This is true. Nobody has ever owned more than one game. Nobody ever bought Fallout 4 because everyone was like "Hey, I'm playing Skyrim, and I have some mods, so I will never look at this completely different game."
Is GTA VI just GTA V with the ability to tweak what your avatars look like, or with some minor additional subgames, or with the ability to flip a switch and have infinite lives?
Because if it is, sure, the modding community is the competition. But if it is, nobody's going to spend more than $5 on it.
If it isn't, if it's more or less a whole new game, as distinct from GTA V as GTA V is from GTA IV, then there's no effing way the modding community is "competition".
Yeah, that was my thought too. I'm old enough for there still to have been radio sets (that's what they called 'em) that were built in the early fifties in my and other people's homes when I grew up, and when you took them apart the insides would have needed something larger than a shoebox to fit into. And that's just a receiver.
Sure, miniaturization wasn't a big deal back then, and maybe there were ways to make smaller valves, but transistors weren't ready for prime time.
The best I can imagine they might have been able to develop in the 1940s would have been analog cellular carphones. Leaving aside the "Needs a car so high cost of entry already", you're already looking at a niche market when you consider the selling point of modern cellular is that you can be connected at all times. Limiting it to when you're at your car would effectively remove that selling point.
Until Windows is refactored such that it isn't necessary to reboot the operating system every time there's an update, updates need to be optional.
In 1995, it was considered a bug that the latest version of Windows at the time would crash and reboot after 100 days or so. Now people are patting Microsoft on the back for building an operating system that reboots every week, frequently more than once a week. This needs to stop.
1. Taxis are not subsidized by the government. They're also rarely actual monopolies - local governments sometimes (but rarely) restrict the number of licensed cabs, but you're still looking at a huge number of operators
2. If you say so.
3. Yup.
4. A culture that encourages law breaking in one area is likely to be rotten from top to bottom. The fact some of the strikes against Uber have to do with concerns relating to discrimination is merely an obvious consequence.
I doubt Kalanick can turn Uber around. Uber isn't making losses because it breaks the law, it's making losses despite breaking the law. The reality is that they're undercutting taxis on price without undercutting them on costs, and taxis aren't exactly a highly profitable industry. That'll probably never change.
Are you really arguing there are no ugly male CEOs that suck? Is the guy who runs Sears devilishly handsome in your opinion, just to name a terrible CEO off the top of my head?
The Liberal Democrats are way to the left of both US Republicans and US Democrats. Generally, if the (US) Democrats were to field candidates in the UK they'd be considered right wing.
You're talking about C (data) pointers. The GP is talking about pointers in general, for example the destination in branch instructions. I'm not convinced that there are more code locations than data pointers in a normal program, but the GP make a convincing argument that the 64 bit overhead isn't as large as you'd assume.
That seemed to be the implication of the summary, that they did have such a stipulation there.
Closer to home, I know Amtrak was forced to stop calling some of its trains by the names the private railroads had called them because the original operator didn't feel the Amtrak service was of similar quality. The odd thing there was that the original operator wasn't running passenger trains any more, and didn't have any need to keep the name.
I'd be surprised if most licensing agreements don't come with some stipulations about quality and the types of products that can be sold under that name. There's no point in renting out use of the name if doing so reduces the value of the brand.
Have to agree with you on your first point. The biggie I see all the time here is the "Java? Does anyone still use that? *snort* something something applets."
Literally one of the biggest platforms out there, and people here think it's obscure.
We're only going to reduce errors if it's a programming language that makes errors harder to make. I switch routinely between a number of different languages in my current job, and it's not the switching that has any affect on the reliability of the end result.
I can also pretty much guarantee that if the world did standardize on just one or two languages, it'd probably be the worst of them. For better or worse, the languages of the world wide web right now are Javascript, PHP, and C. The infrastructure is written in C. The applications are written in PHP. The front end is written in Javascript.
These are three awful, awful, programming languages to standardize on, and yet within one sector of the industry, that's exactly what we've done. Why have we done this?
