A problem that I think is bigger than motion sickness is the fundamental problem with locking vision and movement with where your gun is pointed. It doesn't come off as natural in the slightest, because your body is used to doing lots of different things at the same time.
I don't know about people wanting it to outright fail, but I do agree there are lots of people that don't see the point in forking it. They feel like it's a fork for the sake of being a fork. And like it or not, there's a whole history of open source and linux forks that do nothing but fragment things (people, distros, development, etc).
A guy heavy in the Linux field once said something to the effect of "If it's not broken, don't fix it. But if it is broken, fix it. Just don't fork it unless you really have to." Makes sense to me, but I'm just a random MS guy 90% of the time.
Trust me. The people using these cards, already have workstations with a shit ton of RAM anyway, not to mention SSD's are becoming more common for those use-scenarios.
And by all means, create a law to deal with that specifically. Just don't create a law that does that, AND is open for abuse by people simply looking bury their mistakes like they never happened.
I don't buy this complaint at all. I've been using 8.1 since it was released, and the hasn't once gotten in the way of me finding or doing stuff. In fact, there are a few things I miss from it when I have to do stuff on Win 7 (such as right-click the start icon to bring up all the admin options). And no, I don't use a touch screen or a laptop; just a plain old desktop with mouse and keyboard.
So I ask, what exactly is so inefficient about right-clicking straight to device manager, or clicking start and typing the program you want? Or clicking start and clicking the program icon because you pinned it there...? There's so much hyperbole floating around this thing, and I find if kind of funny.
I think it's kind of messed up that an article about selling children results in the majority of comments either criticizing the editing of the summary, or making a joke of the situation. What a fucked up community.
If you read the article, it mentions things like him spending all night out at the internet cafe playing online games. You have to realize that desktop F2P games are still the dominating force over there, and the internet cafe keeps it going. Every time we hear about someone dying after playing some MMO for 36 hours straight or whatever, it happened in one of those cafe's.
I'm just glad my business is fairly small and advertises through word of mouth from current clients, rather than depending on new foot traffic or something. I can't imagine dealing with the headache you're talking about after all the other small business headaches are dealt with.
Maybe we should stop sending troops to places where warfare is a national pastime, and start funneling this money into things like income equality and reducing poverty. You know, things that can actually help people improve their own lives.
Either your internet speed is much faster than most other areas (like fiber or something), or you're getting your Mbps mixed up with MBps. I deal with this a lot, where someone will complain about only being able to download at 2MBps when they're paying for 20Mbps or whatever, and wondering where the other 18 went.
Also, the main reason you probably had better experience 15 years ago is just due to how buffering has changed. Back in 1998, things had to be heavily buffered, so when you did get to start a video, it was smooth due to having a huge chunk of it already downloaded. You also weren't competing with millions of people for your youtube video either.
Probably because internet speeds are still largely measured Mbps. For anyone who's not familiar with data speeds, sticking to that measurement gives them an idea of exactly how much extra speed they're talking about.
The obvious usage, in my eyes, would be multi-tenant buildings. Stuff like office space or even apartment and condo buildings. That's a very big chunk of potential customers, considering it's where the majority of housing growth seems to be heading.
Aside from the nostalgic value, I just don't agree. I was a gamer back then, and I remember the vast majority of games were basically rehashes of a few popular genre-defining ones. You had your generic fighters with questionable controls and a roster that looked like a ripoff of either Street Fighter or Mortal Combat. You had your side scroller platformers with varying degrees of control accuracy or level inspiration. You had your JPRG's which were all so similar that you could probably mix and match screenshots from half of them and not only would it look the same, but the story would probably be about as cohesive.
Of course, just based on your ID number, I think it's safe to assume that this argument is pointless with you, much like arguing which decade has the best music with someone will generally boil down to them choosing the decades they spent their teens and 20's in.
How easily will it be to hold that in one hand for, you know, making phone calls? I'm jsut not seeing the innovation here. Now if this was a tablet being marketed with that ratio, then maybe I could see an argument. Just not a phone.
I wish they'd explain why they thought it was a good idea to flood the market with crap like 16-bit retro titles. We have something like more indie games released in the first 3 months of this year than 2013 entirely.
