The most annoying thing I find is that it's not even true.
iTunes of course is software that Apple provide that allows you to upload to your iPod (the sort of software you'd expect any MP3 player vendor to provide with their hardware), and there are 3rd party utilities - both commercial and free - that also offer this functionality.
This is distinct from the iTunes Music Store (iTMS) which was added after iTunes and iPod's had already been available for some time, but is a feature of the software (for logical reasons, as it would be much less user friendly if it had a completely separate application window).
You can of course use music from stores with the iPod. I buy from the iTMS, but I also buy MP3's from the outstanding Emusic all the time (I like the service as you get plain MP3's so there is no messing about with keys or authorisation, and you can entire albums as single.zip archives and you can re-download stuff as much as you like if you have an active subscription, the only thing I don't like about it is the 'subscription' model rather than the more traditional pay-per-song model).
The 'problem' is that the iTunes Music Store only supports iTunes, which only (officially) supports the iPod (though unoffically it's possible to use it with a number of devices using 3rd party plug-ins), NOT that the iPod is somehow 'locked in' to the iTMS, which it isn't.
This is a premise that a 10 year old should be able to grasp, but is apparently way above the heads of Chris Nickson, the editors at Designtechnica, ScuttleMonkey and prostoalex.
Faith is an essential means to remain optimistic in an uncertain world. Faith is belief in the face of doubt / the absurd. Faith is arguably very important to scientific discovery, lest one doubt their hypotheses.
Faith however, is not essential and I would argue it's not particularly desirable. I prefer to practice realism (to the best of my ability) than delude myself with a reality distortion field built on expectations that are by definition unrealistic and founded on false premises.
You can still be a kind, generous, altruistic and forgiving person and not have faith, but because you believe it's an appropriate way to behave and has net benefits (in that it can be beneficial to you, and to society as a whole because it encourages reciprocal behaviour, as indeed it does).
Those pushing religion tend not to be keen on that idea though, they prefer to push the notion that you need to latch on to a specific 'faith' system to support you lest you fall of the wagon. I believe that approach is misguided and potentially dangerous.
'Faith' as a solution is at best a kludge and at worst a red herring, that can lead down a dark path with disastrous repercussions on a global scale. Addressing root causes such as inequality, injustice, and persecution are more effective approaches at dealing with the things that drive people to 'faith' based groups in the first place.
I do not believe the world can ever be 'a perfect place' - history and logical deduction seem to suggests otherwise, as any social environment that relies on co-operation also leaves open the opportunity for another to profit by shafting others in the group, meaning there will always be an incentive not to co-operate (The Scorpion and the Frog) - and that's to say nothing of human nature, chemical imbalances and behaviour in exception circumstances.
There is clearly room for significant improvement in the way we interact with each other, particularly on a global scale however I do not believe faith based systems are an effective means of progression to that point. The acceptance of an unfavourable circumstance and a logical extrapolation of the most effective way to resolve an issue are more helpful than any system based on sheer optimism.
With specific regard to:
Faith is arguably very important to scientific discovery, lest one doubt their hypotheses
I think if you don't have any doubt about your hypotheses there is something seriously wrong with your approach. Even if your right you ought to have doubts about it and set out to prove yourself wrong until you are certain you are right, that's how hypotheses progress to being regarded as 'proven'.
Not to mention you get the added bonus of transmission losses during distribution which just doesn't exist for the gasoline
Your ommiting the loss from the fuel for the generators on the oil rigs, for the helicopers used to bring staff on and off them, for the supply ships, for the refinaries back on land and for the trucks which take the stuff from the local depots to the filling stations (tens/hundreds of thousands of which are constantly on the road, all over the globe).
I'm not including things like the constuction of the source (power stations vrs rigs / refinaries / petrol stations, etc) or supply & maintenaince vehicles, which would obviously be reasources common to both, just pointing out that oil is very lossy indeed (much more so than electricity I strongly suspect).
Electricity is far cheaper to produce as a fuel source, as is borne out by the prices reflected for them in the market (and also in the current price of my BP shares [huzza!]). In fact, oil prices go ever upwards and electricity goes ever downwards, a situation which is not going to change.
It would be nice to have some hard data to back up this theory of course, but that would really need a decent fully electrical car we could mesure the usage requirements for (and compare the cost per mile and straight up cost of the vehicle to produce).
It's not a feature I use (especially since having Spotlight), though I used to rely on it quite a bit when I was using Mac OS Classic. Nautilus allows you to label files though, and KDE seem to have something interesting in the works.
Agreed, I work for a UK telco and major provider and despite how high broadband uptake is here it's shocking how far behind our European neighbours the UK is technologically in high speed network provision. This is not helped by often ineffective government regulation - which often make things worse rather than better for customers - and the incumbent British Telecom who have kept the UK back technologically through lack of development - it will be some decades yet before we are free of them.
The market is rapidly changing in the UK but we still pay more money for less bandwidth that other western nations (the flip side is, we can hire network engineers from across Europe who have already built VDSL / ADSL 2.0 networks and have practical experience of the equipment). Though connectivity is cheaper in the US than it is in the UK (as is pretty much everything), technologically the situation little better.
Asia and main land Europe have had speeds in excess of this (at cheaper prices) for year, so it's a bit insular of those of us in the US and the 51st state to think of this as 'new'. Though I should say in fairness a lot as hinged on some countries and companies waiting for standards to be ratified and equipment to be certified as compliant before allowing them to be rolled out.
TBH I'm amazed some places have managed to roll out VDSL and ADSL 2.0 solutions though, getting the current generation of equipment to work properly (without falling over or falling foul of one of umpteen 'undocumented features').
This news is also over hyped as Be announced this a while ago, there are actually plenty of people offering the same service though (and none are actually live products in the UK yet). All be did was jump the gun and announce it the day before the standard had been accepted (which they weren't supposed to, but did anyway so they could claim they were "first" - even if they didn't actually roll out the technology first).
Actually the Zodiac itself had a better hardware spec than the DS in the shape of vastly more memory, superior support via it's ATI Imageon graphics card, higher resolution display and a much faster CPU). It also had a much sleeker form factor and had the added bonus of being a functional PDA with a huge library of Palm software available for it (something I wish the PSP had).
Obviously this came at a cost - it was double the price (so at the PSP price point, but with less than PSP level performance, and without the supreme benefit of Sony's brand recognition - which is the only reason I think consumers are willing to trust in a device as expensive as the PSP).
That aside, I think biggest thing it had issue with was lack of developer support and poor marketing (which to some extent go hand in hand, stores won't stock it and people won't buy it if there are no games, but developers aren't keen to flock to an unknown quantity and invest time and money in such a risky enterprise).
I was on the verge of buying one but held off when I read about the PSP for the first time, not that I wouldn't mind owning both but the game library for the Zodiac (that is, games that took advantage of the unique 3D hardware - not just the regular Palm games which I've mostly played already) was just too small to imagine me using it for longer than a month or two.
Oh no the parent post possibly shows the PSP in a non negative light, and shows why some sicko prefers the PSP - we can't have that can we? Quick let's mod it down!
I've noticed that about the other posts in under this story, it's like reading Fox News for Nerds (only left wing).
Given Sony (in there capacity of a major music publisher specifically) are now 'the enemy' it would seem to be a collective case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I'm sure that the favouratisim will dissappear fairly quickly when the same people read about how Nindendo are using (shock, horror) DRM to protect the ROM files people are downloading via the Revolution. Then they will have to find a new 'good guy' to line up against the 'bad guys' of the X-Box, PlayStation and Revolution.
Ironically since making that post it's come to light that Nintendo do actually think that improving the GBA design is worth doing, as it seems they've gone back and improved the screen (albeit slightly) on new GBA SP units (though this may have to do with streamlining the manufacturing process, given they seem to be using very similar screens in the new GB Micro's).