- We standardized on C because we'd already standardized on it in the mid-1980s. It could have been Modula 2 or Oberon, but we ended up with C because at the time we were trying to squeeze functionality out of every byte of memory. Ironically, C is so clumsy we've ended up abstracting everything up the wazoo a million times and so it's far less efficient than it needs to be. There's no need for Apache to be written in C. But when Apache was written, that was what you wrote Unix servers in, so, 20-25 years later we're still stuck with it.
- We standardized on PHP because it's easy for non-developers to pick up, and it was there, and it was free, and it was kinda sorta marketed at them at a time when everyone wanted to build a website. And as a result critical frameworks like Wordpress are written in PHP. PHP is seductively convenient too, but almost everything that makes it convenient also is a bomb that just needs a detonator of ignorance to cause a problem.
- We standardized on Javascript (which is perhaps the better of the three languages) because it's built into every web browser because every web browser in the 1990s had to be compatible with Netscape, and Netscape introduced JS.
At no point were issues like reliability or security considered as criteria for the "market" to pick these three. The market didn't care. And so we're stuck with that as our technology stack.
The only way out of this mess is to be able to break out of "standards" and be able to use better languages as they come up. The market failed in terms of picking a sane winner. But as long as there's more than one stall at the market, better developers can at least get around that.
The engineering team responsible for the chain of events that led to this colossal fuck are completely and wholly to blame.
It's so over the top it's hard for me to believe any of it. If the CTO who fired him was described as a "Fat woman stuffing her face with a donut", then we'd know for sure it was just another Reddit story, but alas, no obvious signs beyond it being close to impossible to believe a department could be that stupid.
One of the great mysteries of the Thursday election is how "Corbyn didn't lose as badly as we thought he was going to" got changed into a narrative by almost everyone in British politics - Tories, Labour, media, etc - to "He won the election and Theresa May lost".
The Tories had a plurality of seats as a result of the election, and are in the strongest position to form a government. Labour didn't and isn't. For a party ripped apart by in-fighting, it did well, but it still lost.
As others have pointed out, there are much better ways to reduce crime if you have a billion dollars to spend on it than vigilantism. (Yes, some people would become criminals anyway, but his entire reason for being a vigilante is that crime in Gotham is unusually high, which means education reform, job creation, better access to healthcare and mental healthcare, etc, are much more likely to reduce crime across the board than dressing up as a bat.
Think of it like this: generally speaking, it's possible to have collateral damage in any crime. Laws are often about identifying this and addressing it.
Alice wants to kill Bob. She walks into Carol's restaurant with an AK-47 and sprays bullets around, killing Bob. The bullets shred seats, break windows, and generally make a mess. Do you argue that Alice should not be responsible for the damage to Carol's restaurant because murder is murder, and murder is what Alice was doing?
Alice wants to kill Bob. She creates a fake university, convincing Bob and Carol to pay their life savings in, mostly as a ruse to get Bob to turn up to the university's "address", where Alice can ambush him and kill him. Is Alice not responsible for the money she defrauded both out of, because murder is murder, and murder is what Alice was doing?
Alice wants to kill Bob, because Bob is Jewish. Alice murders Bob, carving a swastika onto Bob's forehead and painting antisemitic signs all over Bob''s home. Carol, who is also Jewish, lives nearby, and is terrified, her job is at risk because her anxiety makes it hard to work, she's considering leaving the area, and she has to get medical help. Is Alice not responsible for the terror she's put Carol through merely because murder is murder, and murder is what Alice was doing?
I'm fully in favor of prosecuting hate crimes, including terrorism (which are essentially actually variants of the same thing) at a more severe level than ordinary "It'd help my life a lot if this specific individual were dead" murder. They are worse crimes.
Seriously, this millennial attack bullshit is getting out of hand. Avocado toast, and now "They don't know stuff that's completely unnecessary in 2017"?
I'm waiting on a "My Millennial Grandkid Won't Program My VCR" thinkpiece complaining that the author had to ask his son to program his VCR to record NCIS for him because his grandkid didn't know what a VCR was and didn't give a fuck either.
I got this one. Uhm, genetic mutation of some sort: Marvel. Advanced civilization (human or otherwise): DC. Rich bastard who anonymously fights crime wearing high-tech suit: can go either way.