The tech industry has been flirting with smart watches and the like for years now, despite nearly all of the market research showing that people generally aren't excited about it. At all. The whole reason people stopped wearing actual watches was because they started carrying phones with them, rendering the watch redundant. I think the industry knows it's bleeding itself dry with smartphones since they can't keep making them bigger (which is largely how they have kept prices up), and tablets have proven to be too limited in scope to necessitate frequent upgrades (my 10" android from 3 years ago still does what I bought it to do). I just don't see this market blossoming at all, but I guess all the manufacturers are afraid of missing the boat on the Next Big Thing so they're pouring money into wearables anyway. Which means we'll probably have to deal with 3 to 5 years of crappy or niche devices being hyped up by paid reviewers and pro sponsors, until a bean counter somewhere says enough is enough.
Considering the ratio of decent to crappy movies is something like 1:50, I can't imagine this being a very good job. There has to be something like 200 hours of Asylum "mockbusters" alone. I stopped subscribing after watching the handful of quality TV shows and the very rare somewhat-newish-release movies dried up. At this point, I can honestly say they couldn't pay me enough to watch Netflix.
It's definitely possible. My observation is simply that the money would be more effective addressing some of the underlying reasons these kids can't or don't want to read, rather than on a for-profit service designed to encourage already proficient readers to read more and hoping for some excess funds to trickle down to the kids who really need it.
The thing is -- and this is something that most teachers really can't talk about professionally for PC reasons -- a child's success in school is influenced primarily by their home environment, and is often set in motion years before they start kindergarten. Simply offering a new reading program in the school will do very little if there isn't some heavy reinforcement at home.
Correct, but that doesn't solve the problem of people in those communities having the means of using the free subscription, not to mention jump through whatever hoops are required to be granted access. Most families in that situation don't have great access to a home computer, and trying to get them to make regular trips to whatever library still exists in the area to use those computers isn't much more likely.
The subscription -- although definitely a hurdle -- isn't really the major issue. It's how the money is being targeted.
The problem with (new) Reading Rainbow is that it will end up targeting and catering to kids that are already interested and proficient in reading, due to those kids being in families able to buy into the subscription. Twenty years ago, it worked because even poor families generally had at least a single crappy TV with rabbit ears, which was enough to get PBS.
That 4 or 5 million that ends up getting raised would go a lot further by addressing actual core issues with poverty, rather than giving kids who already know and like to read even more reason to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
A problem that I think is bigger than motion sickness is the fundamental problem with locking vision and movement with where your gun is pointed. It doesn't come off as natural in the slightest, because your body is used to doing lots of different things at the same time.
I don't know about people wanting it to outright fail, but I do agree there are lots of people that don't see the point in forking it. They feel like it's a fork for the sake of being a fork. And like it or not, there's a whole history of open source and linux forks that do nothing but fragment things (people, distros, development, etc). A guy heavy in the Linux field once said something to the effect of "If it's not broken, don't fix it. But if it is broken, fix it. Just don't fork it unless you really have to." Makes sense to me, but I'm just a random MS guy 90% of the time.
Seems like the type of thing a malware author would design around in order to take advantage of a security flaw.
Trust me. The people using these cards, already have workstations with a shit ton of RAM anyway, not to mention SSD's are becoming more common for those use-scenarios.
And by all means, create a law to deal with that specifically. Just don't create a law that does that, AND is open for abuse by people simply looking bury their mistakes like they never happened.
This is actually really cool. It has real Streisand Effect potential.
This isn't "Slashdot: News for Charliemopps, Stuff that Matters"
I don't buy this complaint at all. I've been using 8.1 since it was released, and the hasn't once gotten in the way of me finding or doing stuff. In fact, there are a few things I miss from it when I have to do stuff on Win 7 (such as right-click the start icon to bring up all the admin options). And no, I don't use a touch screen or a laptop; just a plain old desktop with mouse and keyboard. So I ask, what exactly is so inefficient about right-clicking straight to device manager, or clicking start and typing the program you want? Or clicking start and clicking the program icon because you pinned it there...? There's so much hyperbole floating around this thing, and I find if kind of funny.
I think it's kind of messed up that an article about selling children results in the majority of comments either criticizing the editing of the summary, or making a joke of the situation. What a fucked up community.
If you read the article, it mentions things like him spending all night out at the internet cafe playing online games. You have to realize that desktop F2P games are still the dominating force over there, and the internet cafe keeps it going. Every time we hear about someone dying after playing some MMO for 36 hours straight or whatever, it happened in one of those cafe's.
I'm just glad my business is fairly small and advertises through word of mouth from current clients, rather than depending on new foot traffic or something. I can't imagine dealing with the headache you're talking about after all the other small business headaches are dealt with.
So basically congress is ok with a wellfare program that brings money into their districts, even if the projects are a complete waste.