I am heartend by this though, as it seems they have not yet abandoned the superior (IMHO) compact clamshell approach. Shame it doesn't have an integrated 3.5 mm audio jack yet. I really can't see the logic behind it not having one - even if they absolutely could not fit it inside the case and had to bolt it on, it need only stick out less than half a centimeter from the back or so.
I expect one day we will see a redesigned DS, with improved build quality, reduced size size. Hopefully it won't take them so long that it makes no difference to the ability of the unit to be competative (against a PSP lineup which will undoubtably gain strength).
One thing I'm seeing here in London is very few PSP's or DS's in public (even though every man and his dog seems to have an iPod and PDA in addition to the obligatory mobile). I'm still seeing a lot of GBA & GBA SP users on the tube and on trains. While the PSP is highly desirable it is too expensive for many (at least as an impulse purchase), and while the DS has a far more attractive price point, the bulky form factor just doesn't make it a desirable item.
I used to play PlanetSide (for nearly two years) there were regularly huge zergs, with 300-500 people on a single map (often with almost all of them zerging a single area). I say 300-500 as they ended up putting a cap to level on to split up the zergs and by capping the percentage of slots a single faction could use on one 'continent' to limit the ability of a team to simply 'zerg' a continent filling up the first few hundred slots up thereby dominating it unopposed it by sheer force of numbers. In the process the overall number of slots was reduced, which also helped better distribute players across the world (and was widely welcomed at the time).
something that Planetside only claimed to have
PlanetSide battles had battles with more than than the '4 or 5' times a large BF2 game offically supports virtually every night for about 2 years, which is not bad going. For the first year, there were typically two large zergs on the go for each faction at peak time (and, for those not familer with it there are three factions in PlanetSide).
The game has definately had it's ups and downs - a very buggy release period for the first 6 months, a very underwhelming and pointless expantion, followed by a good stable period, then it jumped the shark with the arrival of BFR's, and now in game adverts. It was also consistantly poorly manged with high turn over of production and development staff and very poor quality support staff who regularly abused their positions (and still do).
However, IMO, the biggest reason for the struggle for larger success of the game was that the target audience seemed to consist of 13 year old who endlessly bitched about having to pay a monthly fee, when they could play BattleField 1942 or UT2004 on a server someone else was paying for, for free (of course they never really twigged that it still cost money for people to provide hosting for the servers they used). When the free 30 day trials were launched the game saw a big boost in population from people who would just go and generate new 30 day trial keys over and over rather than pay 7 UKP a month. People played for months like that, IRC PS-related channels had lots of users like that (many of whom had been lurking their for ages, unable to play the game due to not having any means to pay for it, and presumably not being able to convince their parents to fork out).
This is perhaps the most likely reason there have been no other MMO pure FPS titles to date (FWIW I don't count World War II Online as it only supports 64 players per map, as such it didn't really break any new ground technically for MMO's), it's apparently not all that financially viable given users can enjoy a very similar experience without a monthly on going fee, and they apparently prefer that model.
Your doing a great disservice to an outstanding technical achivement which (dispite what the abusive, yobbish and amazingly poorly informed forum kids would say about it) dealt very well with some very difficult issues, dispite some dodgy project management (and apparent lack of any form of version control system during development *cough*).
That would be a great rant if it wasn't for the fact that the technology you are ranting against (wma drm) is nearly identical in form and function to the technology you are using as an example of what is great (aac drm via itms).
So basically you don't really have a problem with DRM as long as it's well marketed and works with a trendy player. As opposed to less marketed and works with less trendy players.
I'm actually saying it's very simple - that most consumers don't mind DMR if it's not implemented in a way that seems particularly obtrusive to them, they have no 'in principle' objection to the concept on philosophical grounds.
It seems that they don't really understand the issue, nor do they really care about it even when it's explained to them, unless it adversely impacts their regular usage in a significant manner.
"Bad news:" This is why I strongly suspect we will end up with DRM eventually.
"Good News:" This is also why the most poorly implemented DRM schemes seem unlikely to succeed.
Most people would be just as happy with WMA DRM if it was implemented in a way that is as user friendly. Your right the systems are very similar in principle, but it's the small differences in practice (such as the often underestimated importance of the ease of use of the iTunes music store, especially compared to the god awful competition) that makes all the difference.
Eventually companies will stop pushing retarded DRM (that doesn't even let you put music you own on your portable music player) and they will starting pushing smarter DRM (that still doesn't let you copy your songs to your friends system, but doesn't get in your way when you try to copy it between your own various media devices either).
Once that happens, I fully expect the majority of people will shrug and accept it and for DRM to then become commonplace.
I think that's a good go at a summary of the two, though I'd add a noticeable con to the DS list (I'm giving up the opportunity to moderate on this story because I feel this is something that's overlooked).
Specifically the DS has some very poor hardware from a technical standpoint. I don't just mean in comparison to the PSP but objectively, even compared to other devices like the old Tapwave Zodiac or to a not very dissimilarly priced Pocket PC (for which there is actually a really decent games library).
With a 67 MHz CPU, only 4 MB of main memory and 656 k of VRAM it struggles noticeably with 3D graphics on even mildly taxing 3D programs, even given the low resolution (256 x 192) and limited colour pallet. This is obviously not a big issue in titles like the outstanding Nintendogs (where there is not much to render), but it's an issue if you want to play games with 3D (in my case racing, fighting and sports titles - such as Ridge Racer, Burnout, TOCA, Fifa Soccer and the likes of the upcoming Mortal Kombat and Tekken titles).
The Nintendo is a good 80 UKP or so cheaper here, and given that I don't expect it to be technically comparable to the PSP (which, to save people invariably looking up, has 32 MB main memory, 32 bit colour and a 333 MHz CPU and 480 x 272 display I belive) I don't think it needs to in order to outshine the PSP either, but I believe if your going to make a leading portal games system you should start with a technically decent system.
I think they would as well have been releasing something that was more a minor revision of the superbly implemented GBA SP. You could for example accept the fact you can't do acceptable 3D on a portal device at that price and focus on making the best portable 2D gaming system you can - with a single really good quality screen (larger and high resolution), good clam shell form factor, great battery life and perhaps some extras such as a touch screen and on board storage capability.
I'd love a well implemented updated version of the GBA SP (larger higher quality screen, similar form factor, slightly faster CPU, and perhaps some of the other options already mentioned) and I would by one at twice the price of the DS. As it is there is nothing to tempt me to trade in my GBA SP for a DS (even for _free_), let alone swap my PSP for one.
** Sidenote RE: Touchscreen
This is not intended as a flame, but the touch screen interface for this sort of device seems a bit of a non starter to me. Certainly I would agree it seems like a good idea on paper and I'm all for innovation, but I can't imagine using it effectively on the Bus/Tube/Train (which is where I play my GBA SP/PSP - commuting), or even in a car for that matter. I used to play touch screen titles on my PDA (like RTS titles and RPG's) and found it really difficult to use it for gaming in a crowded environment where I was being jostled about a lot, I've not tried the DS in that sort of environment, but it seems like they didn't really think that one through as far as real world usage goes (I can't see why it would be any easier than than it was on a larger screened PDA).
Newsflash: directors of publically held companies are legally obliged to put profit before everything else.
The consequences of this fact and your above stated opinion are that the only faultless way of making money in a band is to self-publish
That conclusion is incorrect because it presumes that implementing obtrusive 'DRM' (and alienating your user base in the process) is a good way to maximise profit. What evidence is available, not the least of which is the dominance of the iTMS and the iPod and the relative obscurity of competing stores and DRM enabled media players, as well as the overwhelming balance of consumer feedback, would seem to suggest otherwise.
