Just a thought on top of that though...why wouldn't they track quit games as a stat? That would really fix those 'perfect record' lamers when their stats show up as win:11, loss:0, quit:999.
It is fairly slow, and it's all done in software. It's not meant at all for high performance OpenGL. The wrapper layer itself might not be that slow...but MS's OpenGL implementations are notoriously sub par. But it doesn't matter, because they are rarely, if ever, used at all for anything requiring real time performance.
With XP, it was adopted because given the alternative...Windows users were clamoring for the upgrade. People not only wanted XP, they needed XP. Home users, businesses, everywhere.
This time around things are not the same. It is very much like Windows ME. It's not necessary, it has drawbacks, and XP Just Works.
The market MAY end up Vista dominated...but the jury is still very much out on that. Of all the people I know with PC's...dozens anyways, there are TWO using Vista. One that installed it themselves and bitches to no end about it, and the other having gotten it preinstalled on a new machine...used for emailing and surfing, that's it.
So we should come to an agreement with poor ole Jack. Settle this issue once and for all.
If this does indeed put Jack in danger, and he ends up being violently killed in real life...then we'll concede Jack's point*;)
If not, he'll have to concede that video games obviously do not lead to violence.
Win win!
So, what do you think Jack? Kinda win win don't you think?
(* Of course the point to be conceded will have to be limited to stating that depictions of violence against raging buffoons in videogames can lead to isolated instances of violence against raging buffoons in real life)
Except for the fact that he hasn't come down on Ubuntu at all, actually, he had a lot of good to say about it. From a mainstream perspective, that is one of the best Linux reviews to date.
His stance is simply that while good, it's just not quite at the point where your average user will be happy with their purchase once they get home when compared to Windows or OSX. And in that, he would be correct.
The sabotage going on, if any, is your insistence on contriving every conceivable aspect of the review under your own pretenses.
And again you'd be wrong about my ability to compromise or be open minded. Point in case: Prior to reading this article, I would have still stated that there is no Linux distro that is even close to ready for your average user, and I've used Ubuntu. After reading this article, I'll have to re-evaluate the latest Ubuntu as it really does sound like while not quite there, it is now very very close. And that is a good thing IMHO.
No, you're correct mostly...the only reason I allow for this reasoning is that ringtones are publicly aired. You are most certainly NOT entitled to start broadcasting someone elses work just because you bought the CD...it is at least arguable that this could include ringtones.
Please note that I did not actually specify whether I agree with that stance or not...just that legally, there is a point to be made within that particular context.
From my standpoint...I'm not making any money by using someone's song as a ringtone. And in fact, I'm arguably providing free advertising for the artist. To that end, I think ABBA is being bloody freaking stupid to not allow this use...but again, that's just my opinion and not the legality involved. ABBA may very well have the right to limit use in this case.
My counterpoint is that ANY correctly configured Linux distribution for the hardware can rival commercial operating systems for the average user. It's a red herring because this is NOT 'Any correctly configured Linux distribution'. This is a Dell laptop shipped with Ubuntu. And it was reviewed As Shipped..as in exactly how your Average User would receive it.
Your zealotism is doing no favors for the Linux community. This attitude does nothing but damage the reputation and adoptability of Linux.
Let me give you just a wee bit of proof that hopefully you'll understand: What market share of Average Users are running something other than Windows or OSX?
Ahh, but you MUST be right...
(I'll leave it to you to figure out why you're not...and to hopefully see how articles like this are actually HELPING linux)
This column is written for mainstream, nontechie users of digital technology. These folks aren't necessarily novices, and they aren't afraid of computers. They also aren't stupid. They simply want their digital products to operate as promised, with as little maintenance and hassle as possible.
Isn't this a contradiction?
No. Everyday people use technology every day, doesn't make them techies or power users. Average people have neat toys, and they expect them to 'just work'.
So, I have steered away from recommending Linux, the free computer operating system that is the darling of many techies and IT managers, and a challenger to Microsoft's dominant Windows and Apple's resurgent Macintosh operating system, OS X. Linux, which runs on the same hardware as Windows, has always required much more technical expertise and a yen for tinkering than average users possess.
Isn't this biased and patronizing? And is there proof of the last claim? I can set up most Linux distros such that a user needs no knowledge at all of Unix. How is that different from OS X?
No, from your average users pov, that is just the way it is. As for your 2nd point, you prove it yourself by stating that YOU can set up linux distros for other people...fully knowing there is no way they could have done it themselves.
