpicking, and I'm sure there are plenty of good examples of bad menu-making but - jeez - I just cannot accept "logically and intuitively" as a description of the bizarre, scattershot UI grab-bag MS call "Ribbon".
Slashdot Mirror
"Standard Definition Gaming" appears to be a stupid invented term with - pun intended - no certain definition.
I'd call a PC game running in 1680x1050 "standard" or even "low" definition.
But a TV is apparently "high" even at a pathetic Wx768.
So when they offer - as they no doubt will in glowing, flash-animated virtual-mile-high letters on their websites - "High Definition Gaming!" - are they talking about a pitiful 768 pixel high display or just an almost-good-enough 1050?
I wouldn't guess quite so high, but well up there certainly. I also deal extensively with NHS customers. We took the decision a year ago to have our app demand something newer than IE6 and so far haven't had any resistance from NHS IT teams in getting them to at least provide a newer version of IE, if not some other browser.
I'm going to take a gamble and say you didn't RTFA.
Like "Half-Life 2" you mean?
Whether a game is part of a numbered series or not is unlikely to be the most significant measure of it's quality, surely?
To my mind, the first "Gears of War" - which had no number - was just as disinteresting and dull as this announcement of a 3rd episode.
Of course it's hardly the end of the world but really, if your DVD player randomly went on pause for a minute or two each time you watched a movie - would you not possibly end up using it less?
Seems a reasonable bet that that sort of thing is on the near horizon. Recall Sony & Skype announcing a couple months ago that whole ranges of new Sony TVs will come equipped with Skype for video calling.
I sat here for barely a minute and came up with three ways to mislead and confuse the drones that would almost certainly have a high degree of success. And I'm no expert.
Assuming the designers are also not experts and themselves spent less than your generous minute wondering whether anyone might not want to be blinded/deafened/tasered by their device, then you should be well ahead of the game.
The other solution is that people are installed that might not be the most qualified person but present the equally valuable diverse viewpoint in decisions and products. Not everyone values this as highly as I do and I understand that it upsets people when companies and governments try to make equal opportunity employment quotas.
So you're saying that women are different, think different and behave differently and that that specific diversity is valuable and should be considered when appointing humans to fulfil working responsibilities.
Yet at the same time I sense you are against recruitment discrimination based on gender.
Either it is irrelevant to be a woman and all appointments should be based upon qualification, competance, skills etc or gender is relevant and the appointment process should factor in gender wherever it can be shown that aptitude statistically divides along gender lines.
I don't think you can realistically ask to have it both ways.
For myself I think gender is irrelevant. I have recruited, subsequently trained and long worked with a number of both men and women in IT workplaces. Some were great. Some were not. I never felt it useful to factor in their gender when estimating their abilities, professionalism and usefulness.
The witch is dead!
About time too.
(A + !B) != (A + B)
Remember how CSS was supposed to make web pages shorter and faster to load? NOT
Build a page that looks the same as a heavily CSS'd page but uses only presentational HTML tags and attributes to achieve the effect.
Now make a second page for the same site with different text on it. And a third. And a fourth...
There's your "CSS makes web-pages shorter and faster" right there.
back door into your system now
Irresponsible wording.
The linked article is about speculation that Skype->Skype calls can be tapped. Since Phone->Phone calls can be tapped just as easily, as can Skype->Phone and Phone->Skype, this would appear to be a non-issue. Unless of course you're a tinfoil-hat-wearing loony who's #1 reason for switching to Skype was so that the gubmint couldn't listen in on your no-doubt fascinating and national-security-implicating calls to your mom.
The article makes no suggestion whatsoever of Skype being a "back door into your system".
4. All citizens are now afraid of the detector. Except terrorists.
5. Set detector to "if you're not trembling, you're guilty" mode.
6. Citizens learn that detector is now only interested in people who aren't afraid of getting stopped
7. Citizens no longer afraid. Back to square one!
8. Foxes and rabbits! XD
You are the exception which anecdotally proves the anecdotal rule.