It is fair to say that Switchfoot bear responsibility if they knew Sony were engaging in this sort of behaviour before they signed (in that they 'did a deal with the devil' and can be expected to bear the consequences of their financial decisions).
Of course it's entirely possible Switchfoot signed with Sony years ago before this practice became practice became commonplace, but - and it's possible I may be misjudging them, but frankly I doubt it - I rather suspect they would have found the pull of fame and fortune hard to resist and that they would have signed with Sony even if they had been fully aware their music was going to be distributed in this fashion.
If you can't join in a reasonable discussion of this nature (in reply to some quite reasonably expressed sentiments by the parent poster) without resulting to threats of physical violence like a knuckle dragging goon, it's a good indicator that your probably don't have as much meaningful insight to share as you think you do.
From the nature of your post I can quite imagine it's people with your sort of attitude that are those behaving the most despicably in the area's effected.
This is just trollish nonsense for a start: "they're complaining that people are shooting at them, which is wrong, these people are mentally in survivor mode and if you don't have food or water then you don't matter". They are the usual underclass scum (who are looting for goods and money, not survival) and have no intention of behaving reasonably they are simply exploiting the situation for personal gain.
And however much you might want to think it's true that "These people, if they were able, probably DID put aside food and water." basic common sense is enough to know it's not going to be true in the vast majority of cases. What's closer to the truth is, they just thought "they would be fine".
Even though they live in an area prone to flooding and hurricanes and that lies below sea level they thought "they would be fine", so they lived their anyway. Even as other people who heeded the warnings and actually evacuated in advance (thus not costing tax payers tens of thousands of dollars per individual to evacuate after the disaster) - they thought "they would be fine", so they stayed.
As you put it:
"It's just totally wrong. Even an 8 year old could figure it out".
I really agree with you on this one. I know people use arguments like 'playing games improves hand eye co-ordination' and 'playing games teaches you about software' to defend video games against the barrage of undue criticism the media sling at it, but I feel these are fairly weak arguments.
The benefits they have in this area true only to a limited extent and there are certainly far better ways of improving hand eye co-ordination (such as sports, which incorporates exercise) and learning about software (though I do think the level to which gaming can act as a doorway to software development and/or a career working with computers is often underestimated - if someone can learn the ins and outs of a more complex MMO that's certainly a positive indicator in my book).
However, one thing that games - specifically multiplayer games and MMO's - are superb at doing is teaching people skills - how to get along with very difficult people, how to manage people and groups ranging from small 6 man teams (in games like Battle Field) to large raid parties of over a hundred people (in games such as Lineage 2, EVE and PlanetSide).
It's particularly challenging given you often have no control over the people you have on your team (who are there primarily to have fun and typically care far more about that than whether their team 'wins' or not), and the only tool you have to make them perform as needed to win, is your ability to persuade them through sheer force of personality.
As an example, the vast majority of the time, the commander in any game of Battle Field 2 doesn't help the teams achieve victory, doesn't give orders or support the team and just joins in the melee fighting (to the frustration of the squad leaders usually).
Though I'm much happier on the ground driving around and shooting things in game (like most people), I took over a game as commander on a 64 player map after everyone getting sick of this happening every round (and our side losing massively to a much more co-rdinated side who were playing tactically). I spent the entire time staring at the map and hiding back at our starting point guarding the radar and UAV trailer in case they were damaged (so I could repair them for team myself, rather than pulling someone else out of the fight to do it). I was constantly on voice comms talking to and re-assuring the squad leaders, letting them know when supply drops were available, when the enemy were moving in on their position (according to the commander map) and giving appropriate orders to secure as many points as possible as quickly as possible (rather than "everyone charge towards the most heavily defended flag" which is exactly what happens if people are left to their own devices, not least because it's fun).
I had some tactical knowledge of how to play that map well which helped a bit, but it was primarily by being supportive and staying in constant contact the squad leaders warmed up quickly and we smashed home to an overwhelming victory (after a couple of ours or so of continuous rounds of massive defeats). Although I don't regard myself as good people manager I learned some important lessons about the importance of effective communication. I also got some fantastic feedback, just because people were so happy to have someone deliver what they needed (supply drops, enemy activity reports, meaningful orders and most importantly feedback and co-ordination via voice comms - much underused IMO).
It's true I've seen teams and alliances run primarily by ego's or by the very inexperienced (who are trying to run before they can walk), but I've been really impressed by some of the squad / team leaders I've seen in games, it's not easy to get 32, 64 or even 300+ people (in games like PlanetSide) to do what you want them to and persuade them it's in their best interest.
I'd ask if it'd run OSX86, but there's way too many buttons.
I hear there is a rumour Apple are thinking of releasing their own calculator to help spur iBook sales in schools.
The iCalc has the same number of buttons as a TI-84, but as consession to asthetics, they arn't marked but are instead all a single unified service in a 'brushed metal' finish. Thankfully, contrary to some initial concerns that were expressed, this turns out not much of a problem because it's been intentionally optimised to perform and output the result of a single operation operation (6 x 7), additional operations having been removed so as to avoid confusing novice users.[1]
[1] Though further rumours abound this is in no small part due to the sourcing of Intel for the core chip design and that unresolvable heat disspation problems cropped up when attempting more complex operations. In fact, internal testers have reported that after extended usage, they have noted rounding errors in the units they have received (resulting in the system displaying a result for the calculation of 41.999 (recurring)).
That's true, although I believe there are some catches to the extent the rules are not quite the same in the UK as the US.
For example, as Tesco's and McDonalds do, you can mention competitors products and offerings but I'm led to believe you can't feature a competitors product directly in the UK as is possible in the US. This is for some reason I don't quite grasp (I can only think to do with the protection of the other vendors image and preventing portal of it in a negative light, or something along those lines).
I remember seeing an avert on 'Tarrant on TV' (UK TV programme featuring a collection TV clips and especially adverts from around the world) which showed an advert for what I think was some sort of super glue, during which the opening voice over for the commercial proclaimed it was able to join together things never thought possible, which then panned to a Coke and a Pepsi can stuck to each other. The presenter (Chris Tarrant, UK TV and radio presenter) introduced it by indicating it was a clip that would not be legally acceptable in the UK, so apparently it extends not just to directly competing products either.
It's possible that to so clearly associate one product with another requires permission in the UK, to prevent the impression that one vendor is 'endorsing' another when that's not the case, or it may be a simple discrepancy in the way trademark or copyright regulations are applied.
The Patent examining procedure is actually fairly consistent. There's a 3000 page manual available on the PTO website if you want to read it.
There are quite a few well known examples of patents that are not novel (that is, they are not unique - they have well known examples of prior art) and they are also obvious, while the USPTO can and have turned down applications on the grounds they are not compliant with these criteria, they do not do so with even a reasonable level of consistancy.
At the end of 8 hours, what would you do if your job depended on getting enough applications examined?
I am honestly dismayed when people ask questions like this.
FWIW, I would absolutely do my job correctly, which would to investigate them throughly and take the required time (especially if I was doing something that was publically funded). I think it's a poor reflection on character to take the easy way out when the right thing to do ought to be clear.
While I'm flexible and business savvy enough to cut corners to meet commercial deadlines and to grease the wheels, I'd be a very poor engineer if I didn't do my job properly just to please management and make them look like they are on top of things (when the system is in fact falling apart). I've fudged my fair share of things now and again when people have made mistakes (as well all do) but I've put my foot down when there are more fundamental issues, and I appreciate the same treatment from others.
If the system as presently implimented doesn't have enough people to cope with the current level of demand, then it is up to those responsible for the system to resolve that issue. Trying to fix a fundamental problem like that by having individual examiners fudging their role is stupid and counter productive (all it does is create a new mess that will need to be sorted out, adding to the origional problem).