Lately, however, I've received a steady stream of emails from readers urging me to take a look at a variant of Linux called Ubuntu, which, these folks claimed, is finally polished enough for a mainstream user to handle. My interest increased when Dell began to sell a few computer models preloaded with Ubuntu instead of Windows.
Translation: I'm going to stomp all over you so stop bugging me.
Um...those in glass houses and all that...
I've been testing one of those Dell Ubuntu computers, a laptop called the Inspiron 1420N. I evaluated it strictly from the point of view of an average user, someone who wouldn't want to enter text commands, hunt the Web for drivers and enabling software, or learn a whole new user interface. I focused on Ubuntu and the software programs that come bundled with it, not on the hardware, which is a pretty typical Dell laptop.
How can he claim to be something he's not?
He's not claiming to be something he's not. He's evaluating it from their perspective. Funny how that's exactly what he said...
My verdict: Even in the relatively slick Ubuntu variation, Linux is still too rough around the edges for the vast majority of computer users. While Ubuntu looks a lot like Windows or Mac OS X, it is full of little complications and hassles that will quickly frustrate most people who just want to use their computers, not maintain or tweak them.
Again, lets enumerate what those are Walt? We'll get to those later.
Pointless...won't even comment.
Before every passionate Linux fan attacks that conclusion, let me note that even the folks who make and sell Ubuntu agree with it. Mark Shuttleworth, the South African-born founder of the Ubuntu project, told me this week that "it would be reasonable to say that this is not ready for the mass market." And Dell's Web site for its Ubuntu computers warns that these machines are for "for advanced users and tech enthusiasts."
What does where he comes from have anything to do with it?
Nice attempt at a redirect there...the important bit you ignore being that the founder of Ubuntu agrees with him...not ready for mass market...yet.
So, what do I mean when I say Ubuntu is too rough around the edges for average users? Here are some examples.
Maybe 5+ years ago that point would have been valid.
But not anymore. People with iPods and cameras are not power users by any stretch of the imagination. My grandparents plug their camera into their computer all the time. They are in their 80s.
Plugging things into your computer is not a power user thing. Normal people do more than surf and email these days. Sure, there are some of those people out there of course, but that does not define 'average user' by any means.
It's one thing for an artist to decide they do not want their music for ringtones...agree or not, it is their right.
But that has nothing to do with the MAFIAA making money off of ringtones without paying the artists. This has nothing to do with whether ABBA is willing to allow their music to be used for ringtones or not.
What we need is for the Artists to revolt against this. It goes way way too far. They already get screwed by the MAFIAA, and now the MAFIAA got a legal standing that they are allowed to make money off of the artists work, but have no obligation to pay the artists.
These assholes, in theory, are supposed to be working FOR the artists. The ONLY reason the MAFIAA exists in the first place is because of the artists...No artists...No music...No money to collect royalties for.
The MAFIAA needs to be taken out back and shot. It's the humane thing to do after all.
Then carry out your fights in context and don't carry over a grudge to a thread where there is no context for a previous discussion.
It's one thing to carry on a pissing match...but to start one anew for no reason, well, it's childish and really doesn't help resolve things, it just drags things out for no reason.
Different day, different topic...could have reasonably been a good point to start fresh.
Sorry, I do get your point...it's just that I wouldn't consider it a fair comparison to compare a lifetime of striving to attain billionaire status vs playing a lottery once.
Ah, and on a side note, I know you don't like me, but there's really no need to be an arrogant prick over something like this. Maybe it'll help if I just concede now that you're a much smarter and better person than me;)
Sorry, I meant to comment on that specifically (As 3 of you have now corrected me on that point).
That is not a bad improvement for that price point indeed. But it isn't really necessary. Anti-Viral drops are the norm for everything under.2 micron, and they are very cheap. Most of those filters listed come with them for just this purpose. The filter gets all particles out, and the drops kill any virals left behind.
The net effect is essentially the same.
My real point being, you can already get the same level of protection out of a sub $70 device that has been around for over a decade. I think this tech would really have to come in much cheaper than ~$200 to really become a commodity emergency item that could easily and quickly get into the hands of those that need it in a time of crisis.
Actually, no, it's not less likely to win the lottery, unless you only play once. Your chances of hitting the jackpot in a weekly lottery if you play every week are much higher than 1 in 4.5 million...more you play, higher your odds across the board. Catch being, how much are you willing to pay into it?