I mean, you wouldn't hire a gardener who had a garden of his own - would you?
Schmuck.
http://www.spelunkyworld.com/
Utterly unforgiving, cute, fascinating, free, old-school platformer.
(windows only sadly)
That's an interesting fact about Wave, for sure, but it seems unrelated to the assertion of yours that I was responding to.
You called wave a "paradigm-shifting technology" and suggested that no existing technologies provide similar feature sets. I think that's not necessarily true (though I remain to be convinced, not having played with Wave myself).
No other Internet communications medium we've seen before has that kind of flexibility.
I'm, not sure I agree with that. I think you might be overlooking Skype.
You can chat line-by-line in realtime while both (or more) parties are online.
You can send one-off email-length messages and then ignore any response until you feel like dealing with it.
You can message people while they're not themselves online and they'll receive those messages when they next become available.
Include videos, pictures, files right the middle of the text.
Add additional people to an ongoing chat.
Share your desktop. Use collab whiteboarding or notepad apps.
Text becoming unweildy mid-conversation - switch to telephone or video.
All communications with any individual on your contacts can be kept indefinitely; searched; listed in chronological order; picked up and continued.
Personally I don't use any other IM clients but I rather suspect that they may also share many or all of Skype's features.
Wave may be little more than the next variation on the continuously evolving "chat client" theme.
The print-size issue is significant.
Since Google just do a quick-and-dirty page render into a JPEG and serve that to you, many of your browser's capabilities go straight out the window. You can't apply your own stylesheet, can't zoom text (unless you scale the image, which is not the same thing), can't copy'n'paste or... oddly enough... select, right-click and Google search.
We grew older.
An apology penned by the persons who currently constitute government in the UK would be utterly meaningless since those are not persons who had anything to do with Turing's treatment.
"The Government" is not some sentient, undying, collectively intelligent entity which can itself apologise for its behaviour. It is merely a label for a group of individuals currently fulfilling certain roles.
By all means seek out politicians and civil servants who had a direct hand in injustices of the past and pursue them for apologies over their behaviour. But don't waste time asking for an apology from people which - whatever they may be guilty of - are not guilty of the injustices in question.
is this all legal bluff and bluster?
No, this is all stupid bluff and bluster.
Good point - a sustained outage ought to actually be visible in the detailed breakdown of their end-of-year reports as a momentary decrease in the rate of losses.
I thought it was "twats".
So did David Cameron apparently.
right where it logically and intuitively should be
I'm glad I'm not your analyst ;-)
Seriously though - navigation begins at the top of it to select the correct "tab" (?) then jumps to the bottom to find the right "group" (?) - assuming I picked the right tab anyway - then back up into the middle and across potentially the full width of the screen through an irregular morass of varyingly sized, shaped and colored controls some of which are buttons, some of which look like buttons but are menus, some are icons that look just decorative until you mouse over... ooo me head's spinning just thinking about it.
So, "right where it logically and intuitively should be" eh?
Ok, here's an Excel 2007 one that infuriates me. I've hurled some data onto a spreadsheets, the columns don't automatically resize so I actually can't read much. In any sane and ordered universe I'd right click the column heading and there'd be something on the context menu to say "make column width go now!".
Column width is obviously part of how I view my data so it'll be on the "View tab" I guess? Nope. Hmm. Okay, well maybe it's about how the page, the view, is laid out - so it'll be on the "Page layout tab" won't it? Err... nope. Turns out it's actually at the far right end of the "Home tab" in a group called "Cells". What I'm apparently looking for is a button in that group labelled "Format". It's not really a button, but an icon with a menu attached.
I know I'm nitpicking, and I'm sure there are plenty of good examples of bad menu-making but - jeez - I just cannot accept "logically and intuitively" as a description of the bizarre, scattershot UI grab-bag MS call "Ribbon".