I've seen this sort of behaviour many times in business (masking a genuine and serious problem by leaning on the wrong people and pretending that everything is running fine) and I've lost count of the number of times is has lead to cock-ups that have required extensive cultural changes and changes in management to resolve.
I should point out that you can't (legally) be fired for doing your job correctly (though here in Europe staff are much better protected both in practice and usually in law). Even in the US, I would think a case of a patent examiner being fired for only taking such time as was demonstrably necessary to examine a patent would be jumped on by any number of 'no win no fee' sharks.
The fact that I'm an asshole not to RTFA before posting a reply does not nullify the fact that I broke the game in such a short time
I didn't imply that though, my point was that it does nullify your attractiveness as a software tester if your pointing out known bugs (and then report them incorrectly - in the context that the website says clearly at the top of the page "NOTE: It's not yet a game -- just a graphical demo!").
Of course it's free prelease software (at version 0.13) so anyone who tries it out for any length of time is likely to find a bug or two I would expect.
If you really are looking for a job as a 'bug tester' and just want to test known bugs, that's great advertisement for your services - however companies in the market tend to prefer 'software testers' who test software to check for as-yet unknown problems.;-)
The Patent Office apparently has it both ways. I think most people here would be happy with them if they just did the job they were tasked with and showed due diligence.
So, it's obvious that the Patent Office is looking at applications and not just stamping them through w/o checking a simple search first..
Just because some patents appear subject to due scrutiny doesn't imply all of them are (or that they are subject to all the appropriate scrutiny).
So we get pissed off when they don't search and we get pissed off when they do?
I think most people here are primarily getting pissed off when they don't uphold their own guidlines (which they do not appear to follow consistently).
If they can't perform the public service that is the reason for their existence, they should be reformed or done away with. They should not be allowed to simply rubber stamp patents when they are supposed to be investigating them properly and for that matter they should not be granting patents for things that are 'patently' trivial or otherwise in conflict with the established regulations.
Other than those who actually object to these patents on principle, I don't think most/. readers would be up in arms about the P.O. actually appropriately enforcing the rules they are supposed to be following.
I have this annoying nack for discovering game-breaking bugs in a very short time. It took me about 15 seconds to break this one by holding the acceleration key down until the car started passing through solid objects like the bridge columns, a few seconds after that I passed right through the surrounding fences and soon after that I was out of the urban area entirely.
There are only 3 questions in the FAQ, all on the very front page of the site, and this specific issue is mentioned.
Software testers are expected to check for known bugs before reporting them, to avoid dupes.;)
Seconded. I'd be happy to go with the compromise of shifting time by 30 min if people want to (which is bugger all difference and so an an excellent solution if people are stubborn), but the current situation of changing the clocks twice a year is just madness.
Still, if this change does go through, it will blow the "it's too difficult to change now" argument out of the water.
What worries me about this proposed change, is the prospect of people having to lose 2 hours sleep when the time comes to move the clocks forward.
WPA-TKIP has been present in 100 USD consumer Apple, Netgear, Linksys and Sitecom Wi-Fi base stations (and PCI/PCMCIA cards) for something like a couple of years now. WEP has generally been advised against for quite some time.
Unfortunately I've recently had to shut down a legacy WEP based network I've been running solely for my Clie PDA - which is about 3-4 years old and does not support WPA - because one of my neighbours spoofed a valid MAC address for that network and was doing god knows what.
I live in an apartment block in east London, where there are about 8-10 wireless networks within range (some from across the street I think). Over in west London they prosecuted some one for doing this in the last month or so (he was spoofing a MAC address on a wireless lan to intentionally leech bandwith from someone else). Given that I'm tempted to open it up and go hunt him down and report the smegger who did it here.
It's one thing to leave a network open and entirely unsecured inviting public use, but if someone secures it, even trivially, anyone who intentionally decides to circumvent it can have all their equipment seized and actions and can rot in the cubes for 6 months AFAIC. (On the basis that it's not like traditional burglars get let off just because the victim 'Had a very weak lock on their shed/car/front door'.)
It's particularly a problem for many users if they are getting their bandwidth leeched as many of the most competitive UK DSL offerings have strict usage limits (after X GB a month your speed it slowed from 2 Mb to 512 Mb and/or you are charged for additional usage). Many now allow you to dictate how much bandwidth you want to use in a month (e.g. from 1-10 GB) and you simply pay a monthly fee accordingly (with a surcharge for excess).
It's not a problem for me (I have unlimited bandwidth on my connection) but I know I'd definitely set out to finger someone if I caught them using up a paid for bandwidth allocation (or effecting my throughput for that matter).
I was a bit worried that the phrase 'evil brats' was inflammatory but it was immediately what popped to mind.
The behaviour of these kids astounds me, but I suppose revulsion at the errant behaviour of younger generations is not a new thing. I still can't imagine ever behaving the way some of them do though.
Something like a '+18' flag on accounts (i.e. where someone has to enter a valid credit card number for the purposes of proving their age and certifying that the holder of the account is entitled to access adult content) and then allowing only them to play 'adult only' servers would not cure the problem of playing with 'lusers', but it would certainly reduce the scope of it.
Obviously (before someone points it out) age/maturity is not the only factor - there are some great younger players and some socially backwards older players (but I still think it would be a good start, as regrettable as it would be for the more mature younger players).
A more difficult to implement, but fairer and theoretically more effective approach would be to have some sort of in-game rating system, where players can rate the other behaviour of others. Perhaps this could be done in a way that ties it to the game - something like a 'faction rating' as in SWG (though that rated your popularity with a faction, rather than with other specific players).
OT: As with quite a few other things (such as it's free market implementation) EVE online does this really well IMO. It gives you multiple ratings for others - based on your guilds and alliances rating of them (and their guild/alliance), the ratings of others against them and your own personal rating of that individual. You also get their ratings against NPC factions and their over all security rating.
This sounds like a lot of information, but it's presented very clearly and concisely and leaves the player open to make a judgement about them based on available evidence and the circumstances (e.g. you might choose to be more cautious if they look a bit dodgy and you are out in low-security 'deep space' with a fat cargo hauler and you come across them when they are in a battleship or frigate).
If PvP is the only problem and they do desperately want to cater to under 18 year olds, all they'd need to do would be to not implement the PvP servers (or the Battlegrounds) and remove the flag that you get when you attack a city guard (or similar NPC) that normally makes you targetable by players. That should be very simple indeed to do.
I'll say this though, I'd pay good money never to have to play with some of the evil brats I've met in MMOG's.
It's ok to shoot and kill a man, and you say it was alright to do it because he was an illegal immigrant, in the wrong place at the wrong time?
It is okay to shoot a man if you are are an armed policeman and the man in question has just left a building that you are monitoring (because it contains suspected terrorists) and when challanged he refuses to stop, runs away from the police, skips the gate at the underground and tries to board a train.
Next time you'll say that rape victims asked for it, because they were wearing a short skirt.
You are incorrect, I would not. That's quite a specious comparison, because it confuses victims with purpertrators. This man was not a 'victim' of crime - no crime was commited against him by the police. He was however himself a criminal and it is factually accurate to say, had he not been, he would almost certainly not have been in a position to be shot.
My thoughts are with the officers who had to deal with this guy in highly suspicious circumstances, the long term impact it will have on them and their families and possibility that it could impact other officers in future - and so by extention, put the lives of genuinely innocent people at risk.
Just so we are all crystal on this one:
I would absolutely expect any armed officer in the same situation to behave in the same way.
Slashdot Mirror
The most annoying thing I find is that it's not even true.