Anyways, any person with half a brain knows that gambling of any sort isn't the best way to get ahead. (Caveat: Of course common sense isn't all that common;)
There is a vast array of products available that have been available for years.
My filter: (on the 2nd page, $68 these days,.2 micron, 1.25l per minute, 750+ litres per filter) Been using that one for...sheesh, almost 10 years.
Spend more, get more throughput and more filter life. The Katadyne filter on the first page is used throughout the world by many many agencies. Expensive, but for it's abilities, it's right in line with the price of the device in the article. (Almost 100k litres per filter!!!)
Note that almost all the filters on the MEC site offer the same level of protection...the differences are in the throughput and filter lifetime. That is what you pay for.
This is just a company trying to get a big government contract and make a pile of cash, they have nothing new to bring to the table whatsoever. Now if they could provide filters for $20 per household...then they'd be on to something.
Just to note: There is approx. one billionaire per 4.5 million people in the US.
Lots of people dream that dream, but know it's just that, a dream. The chances of attaining that are insane. And living your life out striving to attain that...well, lets just say you're in for a lot of disappointment.
Besides, for a lot of people anymore, that's not the dream they want to attain. There are other worthy dreams that don't center around becoming one of the richest people on the block.
And that has what exactly to do with becoming a game designer?
It all depends on what your goals are, you can't just compare everything across the board. Success means very different things to different people.
Obviously, your goal is to retire as early as possible, and you've found short cuts that work for you to meet that end. Other people might have a similar goal, but put a higher weight on getting there independently.
Other people might just want to write games.
There are millions of goals out there. Don't treat everyone like they should only live for your goals.
That's what I'm digging at. Do you have an iPhone? Does it indeed turn off when you turn it off? Is it in fact impossible for this to happen if you turn it off? No one has shown any evidence either way, which is what I'm curious about...according to the article, the guy did turn his phone off.
Granted, there is a good chance that he actually only put it to sleep. But how do we know? And either way, even if it was only sleeping...$4800 is a pretty massive bill to receive for your phone doing something he wasn't aware it was even doing.
And you KNOW he did that? And you KNOW he didn't actually turn it off?
Hmm, you know, you could really make a ton of cash if you turned that mind reading power towards something useful...
Anyways, bottom line: For all you KNOW, as this is all the article STATES: The guy turned his phone OFF and got charged $4800 anyways. The facts may be disputable, but be that as it may, until proven otherwise, those are the only facts one has to use to draw a conclusion. (Despite many peoples desire to introduce anecdotal evidence as fact)
I'm sorry, but you're pulling the 'fair use' argument into an excuse to steal. Yes, you are indeed stealing, particularly with the way you set up this conversation. If the only reason you won't pay for the software is that you can't be bothered to, it's most certainly theft, and you damned well know it. And in this context, is EXACTLY like stealing a car.
We're not talking about making a copy of your latest mp3 or something. We're talking about something that can only legitimately be obtained by paying for it, and you proudly circumvent said payment. That is theft.
You are doing fair use harm rather than good. Please stop.
Slashdot Mirror
Makes sense.
Just a thought on top of that though...why wouldn't they track quit games as a stat? That would really fix those 'perfect record' lamers when their stats show up as win:11, loss:0, quit:999.
It is fairly slow, and it's all done in software. It's not meant at all for high performance OpenGL. The wrapper layer itself might not be that slow...but MS's OpenGL implementations are notoriously sub par. But it doesn't matter, because they are rarely, if ever, used at all for anything requiring real time performance.
That is not a given.
With XP, it was adopted because given the alternative...Windows users were clamoring for the upgrade. People not only wanted XP, they needed XP. Home users, businesses, everywhere.
This time around things are not the same. It is very much like Windows ME. It's not necessary, it has drawbacks, and XP Just Works.
The market MAY end up Vista dominated...but the jury is still very much out on that. Of all the people I know with PC's...dozens anyways, there are TWO using Vista. One that installed it themselves and bitches to no end about it, and the other having gotten it preinstalled on a new machine...used for emailing and surfing, that's it.
So we should come to an agreement with poor ole Jack. Settle this issue once and for all.
;)
If this does indeed put Jack in danger, and he ends up being violently killed in real life...then we'll concede Jack's point*
If not, he'll have to concede that video games obviously do not lead to violence.
Win win!
So, what do you think Jack? Kinda win win don't you think?