Empire is shown on Fox, which has been a major network since the early 1990s. It might be newer than NBC, but it's not even the newest network, and I doubt you'd find many people agreeing with you that the network that shows The Simpsons isn't major.
In it's timeslot, Empire scores around a 2, getting around 7M viewers, at a time when the top rated show, Survivor, usually gets around 8M, so I'm not sure where you're getting it from that it's not something people watch.
As a general rule, don't assume that because you're not interested in something, others aren't. There are plenty of hit shows I have no interest in, but I'm not arrogant enough to think they're unpopular just because I don't like them.
Well, yeah, being in a different country would mean you wouldn't know what US shows are associated with what US networks. OTOH, if you're (for example) British and you don't know that Eastenders is associated with the BBC, you'd be doing the same thing.
The "Network" in this instance is (more or less) the TV channel you're tuning into to watch the TV show. For example, to watch "Saturday Night Live" you need to tune into the TV channel associated with NBC in your region, which at certain times of day even calls itself NBC. If you're wondering why it's a network, and "associated with", rather than just called NBC all the time, it has to do with the weird geographical set up of TV in the US, where every TV station is local, so to put out national content, TV stations associated themselves with one of five or six major networks.
The reason why most people don't know what network a particular show is associated with is because we (all of us, not just millennials) don't do a lot of tuning in these days. We program our DVRs to record programs, and so only briefly find out that the program is associated with that network at the time we set up the recurring timer. We watch syndicated content - for example, TNT or USA rebroadcast shows from several years ago, with no indication of what network commissioned them. We watch shows on Netflix, Amazon, etc. Essentially, we no longer say "OK, it's time to tune the TV into channel 29, Gotham is just starting!"
I felt like the headline was kinda patronizing Millennials, when all that's happened is the way we watch TV has changed.
Slashdot Mirror
This is true. Nobody has ever owned more than one game. Nobody ever bought Fallout 4 because everyone was like "Hey, I'm playing Skyrim, and I have some mods, so I will never look at this completely different game."
Is GTA VI just GTA V with the ability to tweak what your avatars look like, or with some minor additional subgames, or with the ability to flip a switch and have infinite lives?
Because if it is, sure, the modding community is the competition. But if it is, nobody's going to spend more than $5 on it.
If it isn't, if it's more or less a whole new game, as distinct from GTA V as GTA V is from GTA IV, then there's no effing way the modding community is "competition".
It hides behind the Sun so we can never see it. That also explains the weird issues with Mercury's orbit.
Yeah, that was my thought too. I'm old enough for there still to have been radio sets (that's what they called 'em) that were built in the early fifties in my and other people's homes when I grew up, and when you took them apart the insides would have needed something larger than a shoebox to fit into. And that's just a receiver.
Sure, miniaturization wasn't a big deal back then, and maybe there were ways to make smaller valves, but transistors weren't ready for prime time.
The best I can imagine they might have been able to develop in the 1940s would have been analog cellular carphones. Leaving aside the "Needs a car so high cost of entry already", you're already looking at a niche market when you consider the selling point of modern cellular is that you can be connected at all times. Limiting it to when you're at your car would effectively remove that selling point.
"Windows Search 2008 Professional Powered by Internet Explorer"?
Until Windows is refactored such that it isn't necessary to reboot the operating system every time there's an update, updates need to be optional.
In 1995, it was considered a bug that the latest version of Windows at the time would crash and reboot after 100 days or so. Now people are patting Microsoft on the back for building an operating system that reboots every week, frequently more than once a week. This needs to stop.
People will say it's nicer, but it'll consistently only get 3-5% of the market.
Possibly, but DEF FN was kinda useless, you were limited to a single expression, rather than an algorithm.
1. Taxis are not subsidized by the government. They're also rarely actual monopolies - local governments sometimes (but rarely) restrict the number of licensed cabs, but you're still looking at a huge number of operators
2. If you say so.
3. Yup.
4. A culture that encourages law breaking in one area is likely to be rotten from top to bottom. The fact some of the strikes against Uber have to do with concerns relating to discrimination is merely an obvious consequence.