.zip archives and you can re-download stuff as much as you like if you have an active subscription, the only thing I don't like about it is the 'subscription' model rather than the more traditional pay-per-song model).
iTunes of course is software that Apple provide that allows you to upload to your iPod (the sort of software you'd expect any MP3 player vendor to provide with their hardware), and there are 3rd party utilities - both commercial and free - that also offer this functionality.
This is distinct from the iTunes Music Store (iTMS) which was added after iTunes and iPod's had already been available for some time, but is a feature of the software (for logical reasons, as it would be much less user friendly if it had a completely separate application window).
You can of course use music from stores with the iPod. I buy from the iTMS, but I also buy MP3's from the outstanding Emusic all the time (I like the service as you get plain MP3's so there is no messing about with keys or authorisation, and you can entire albums as single
The 'problem' is that the iTunes Music Store only supports iTunes, which only (officially) supports the iPod (though unoffically it's possible to use it with a number of devices using 3rd party plug-ins), NOT that the iPod is somehow 'locked in' to the iTMS, which it isn't.
This is a premise that a 10 year old should be able to grasp, but is apparently way above the heads of Chris Nickson, the editors at Designtechnica, ScuttleMonkey and prostoalex.
Faith is an essential means to remain optimistic in an uncertain world. Faith is belief in the face of doubt / the absurd. Faith is arguably very important to scientific discovery, lest one doubt their hypotheses.
Faith however, is not essential and I would argue it's not particularly desirable. I prefer to practice realism (to the best of my ability) than delude myself with a reality distortion field built on expectations that are by definition unrealistic and founded on false premises.
You can still be a kind, generous, altruistic and forgiving person and not have faith, but because you believe it's an appropriate way to behave and has net benefits (in that it can be beneficial to you, and to society as a whole because it encourages reciprocal behaviour, as indeed it does).
Those pushing religion tend not to be keen on that idea though, they prefer to push the notion that you need to latch on to a specific 'faith' system to support you lest you fall of the wagon. I believe that approach is misguided and potentially dangerous.
'Faith' as a solution is at best a kludge and at worst a red herring, that can lead down a dark path with disastrous repercussions on a global scale. Addressing root causes such as inequality, injustice, and persecution are more effective approaches at dealing with the things that drive people to 'faith' based groups in the first place.
I do not believe the world can ever be 'a perfect place' - history and logical deduction seem to suggests otherwise, as any social environment that relies on co-operation also leaves open the opportunity for another to profit by shafting others in the group, meaning there will always be an incentive not to co-operate (The Scorpion and the Frog) - and that's to say nothing of human nature, chemical imbalances and behaviour in exception circumstances.
There is clearly room for significant improvement in the way we interact with each other, particularly on a global scale however I do not believe faith based systems are an effective means of progression to that point. The acceptance of an unfavourable circumstance and a logical extrapolation of the most effective way to resolve an issue are more helpful than any system based on sheer optimism.
With specific regard to:
Faith is arguably very important to scientific discovery, lest one doubt their hypotheses
I think if you don't have any doubt about your hypotheses there is something seriously wrong with your approach. Even if your right you ought to have doubts about it and set out to prove yourself wrong until you are certain you are right, that's how hypotheses progress to being regarded as 'proven'.
Not to mention you get the added bonus of transmission losses during distribution which just doesn't exist for the gasoline
Your ommiting the loss from the fuel for the generators on the oil rigs, for the helicopers used to bring staff on and off them, for the supply ships, for the refinaries back on land and for the trucks which take the stuff from the local depots to the filling stations (tens/hundreds of thousands of which are constantly on the road, all over the globe).
I'm not including things like the constuction of the source (power stations vrs rigs / refinaries / petrol stations, etc) or supply & maintenaince vehicles, which would obviously be reasources common to both, just pointing out that oil is very lossy indeed (much more so than electricity I strongly suspect).
Electricity is far cheaper to produce as a fuel source, as is borne out by the prices reflected for them in the market (and also in the current price of my BP shares [huzza!]). In fact, oil prices go ever upwards and electricity goes ever downwards, a situation which is not going to change.
It would be nice to have some hard data to back up this theory of course, but that would really need a decent fully electrical car we could mesure the usage requirements for (and compare the cost per mile and straight up cost of the vehicle to produce).
Seriously, thanks for gmail though. I wish I would apply the concept of labels to files on my harddisk.
:-)
Woah, seriously your OS doesn't have that? Time to upgrade perhaps.
It's not a feature I use (especially since having Spotlight), though I used to rely on it quite a bit when I was using Mac OS Classic. Nautilus allows you to label files though, and KDE seem to have something interesting in the works.
Agreed, I work for a UK telco and major provider and despite how high broadband uptake is here it's shocking how far behind our European neighbours the UK is technologically in high speed network provision. This is not helped by often ineffective government regulation - which often make things worse rather than better for customers - and the incumbent British Telecom who have kept the UK back technologically through lack of development - it will be some decades yet before we are free of them.
The market is rapidly changing in the UK but we still pay more money for less bandwidth that other western nations (the flip side is, we can hire network engineers from across Europe who have already built VDSL / ADSL 2.0 networks and have practical experience of the equipment). Though connectivity is cheaper in the US than it is in the UK (as is pretty much everything), technologically the situation little better.
Asia and main land Europe have had speeds in excess of this (at cheaper prices) for year, so it's a bit insular of those of us in the US and the 51st state to think of this as 'new'. Though I should say in fairness a lot as hinged on some countries and companies waiting for standards to be ratified and equipment to be certified as compliant before allowing them to be rolled out.
TBH I'm amazed some places have managed to roll out VDSL and ADSL 2.0 solutions though, getting the current generation of equipment to work properly (without falling over or falling foul of one of umpteen 'undocumented features').
This news is also over hyped as Be announced this a while ago, there are actually plenty of people offering the same service though (and none are actually live products in the UK yet). All be did was jump the gun and announce it the day before the standard had been accepted (which they weren't supposed to, but did anyway so they could claim they were "first" - even if they didn't actually roll out the technology first).
Actually the Zodiac itself had a better hardware spec than the DS in the shape of vastly more memory, superior support via it's ATI Imageon graphics card, higher resolution display and a much faster CPU). It also had a much sleeker form factor and had the added bonus of being a functional PDA with a huge library of Palm software available for it (something I wish the PSP had).
Obviously this came at a cost - it was double the price (so at the PSP price point, but with less than PSP level performance, and without the supreme benefit of Sony's brand recognition - which is the only reason I think consumers are willing to trust in a device as expensive as the PSP).
That aside, I think biggest thing it had issue with was lack of developer support and poor marketing (which to some extent go hand in hand, stores won't stock it and people won't buy it if there are no games, but developers aren't keen to flock to an unknown quantity and invest time and money in such a risky enterprise).
I was on the verge of buying one but held off when I read about the PSP for the first time, not that I wouldn't mind owning both but the game library for the Zodiac (that is, games that took advantage of the unique 3D hardware - not just the regular Palm games which I've mostly played already) was just too small to imagine me using it for longer than a month or two.
Oh no the parent post possibly shows the PSP in a non negative light, and shows why some sicko prefers the PSP - we can't have that can we? Quick let's mod it down!
I've noticed that about the other posts in under this story, it's like reading Fox News for Nerds (only left wing).
Remember: Nindendo good, Sony bad! Funny how times change.
Given Sony (in there capacity of a major music publisher specifically) are now 'the enemy' it would seem to be a collective case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I'm sure that the favouratisim will dissappear fairly quickly when the same people read about how Nindendo are using (shock, horror) DRM to protect the ROM files people are downloading via the Revolution. Then they will have to find a new 'good guy' to line up against the 'bad guys' of the X-Box, PlayStation and Revolution.