(* Of course the point to be conceded will have to be limited to stating that depictions of violence against raging buffoons in videogames can lead to isolated instances of violence against raging buffoons in real life)
Except for the fact that he hasn't come down on Ubuntu at all, actually, he had a lot of good to say about it. From a mainstream perspective, that is one of the best Linux reviews to date.
His stance is simply that while good, it's just not quite at the point where your average user will be happy with their purchase once they get home when compared to Windows or OSX. And in that, he would be correct.
The sabotage going on, if any, is your insistence on contriving every conceivable aspect of the review under your own pretenses.
And again you'd be wrong about my ability to compromise or be open minded. Point in case: Prior to reading this article, I would have still stated that there is no Linux distro that is even close to ready for your average user, and I've used Ubuntu. After reading this article, I'll have to re-evaluate the latest Ubuntu as it really does sound like while not quite there, it is now very very close. And that is a good thing IMHO.
You most certainly poised yourself as a linux zealot, so don't get all defensive now.
And you still don't get it, or at least, refuse to admit it.
Sabotage? You are really insisting on that? You're really going to call what he reviewed an untuned version of linux and claim that as sabotage?
Ok, you tell me then. From the POV of the Average User, just what Linux pre-install SHOULD be reviewed if not a Dell laptop pre-installed with Ubuntu?
What, should he have come to you? And that would have been representative of your Average User's experience how?
Not sure what your agenda is, but whatever it is, it doesn't make sense at all.
No, you're correct mostly...the only reason I allow for this reasoning is that ringtones are publicly aired. You are most certainly NOT entitled to start broadcasting someone elses work just because you bought the CD...it is at least arguable that this could include ringtones.
Please note that I did not actually specify whether I agree with that stance or not...just that legally, there is a point to be made within that particular context.
From my standpoint...I'm not making any money by using someone's song as a ringtone. And in fact, I'm arguably providing free advertising for the artist. To that end, I think ABBA is being bloody freaking stupid to not allow this use...but again, that's just my opinion and not the legality involved. ABBA may very well have the right to limit use in this case.
This is a Dell laptop shipped with Ubuntu. And it was reviewed As Shipped..as in exactly how your Average User would receive it.
Your zealotism is doing no favors for the Linux community. This attitude does nothing but damage the reputation and adoptability of Linux.
Let me give you just a wee bit of proof that hopefully you'll understand: What market share of Average Users are running something other than Windows or OSX?
Ahh, but you MUST be right...
(I'll leave it to you to figure out why you're not...and to hopefully see how articles like this are actually HELPING linux)
No. Everyday people use technology every day, doesn't make them techies or power users. Average people have neat toys, and they expect them to 'just work'.
No, from your average users pov, that is just the way it is. As for your 2nd point, you prove it yourself by stating that YOU can set up linux distros for other people...fully knowing there is no way they could have done it themselves.
Um...those in glass houses and all that...
He's not claiming to be something he's not. He's evaluating it from their perspective. Funny how that's exactly what he said...
Pointless...won't even comment.
Nice attempt at a redirect there...the important bit you ignore being that the founder of Ubuntu agrees with him...not ready for mass market...yet.
If yo
Maybe 5+ years ago that point would have been valid.
But not anymore. People with iPods and cameras are not power users by any stretch of the imagination. My grandparents plug their camera into their computer all the time. They are in their 80s.
Plugging things into your computer is not a power user thing. Normal people do more than surf and email these days. Sure, there are some of those people out there of course, but that does not define 'average user' by any means.
Yes, but at whose choice?
It's one thing for an artist to decide they do not want their music for ringtones...agree or not, it is their right.
But that has nothing to do with the MAFIAA making money off of ringtones without paying the artists. This has nothing to do with whether ABBA is willing to allow their music to be used for ringtones or not.
What we need is for the Artists to revolt against this. It goes way way too far. They already get screwed by the MAFIAA, and now the MAFIAA got a legal standing that they are allowed to make money off of the artists work, but have no obligation to pay the artists.
These assholes, in theory, are supposed to be working FOR the artists. The ONLY reason the MAFIAA exists in the first place is because of the artists...No artists...No music...No money to collect royalties for.
The MAFIAA needs to be taken out back and shot. It's the humane thing to do after all.
Sounds more like a bad rockstar game ;)
Then carry out your fights in context and don't carry over a grudge to a thread where there is no context for a previous discussion.
It's one thing to carry on a pissing match...but to start one anew for no reason, well, it's childish and really doesn't help resolve things, it just drags things out for no reason.
Different day, different topic...could have reasonably been a good point to start fresh.