I doubt Kalanick can turn Uber around. Uber isn't making losses because it breaks the law, it's making losses despite breaking the law. The reality is that they're undercutting taxis on price without undercutting them on costs, and taxis aren't exactly a highly profitable industry. That'll probably never change.
Are you really arguing there are no ugly male CEOs that suck? Is the guy who runs Sears devilishly handsome in your opinion, just to name a terrible CEO off the top of my head?
The Liberal Democrats are way to the left of both US Republicans and US Democrats. Generally, if the (US) Democrats were to field candidates in the UK they'd be considered right wing.
You're talking about C (data) pointers. The GP is talking about pointers in general, for example the destination in branch instructions. I'm not convinced that there are more code locations than data pointers in a normal program, but the GP make a convincing argument that the 64 bit overhead isn't as large as you'd assume.
That seemed to be the implication of the summary, that they did have such a stipulation there.
Closer to home, I know Amtrak was forced to stop calling some of its trains by the names the private railroads had called them because the original operator didn't feel the Amtrak service was of similar quality. The odd thing there was that the original operator wasn't running passenger trains any more, and didn't have any need to keep the name.
I'd be surprised if most licensing agreements don't come with some stipulations about quality and the types of products that can be sold under that name. There's no point in renting out use of the name if doing so reduces the value of the brand.
Have to agree with you on your first point. The biggie I see all the time here is the "Java? Does anyone still use that? *snort* something something applets."
Literally one of the biggest platforms out there, and people here think it's obscure.
We're only going to reduce errors if it's a programming language that makes errors harder to make. I switch routinely between a number of different languages in my current job, and it's not the switching that has any affect on the reliability of the end result.
I can also pretty much guarantee that if the world did standardize on just one or two languages, it'd probably be the worst of them. For better or worse, the languages of the world wide web right now are Javascript, PHP, and C. The infrastructure is written in C. The applications are written in PHP. The front end is written in Javascript.
These are three awful, awful, programming languages to standardize on, and yet within one sector of the industry, that's exactly what we've done. Why have we done this?
- We standardized on C because we'd already standardized on it in the mid-1980s. It could have been Modula 2 or Oberon, but we ended up with C because at the time we were trying to squeeze functionality out of every byte of memory. Ironically, C is so clumsy we've ended up abstracting everything up the wazoo a million times and so it's far less efficient than it needs to be. There's no need for Apache to be written in C. But when Apache was written, that was what you wrote Unix servers in, so, 20-25 years later we're still stuck with it.
- We standardized on PHP because it's easy for non-developers to pick up, and it was there, and it was free, and it was kinda sorta marketed at them at a time when everyone wanted to build a website. And as a result critical frameworks like Wordpress are written in PHP. PHP is seductively convenient too, but almost everything that makes it convenient also is a bomb that just needs a detonator of ignorance to cause a problem.
- We standardized on Javascript (which is perhaps the better of the three languages) because it's built into every web browser because every web browser in the 1990s had to be compatible with Netscape, and Netscape introduced JS.
At no point were issues like reliability or security considered as criteria for the "market" to pick these three. The market didn't care. And so we're stuck with that as our technology stack.
The only way out of this mess is to be able to break out of "standards" and be able to use better languages as they come up. The market failed in terms of picking a sane winner. But as long as there's more than one stall at the market, better developers can at least get around that.
It really is infuriating that the powers that be decided to cover the entire world in sealed domes, preventing air passing from one area to another.
It's so over the top it's hard for me to believe any of it. If the CTO who fired him was described as a "Fat woman stuffing her face with a donut", then we'd know for sure it was just another Reddit story, but alas, no obvious signs beyond it being close to impossible to believe a department could be that stupid.
One of the great mysteries of the Thursday election is how "Corbyn didn't lose as badly as we thought he was going to" got changed into a narrative by almost everyone in British politics - Tories, Labour, media, etc - to "He won the election and Theresa May lost".
The Tories had a plurality of seats as a result of the election, and are in the strongest position to form a government. Labour didn't and isn't. For a party ripped apart by in-fighting, it did well, but it still lost.