Ironically since making that post it's come to light that Nintendo do actually think that improving the GBA design is worth doing, as it seems they've gone back and improved the screen (albeit slightly) on new GBA SP units (though this may have to do with streamlining the manufacturing process, given they seem to be using very similar screens in the new GB Micro's).
I am heartend by this though, as it seems they have not yet abandoned the superior (IMHO) compact clamshell approach. Shame it doesn't have an integrated 3.5 mm audio jack yet. I really can't see the logic behind it not having one - even if they absolutely could not fit it inside the case and had to bolt it on, it need only stick out less than half a centimeter from the back or so.
I expect one day we will see a redesigned DS, with improved build quality, reduced size size. Hopefully it won't take them so long that it makes no difference to the ability of the unit to be competative (against a PSP lineup which will undoubtably gain strength).
One thing I'm seeing here in London is very few PSP's or DS's in public (even though every man and his dog seems to have an iPod and PDA in addition to the obligatory mobile). I'm still seeing a lot of GBA & GBA SP users on the tube and on trains. While the PSP is highly desirable it is too expensive for many (at least as an impulse purchase), and while the DS has a far more attractive price point, the bulky form factor just doesn't make it a desirable item.
I used to play PlanetSide (for nearly two years) there were regularly huge zergs, with 300-500 people on a single map (often with almost all of them zerging a single area). I say 300-500 as they ended up putting a cap to level on to split up the zergs and by capping the percentage of slots a single faction could use on one 'continent' to limit the ability of a team to simply 'zerg' a continent filling up the first few hundred slots up thereby dominating it unopposed it by sheer force of numbers. In the process the overall number of slots was reduced, which also helped better distribute players across the world (and was widely welcomed at the time).
something that Planetside only claimed to have
PlanetSide battles had battles with more than than the '4 or 5' times a large BF2 game offically supports virtually every night for about 2 years, which is not bad going. For the first year, there were typically two large zergs on the go for each faction at peak time (and, for those not familer with it there are three factions in PlanetSide).
The game has definately had it's ups and downs - a very buggy release period for the first 6 months, a very underwhelming and pointless expantion, followed by a good stable period, then it jumped the shark with the arrival of BFR's, and now in game adverts. It was also consistantly poorly manged with high turn over of production and development staff and very poor quality support staff who regularly abused their positions (and still do).
However, IMO, the biggest reason for the struggle for larger success of the game was that the target audience seemed to consist of 13 year old who endlessly bitched about having to pay a monthly fee, when they could play BattleField 1942 or UT2004 on a server someone else was paying for, for free (of course they never really twigged that it still cost money for people to provide hosting for the servers they used). When the free 30 day trials were launched the game saw a big boost in population from people who would just go and generate new 30 day trial keys over and over rather than pay 7 UKP a month. People played for months like that, IRC PS-related channels had lots of users like that (many of whom had been lurking their for ages, unable to play the game due to not having any means to pay for it, and presumably not being able to convince their parents to fork out).
This is perhaps the most likely reason there have been no other MMO pure FPS titles to date (FWIW I don't count World War II Online as it only supports 64 players per map, as such it didn't really break any new ground technically for MMO's), it's apparently not all that financially viable given users can enjoy a very similar experience without a monthly on going fee, and they apparently prefer that model.
Your doing a great disservice to an outstanding technical achivement which (dispite what the abusive, yobbish and amazingly poorly informed forum kids would say about it) dealt very well with some very difficult issues, dispite some dodgy project management (and apparent lack of any form of version control system during development *cough*).
That would be a great rant if it wasn't for the fact that the technology you are ranting against (wma drm) is nearly identical in form and function to the technology you are using as an example of what is great (aac drm via itms).
So basically you don't really have a problem with DRM as long as it's well marketed and works with a trendy player. As opposed to less marketed and works with less trendy players.
I'm actually saying it's very simple - that most consumers don't mind DMR if it's not implemented in a way that seems particularly obtrusive to them, they have no 'in principle' objection to the concept on philosophical grounds.
It seems that they don't really understand the issue, nor do they really care about it even when it's explained to them, unless it adversely impacts their regular usage in a significant manner.
"Bad news:" This is why I strongly suspect we will end up with DRM eventually.
"Good News:" This is also why the most poorly implemented DRM schemes seem unlikely to succeed.
Most people would be just as happy with WMA DRM if it was implemented in a way that is as user friendly. Your right the systems are very similar in principle, but it's the small differences in practice (such as the often underestimated importance of the ease of use of the iTunes music store, especially compared to the god awful competition) that makes all the difference.
Eventually companies will stop pushing retarded DRM (that doesn't even let you put music you own on your portable music player) and they will starting pushing smarter DRM (that still doesn't let you copy your songs to your friends system, but doesn't get in your way when you try to copy it between your own various media devices either).
Once that happens, I fully expect the majority of people will shrug and accept it and for DRM to then become commonplace.
I think that's a good go at a summary of the two, though I'd add a noticeable con to the DS list (I'm giving up the opportunity to moderate on this story because I feel this is something that's overlooked).
Specifically the DS has some very poor hardware from a technical standpoint. I don't just mean in comparison to the PSP but objectively, even compared to other devices like the old Tapwave Zodiac or to a not very dissimilarly priced Pocket PC (for which there is actually a really decent games library).
With a 67 MHz CPU, only 4 MB of main memory and 656 k of VRAM it struggles noticeably with 3D graphics on even mildly taxing 3D programs, even given the low resolution (256 x 192) and limited colour pallet. This is obviously not a big issue in titles like the outstanding Nintendogs (where there is not much to render), but it's an issue if you want to play games with 3D (in my case racing, fighting and sports titles - such as Ridge Racer, Burnout, TOCA, Fifa Soccer and the likes of the upcoming Mortal Kombat and Tekken titles).
The Nintendo is a good 80 UKP or so cheaper here, and given that I don't expect it to be technically comparable to the PSP (which, to save people invariably looking up, has 32 MB main memory, 32 bit colour and a 333 MHz CPU and 480 x 272 display I belive) I don't think it needs to in order to outshine the PSP either, but I believe if your going to make a leading portal games system you should start with a technically decent system.
I think they would as well have been releasing something that was more a minor revision of the superbly implemented GBA SP. You could for example accept the fact you can't do acceptable 3D on a portal device at that price and focus on making the best portable 2D gaming system you can - with a single really good quality screen (larger and high resolution), good clam shell form factor, great battery life and perhaps some extras such as a touch screen and on board storage capability.
I'd love a well implemented updated version of the GBA SP (larger higher quality screen, similar form factor, slightly faster CPU, and perhaps some of the other options already mentioned) and I would by one at twice the price of the DS. As it is there is nothing to tempt me to trade in my GBA SP for a DS (even for _free_), let alone swap my PSP for one.
** Sidenote RE: Touchscreen
This is not intended as a flame, but the touch screen interface for this sort of device seems a bit of a non starter to me. Certainly I would agree it seems like a good idea on paper and I'm all for innovation, but I can't imagine using it effectively on the Bus/Tube/Train (which is where I play my GBA SP/PSP - commuting), or even in a car for that matter. I used to play touch screen titles on my PDA (like RTS titles and RPG's) and found it really difficult to use it for gaming in a crowded environment where I was being jostled about a lot, I've not tried the DS in that sort of environment, but it seems like they didn't really think that one through as far as real world usage goes (I can't see why it would be any easier than than it was on a larger screened PDA).
Newsflash: directors of publically held companies are legally obliged to put profit before everything else.
The consequences of this fact and your above stated opinion are that the only faultless way of making money in a band is to self-publish
That conclusion is incorrect because it presumes that implementing obtrusive 'DRM' (and alienating your user base in the process) is a good way to maximise profit. What evidence is available, not the least of which is the dominance of the iTMS and the iPod and the relative obscurity of competing stores and DRM enabled media players, as well as the overwhelming balance of consumer feedback, would seem to suggest otherwise.