Sorry, I do get your point...it's just that I wouldn't consider it a fair comparison to compare a lifetime of striving to attain billionaire status vs playing a lottery once.
:)
Wasn't trying to be a dick
Ah, and on a side note, I know you don't like me, but there's really no need to be an arrogant prick over something like this. Maybe it'll help if I just concede now that you're a much smarter and better person than me ;)
Sorry, I meant to comment on that specifically (As 3 of you have now corrected me on that point).
.2 micron, and they are very cheap. Most of those filters listed come with them for just this purpose. The filter gets all particles out, and the drops kill any virals left behind.
That is not a bad improvement for that price point indeed. But it isn't really necessary. Anti-Viral drops are the norm for everything under
The net effect is essentially the same.
My real point being, you can already get the same level of protection out of a sub $70 device that has been around for over a decade. I think this tech would really have to come in much cheaper than ~$200 to really become a commodity emergency item that could easily and quickly get into the hands of those that need it in a time of crisis.
Actually, no, it's not less likely to win the lottery, unless you only play once.
;)
Your chances of hitting the jackpot in a weekly lottery if you play every week are much higher than 1 in 4.5 million...more you play, higher your odds across the board. Catch being, how much are you willing to pay into it?
Anyways, any person with half a brain knows that gambling of any sort isn't the best way to get ahead. (Caveat: Of course common sense isn't all that common
This is certainly nothing new at all.
.2 micron, 1.25l per minute, 750+ litres per filter) Been using that one for...sheesh, almost 10 years.
Here is MEC's selection:
Water Purifiers At MEC
There is a vast array of products available that have been available for years.
My filter: (on the 2nd page, $68 these days,
Spend more, get more throughput and more filter life. The Katadyne filter on the first page is used throughout the world by many many agencies. Expensive, but for it's abilities, it's right in line with the price of the device in the article. (Almost 100k litres per filter!!!)
Note that almost all the filters on the MEC site offer the same level of protection...the differences are in the throughput and filter lifetime. That is what you pay for.
This is just a company trying to get a big government contract and make a pile of cash, they have nothing new to bring to the table whatsoever. Now if they could provide filters for $20 per household...then they'd be on to something.
Just to note: There is approx. one billionaire per 4.5 million people in the US.
Lots of people dream that dream, but know it's just that, a dream. The chances of attaining that are insane. And living your life out striving to attain that...well, lets just say you're in for a lot of disappointment.
Besides, for a lot of people anymore, that's not the dream they want to attain. There are other worthy dreams that don't center around becoming one of the richest people on the block.
Oh don't be so pedantic. You know exactly what he meant, and he made a darned fine point at that.
And that has what exactly to do with becoming a game designer?
It all depends on what your goals are, you can't just compare everything across the board. Success means very different things to different people.
Obviously, your goal is to retire as early as possible, and you've found short cuts that work for you to meet that end. Other people might have a similar goal, but put a higher weight on getting there independently.
Other people might just want to write games.
There are millions of goals out there. Don't treat everyone like they should only live for your goals.
That's what I'm digging at. Do you have an iPhone? Does it indeed turn off when you turn it off? Is it in fact impossible for this to happen if you turn it off? No one has shown any evidence either way, which is what I'm curious about...according to the article, the guy did turn his phone off.
Granted, there is a good chance that he actually only put it to sleep. But how do we know?
And either way, even if it was only sleeping...$4800 is a pretty massive bill to receive for your phone doing something he wasn't aware it was even doing.
And you KNOW he did that?
And you KNOW he didn't actually turn it off?
Hmm, you know, you could really make a ton of cash if you turned that mind reading power towards something useful...
Anyways, bottom line: For all you KNOW, as this is all the article STATES: The guy turned his phone OFF and got charged $4800 anyways. The facts may be disputable, but be that as it may, until proven otherwise, those are the only facts one has to use to draw a conclusion. (Despite many peoples desire to introduce anecdotal evidence as fact)
I'm sorry, but you're pulling the 'fair use' argument into an excuse to steal.
Yes, you are indeed stealing, particularly with the way you set up this conversation.
If the only reason you won't pay for the software is that you can't be bothered to, it's most certainly theft, and you damned well know it. And in this context, is EXACTLY like stealing a car.
We're not talking about making a copy of your latest mp3 or something. We're talking about something that can only legitimately be obtained by paying for it, and you proudly circumvent said payment. That is theft.
You are doing fair use harm rather than good. Please stop.