)
(Sorry, forgot a parenthesis there.)
As others have pointed out, there are much better ways to reduce crime if you have a billion dollars to spend on it than vigilantism. (Yes, some people would become criminals anyway, but his entire reason for being a vigilante is that crime in Gotham is unusually high, which means education reform, job creation, better access to healthcare and mental healthcare, etc, are much more likely to reduce crime across the board than dressing up as a bat.
Think of it like this: generally speaking, it's possible to have collateral damage in any crime. Laws are often about identifying this and addressing it.
Alice wants to kill Bob. She walks into Carol's restaurant with an AK-47 and sprays bullets around, killing Bob. The bullets shred seats, break windows, and generally make a mess. Do you argue that Alice should not be responsible for the damage to Carol's restaurant because murder is murder, and murder is what Alice was doing?
Alice wants to kill Bob. She creates a fake university, convincing Bob and Carol to pay their life savings in, mostly as a ruse to get Bob to turn up to the university's "address", where Alice can ambush him and kill him. Is Alice not responsible for the money she defrauded both out of, because murder is murder, and murder is what Alice was doing?
Alice wants to kill Bob, because Bob is Jewish. Alice murders Bob, carving a swastika onto Bob's forehead and painting antisemitic signs all over Bob''s home. Carol, who is also Jewish, lives nearby, and is terrified, her job is at risk because her anxiety makes it hard to work, she's considering leaving the area, and she has to get medical help. Is Alice not responsible for the terror she's put Carol through merely because murder is murder, and murder is what Alice was doing?
I'm fully in favor of prosecuting hate crimes, including terrorism (which are essentially actually variants of the same thing) at a more severe level than ordinary "It'd help my life a lot if this specific individual were dead" murder. They are worse crimes.
Seriously, this millennial attack bullshit is getting out of hand. Avocado toast, and now "They don't know stuff that's completely unnecessary in 2017"?
I'm waiting on a "My Millennial Grandkid Won't Program My VCR" thinkpiece complaining that the author had to ask his son to program his VCR to record NCIS for him because his grandkid didn't know what a VCR was and didn't give a fuck either.
I got this one. Uhm, genetic mutation of some sort: Marvel. Advanced civilization (human or otherwise): DC. Rich bastard who anonymously fights crime wearing high-tech suit: can go either way.
I think that's it, right? ;-)
Empire is shown on Fox, which has been a major network since the early 1990s. It might be newer than NBC, but it's not even the newest network, and I doubt you'd find many people agreeing with you that the network that shows The Simpsons isn't major.
In it's timeslot, Empire scores around a 2, getting around 7M viewers, at a time when the top rated show, Survivor, usually gets around 8M, so I'm not sure where you're getting it from that it's not something people watch.
As a general rule, don't assume that because you're not interested in something, others aren't. There are plenty of hit shows I have no interest in, but I'm not arrogant enough to think they're unpopular just because I don't like them.
Well, yeah, being in a different country would mean you wouldn't know what US shows are associated with what US networks. OTOH, if you're (for example) British and you don't know that Eastenders is associated with the BBC, you'd be doing the same thing.
The "Network" in this instance is (more or less) the TV channel you're tuning into to watch the TV show. For example, to watch "Saturday Night Live" you need to tune into the TV channel associated with NBC in your region, which at certain times of day even calls itself NBC. If you're wondering why it's a network, and "associated with", rather than just called NBC all the time, it has to do with the weird geographical set up of TV in the US, where every TV station is local, so to put out national content, TV stations associated themselves with one of five or six major networks.
The reason why most people don't know what network a particular show is associated with is because we (all of us, not just millennials) don't do a lot of tuning in these days. We program our DVRs to record programs, and so only briefly find out that the program is associated with that network at the time we set up the recurring timer. We watch syndicated content - for example, TNT or USA rebroadcast shows from several years ago, with no indication of what network commissioned them. We watch shows on Netflix, Amazon, etc. Essentially, we no longer say "OK, it's time to tune the TV into channel 29, Gotham is just starting!"
I felt like the headline was kinda patronizing Millennials, when all that's happened is the way we watch TV has changed.