It is fair to say that Switchfoot bear responsibility if they knew Sony were engaging in this sort of behaviour before they signed (in that they 'did a deal with the devil' and can be expected to bear the consequences of their financial decisions).
Of course it's entirely possible Switchfoot signed with Sony years ago before this practice became practice became commonplace, but - and it's possible I may be misjudging them, but frankly I doubt it - I rather suspect they would have found the pull of fame and fortune hard to resist and that they would have signed with Sony even if they had been fully aware their music was going to be distributed in this fashion.
You deserve a real big smack man..
If you can't join in a reasonable discussion of this nature (in reply to some quite reasonably expressed sentiments by the parent poster) without resulting to threats of physical violence like a knuckle dragging goon, it's a good indicator that your probably don't have as much meaningful insight to share as you think you do.
From the nature of your post I can quite imagine it's people with your sort of attitude that are those behaving the most despicably in the area's effected.
This is just trollish nonsense for a start: "they're complaining that people are shooting at them, which is wrong, these people are mentally in survivor mode and if you don't have food or water then you don't matter". They are the usual underclass scum (who are looting for goods and money, not survival) and have no intention of behaving reasonably they are simply exploiting the situation for personal gain.
And however much you might want to think it's true that "These people, if they were able, probably DID put aside food and water." basic common sense is enough to know it's not going to be true in the vast majority of cases. What's closer to the truth is, they just thought "they would be fine".
Even though they live in an area prone to flooding and hurricanes and that lies below sea level they thought "they would be fine", so they lived their anyway. Even as other people who heeded the warnings and actually evacuated in advance (thus not costing tax payers tens of thousands of dollars per individual to evacuate after the disaster) - they thought "they would be fine", so they stayed.
As you put it:
"It's just totally wrong. Even an 8 year old could figure it out".
I really agree with you on this one. I know people use arguments like 'playing games improves hand eye co-ordination' and 'playing games teaches you about software' to defend video games against the barrage of undue criticism the media sling at it, but I feel these are fairly weak arguments.
The benefits they have in this area true only to a limited extent and there are certainly far better ways of improving hand eye co-ordination (such as sports, which incorporates exercise) and learning about software (though I do think the level to which gaming can act as a doorway to software development and/or a career working with computers is often underestimated - if someone can learn the ins and outs of a more complex MMO that's certainly a positive indicator in my book).
However, one thing that games - specifically multiplayer games and MMO's - are superb at doing is teaching people skills - how to get along with very difficult people, how to manage people and groups ranging from small 6 man teams (in games like Battle Field) to large raid parties of over a hundred people (in games such as Lineage 2, EVE and PlanetSide).
It's particularly challenging given you often have no control over the people you have on your team (who are there primarily to have fun and typically care far more about that than whether their team 'wins' or not), and the only tool you have to make them perform as needed to win, is your ability to persuade them through sheer force of personality.
As an example, the vast majority of the time, the commander in any game of Battle Field 2 doesn't help the teams achieve victory, doesn't give orders or support the team and just joins in the melee fighting (to the frustration of the squad leaders usually).
Though I'm much happier on the ground driving around and shooting things in game (like most people), I took over a game as commander on a 64 player map after everyone getting sick of this happening every round (and our side losing massively to a much more co-rdinated side who were playing tactically). I spent the entire time staring at the map and hiding back at our starting point guarding the radar and UAV trailer in case they were damaged (so I could repair them for team myself, rather than pulling someone else out of the fight to do it). I was constantly on voice comms talking to and re-assuring the squad leaders, letting them know when supply drops were available, when the enemy were moving in on their position (according to the commander map) and giving appropriate orders to secure as many points as possible as quickly as possible (rather than "everyone charge towards the most heavily defended flag" which is exactly what happens if people are left to their own devices, not least because it's fun).
I had some tactical knowledge of how to play that map well which helped a bit, but it was primarily by being supportive and staying in constant contact the squad leaders warmed up quickly and we smashed home to an overwhelming victory (after a couple of ours or so of continuous rounds of massive defeats). Although I don't regard myself as good people manager I learned some important lessons about the importance of effective communication. I also got some fantastic feedback, just because people were so happy to have someone deliver what they needed (supply drops, enemy activity reports, meaningful orders and most importantly feedback and co-ordination via voice comms - much underused IMO).
It's true I've seen teams and alliances run primarily by ego's or by the very inexperienced (who are trying to run before they can walk), but I've been really impressed by some of the squad / team leaders I've seen in games, it's not easy to get 32, 64 or even 300+ people (in games like PlanetSide) to do what you want them to and persuade them it's in their best interest.
Your right of course, I must be getting old and doddery.
I'd ask if it'd run OSX86, but there's way too many buttons.
I hear there is a rumour Apple are thinking of releasing their own calculator to help spur iBook sales in schools.
The iCalc has the same number of buttons as a TI-84, but as consession to asthetics, they arn't marked but are instead all a single unified service in a 'brushed metal' finish. Thankfully, contrary to some initial concerns that were expressed, this turns out not much of a problem because it's been intentionally optimised to perform and output the result of a single operation operation (6 x 7), additional operations having been removed so as to avoid confusing novice users.[1]
[1] Though further rumours abound this is in no small part due to the sourcing of Intel for the core chip design and that unresolvable heat disspation problems cropped up when attempting more complex operations. In fact, internal testers have reported that after extended usage, they have noted rounding errors in the units they have received (resulting in the system displaying a result for the calculation of 41.999 (recurring)).
That's true, although I believe there are some catches to the extent the rules are not quite the same in the UK as the US.
For example, as Tesco's and McDonalds do, you can mention competitors products and offerings but I'm led to believe you can't feature a competitors product directly in the UK as is possible in the US. This is for some reason I don't quite grasp (I can only think to do with the protection of the other vendors image and preventing portal of it in a negative light, or something along those lines).
I remember seeing an avert on 'Tarrant on TV' (UK TV programme featuring a collection TV clips and especially adverts from around the world) which showed an advert for what I think was some sort of super glue, during which the opening voice over for the commercial proclaimed it was able to join together things never thought possible, which then panned to a Coke and a Pepsi can stuck to each other. The presenter (Chris Tarrant, UK TV and radio presenter) introduced it by indicating it was a clip that would not be legally acceptable in the UK, so apparently it extends not just to directly competing products either.
It's possible that to so clearly associate one product with another requires permission in the UK, to prevent the impression that one vendor is 'endorsing' another when that's not the case, or it may be a simple discrepancy in the way trademark or copyright regulations are applied.
The Patent examining procedure is actually fairly consistent. There's a 3000 page manual available on the PTO website if you want to read it.
There are quite a few well known examples of patents that are not novel (that is, they are not unique - they have well known examples of prior art) and they are also obvious, while the USPTO can and have turned down applications on the grounds they are not compliant with these criteria, they do not do so with even a reasonable level of consistancy.
At the end of 8 hours, what would you do if your job depended on getting enough applications examined?
I am honestly dismayed when people ask questions like this.
FWIW, I would absolutely do my job correctly, which would to investigate them throughly and take the required time (especially if I was doing something that was publically funded). I think it's a poor reflection on character to take the easy way out when the right thing to do ought to be clear.
While I'm flexible and business savvy enough to cut corners to meet commercial deadlines and to grease the wheels, I'd be a very poor engineer if I didn't do my job properly just to please management and make them look like they are on top of things (when the system is in fact falling apart). I've fudged my fair share of things now and again when people have made mistakes (as well all do) but I've put my foot down when there are more fundamental issues, and I appreciate the same treatment from others.