Maybe we should stop sending troops to places where warfare is a national pastime, and start funneling this money into things like income equality and reducing poverty. You know, things that can actually help people improve their own lives.
Either your internet speed is much faster than most other areas (like fiber or something), or you're getting your Mbps mixed up with MBps. I deal with this a lot, where someone will complain about only being able to download at 2MBps when they're paying for 20Mbps or whatever, and wondering where the other 18 went. Also, the main reason you probably had better experience 15 years ago is just due to how buffering has changed. Back in 1998, things had to be heavily buffered, so when you did get to start a video, it was smooth due to having a huge chunk of it already downloaded. You also weren't competing with millions of people for your youtube video either.
Probably because internet speeds are still largely measured Mbps. For anyone who's not familiar with data speeds, sticking to that measurement gives them an idea of exactly how much extra speed they're talking about.
The obvious usage, in my eyes, would be multi-tenant buildings. Stuff like office space or even apartment and condo buildings. That's a very big chunk of potential customers, considering it's where the majority of housing growth seems to be heading.
The DSL provider in my area (Anchorage AK) is so ass backwards that there are large pockets of the city where you can't get more than around 792k.
Aside from the nostalgic value, I just don't agree. I was a gamer back then, and I remember the vast majority of games were basically rehashes of a few popular genre-defining ones. You had your generic fighters with questionable controls and a roster that looked like a ripoff of either Street Fighter or Mortal Combat. You had your side scroller platformers with varying degrees of control accuracy or level inspiration. You had your JPRG's which were all so similar that you could probably mix and match screenshots from half of them and not only would it look the same, but the story would probably be about as cohesive. Of course, just based on your ID number, I think it's safe to assume that this argument is pointless with you, much like arguing which decade has the best music with someone will generally boil down to them choosing the decades they spent their teens and 20's in.
How easily will it be to hold that in one hand for, you know, making phone calls? I'm jsut not seeing the innovation here. Now if this was a tablet being marketed with that ratio, then maybe I could see an argument. Just not a phone.
I wish they'd explain why they thought it was a good idea to flood the market with crap like 16-bit retro titles. We have something like more indie games released in the first 3 months of this year than 2013 entirely.
The tech industry has been flirting with smart watches and the like for years now, despite nearly all of the market research showing that people generally aren't excited about it. At all. The whole reason people stopped wearing actual watches was because they started carrying phones with them, rendering the watch redundant. I think the industry knows it's bleeding itself dry with smartphones since they can't keep making them bigger (which is largely how they have kept prices up), and tablets have proven to be too limited in scope to necessitate frequent upgrades (my 10" android from 3 years ago still does what I bought it to do). I just don't see this market blossoming at all, but I guess all the manufacturers are afraid of missing the boat on the Next Big Thing so they're pouring money into wearables anyway. Which means we'll probably have to deal with 3 to 5 years of crappy or niche devices being hyped up by paid reviewers and pro sponsors, until a bean counter somewhere says enough is enough.
Considering the ratio of decent to crappy movies is something like 1:50, I can't imagine this being a very good job. There has to be something like 200 hours of Asylum "mockbusters" alone. I stopped subscribing after watching the handful of quality TV shows and the very rare somewhat-newish-release movies dried up. At this point, I can honestly say they couldn't pay me enough to watch Netflix.
It's definitely possible. My observation is simply that the money would be more effective addressing some of the underlying reasons these kids can't or don't want to read, rather than on a for-profit service designed to encourage already proficient readers to read more and hoping for some excess funds to trickle down to the kids who really need it. The thing is -- and this is something that most teachers really can't talk about professionally for PC reasons -- a child's success in school is influenced primarily by their home environment, and is often set in motion years before they start kindergarten. Simply offering a new reading program in the school will do very little if there isn't some heavy reinforcement at home.
Correct, but that doesn't solve the problem of people in those communities having the means of using the free subscription, not to mention jump through whatever hoops are required to be granted access. Most families in that situation don't have great access to a home computer, and trying to get them to make regular trips to whatever library still exists in the area to use those computers isn't much more likely. The subscription -- although definitely a hurdle -- isn't really the major issue. It's how the money is being targeted.
The problem with (new) Reading Rainbow is that it will end up targeting and catering to kids that are already interested and proficient in reading, due to those kids being in families able to buy into the subscription. Twenty years ago, it worked because even poor families generally had at least a single crappy TV with rabbit ears, which was enough to get PBS. That 4 or 5 million that ends up getting raised would go a lot further by addressing actual core issues with poverty, rather than giving kids who already know and like to read even more reason to do so.