If the system as presently implimented doesn't have enough people to cope with the current level of demand, then it is up to those responsible for the system to resolve that issue. Trying to fix a fundamental problem like that by having individual examiners fudging their role is stupid and counter productive (all it does is create a new mess that will need to be sorted out, adding to the origional problem).
I've seen this sort of behaviour many times in business (masking a genuine and serious problem by leaning on the wrong people and pretending that everything is running fine) and I've lost count of the number of times is has lead to cock-ups that have required extensive cultural changes and changes in management to resolve.
I should point out that you can't (legally) be fired for doing your job correctly (though here in Europe staff are much better protected both in practice and usually in law). Even in the US, I would think a case of a patent examiner being fired for only taking such time as was demonstrably necessary to examine a patent would be jumped on by any number of 'no win no fee' sharks.
The fact that I'm an asshole not to RTFA before posting a reply does not nullify the fact that I broke the game in such a short time
;-)
I didn't imply that though, my point was that it does nullify your attractiveness as a software tester if your pointing out known bugs (and then report them incorrectly - in the context that the website says clearly at the top of the page "NOTE: It's not yet a game -- just a graphical demo!").
Of course it's free prelease software (at version 0.13) so anyone who tries it out for any length of time is likely to find a bug or two I would expect.
If you really are looking for a job as a 'bug tester' and just want to test known bugs, that's great advertisement for your services - however companies in the market tend to prefer 'software testers' who test software to check for as-yet unknown problems.
You can't have it both ways.
/. readers would be up in arms about the P.O. actually appropriately enforcing the rules they are supposed to be following.
The Patent Office apparently has it both ways. I think most people here would be happy with them if they just did the job they were tasked with and showed due diligence.
So, it's obvious that the Patent Office is looking at applications and not just stamping them through w/o checking a simple search first..
Just because some patents appear subject to due scrutiny doesn't imply all of them are (or that they are subject to all the appropriate scrutiny).
So we get pissed off when they don't search and we get pissed off when they do?
I think most people here are primarily getting pissed off when they don't uphold their own guidlines (which they do not appear to follow consistently).
If they can't perform the public service that is the reason for their existence, they should be reformed or done away with. They should not be allowed to simply rubber stamp patents when they are supposed to be investigating them properly and for that matter they should not be granting patents for things that are 'patently' trivial or otherwise in conflict with the established regulations.
Other than those who actually object to these patents on principle, I don't think most
I have this annoying nack for discovering game-breaking bugs in a very short time. It took me about 15 seconds to break this one by holding the acceleration key down until the car started passing through solid objects like the bridge columns, a few seconds after that I passed right through the surrounding fences and soon after that I was out of the urban area entirely.
;)
There are only 3 questions in the FAQ, all on the very front page of the site, and this specific issue is mentioned.
Software testers are expected to check for known bugs before reporting them, to avoid dupes.
Seconded. I'd be happy to go with the compromise of shifting time by 30 min if people want to (which is bugger all difference and so an an excellent solution if people are stubborn), but the current situation of changing the clocks twice a year is just madness.
Still, if this change does go through, it will blow the "it's too difficult to change now" argument out of the water.
What worries me about this proposed change, is the prospect of people having to lose 2 hours sleep when the time comes to move the clocks forward.
WPA-TKIP has been present in 100 USD consumer Apple, Netgear, Linksys and Sitecom Wi-Fi base stations (and PCI/PCMCIA cards) for something like a couple of years now. WEP has generally been advised against for quite some time.
Unfortunately I've recently had to shut down a legacy WEP based network I've been running solely for my Clie PDA - which is about 3-4 years old and does not support WPA - because one of my neighbours spoofed a valid MAC address for that network and was doing god knows what.
I live in an apartment block in east London, where there are about 8-10 wireless networks within range (some from across the street I think). Over in west London they prosecuted some one for doing this in the last month or so (he was spoofing a MAC address on a wireless lan to intentionally leech bandwith from someone else). Given that I'm tempted to open it up and go hunt him down and report the smegger who did it here.
It's one thing to leave a network open and entirely unsecured inviting public use, but if someone secures it, even trivially, anyone who intentionally decides to circumvent it can have all their equipment seized and actions and can rot in the cubes for 6 months AFAIC. (On the basis that it's not like traditional burglars get let off just because the victim 'Had a very weak lock on their shed/car/front door'.)
It's particularly a problem for many users if they are getting their bandwidth leeched as many of the most competitive UK DSL offerings have strict usage limits (after X GB a month your speed it slowed from 2 Mb to 512 Mb and/or you are charged for additional usage). Many now allow you to dictate how much bandwidth you want to use in a month (e.g. from 1-10 GB) and you simply pay a monthly fee accordingly (with a surcharge for excess).
It's not a problem for me (I have unlimited bandwidth on my connection) but I know I'd definitely set out to finger someone if I caught them using up a paid for bandwidth allocation (or effecting my throughput for that matter).
I was a bit worried that the phrase 'evil brats' was inflammatory but it was immediately what popped to mind.
/maturity is not the only factor - there are some great younger players and some socially backwards older players (but I still think it would be a good start, as regrettable as it would be for the more mature younger players).
The behaviour of these kids astounds me, but I suppose revulsion at the errant behaviour of younger generations is not a new thing. I still can't imagine ever behaving the way some of them do though.
Something like a '+18' flag on accounts (i.e. where someone has to enter a valid credit card number for the purposes of proving their age and certifying that the holder of the account is entitled to access adult content) and then allowing only them to play 'adult only' servers would not cure the problem of playing with 'lusers', but it would certainly reduce the scope of it.
Obviously (before someone points it out) age
A more difficult to implement, but fairer and theoretically more effective approach would be to have some sort of in-game rating system, where players can rate the other behaviour of others. Perhaps this could be done in a way that ties it to the game - something like a 'faction rating' as in SWG (though that rated your popularity with a faction, rather than with other specific players).
OT: As with quite a few other things (such as it's free market implementation) EVE online does this really well IMO. It gives you multiple ratings for others - based on your guilds and alliances rating of them (and their guild/alliance), the ratings of others against them and your own personal rating of that individual. You also get their ratings against NPC factions and their over all security rating.
This sounds like a lot of information, but it's presented very clearly and concisely and leaves the player open to make a judgement about them based on available evidence and the circumstances (e.g. you might choose to be more cautious if they look a bit dodgy and you are out in low-security 'deep space' with a fat cargo hauler and you come across them when they are in a battleship or frigate).
If PvP is the only problem and they do desperately want to cater to under 18 year olds, all they'd need to do would be to not implement the PvP servers (or the Battlegrounds) and remove the flag that you get when you attack a city guard (or similar NPC) that normally makes you targetable by players. That should be very simple indeed to do.
I'll say this though, I'd pay good money never to have to play with some of the evil brats I've met in MMOG's.
It's ok to shoot and kill a man, and you say it was alright to do it because he was an illegal immigrant, in the wrong place at the wrong time?
It is okay to shoot a man if you are are an armed policeman and the man in question has just left a building that you are monitoring (because it contains suspected terrorists) and when challanged he refuses to stop, runs away from the police, skips the gate at the underground and tries to board a train.
Next time you'll say that rape victims asked for it, because they were wearing a short skirt.
You are incorrect, I would not. That's quite a specious comparison, because it confuses victims with purpertrators. This man was not a 'victim' of crime - no crime was commited against him by the police. He was however himself a criminal and it is factually accurate to say, had he not been, he would almost certainly not have been in a position to be shot.
My thoughts are with the officers who had to deal with this guy in highly suspicious circumstances, the long term impact it will have on them and their families and possibility that it could impact other officers in future - and so by extention, put the lives of genuinely innocent people at risk.
Just so we are all crystal on this one:
I would absolutely expect any armed officer in the same situation to behave in the same way.