A couple things have changed while you were in your apparent coma: nearly 3,000 people were killed and World Trade Centers 1, 2, 3 and 7 were destroyed in a terrorist attack on the United States 10.5 years ago and desktop Opera has been free for roughly 12 years now.
"UK is firmly below the global average, with just 27 percent of computer users admitting they have acquired software illegally last year. This translates into an approximate £1.2 billion loss by the software industry." - "People who use software without paying for it" != "People who would pay for it if they couldn't get it for free".
I admit that I have and occasionally still do pirate software and download music albums without paying for them, however...
The more I hear that argument, the worse it sounds. The point isn't that a person wouldn't pay for it if they couldn't get it for free; it's that they actually have it without paying for it. How is it deceptive to call that a lost sale?
If I'm not going to buy it, you're not going to eat in any case
And if you're not going to buy it, you shouldn't have possession of it (barring gifts and inheritance, of course).
Most people are trying to frame the anti-piracy efforts of companies as simply "we want money" when it's actually more like "we want money for that product of ours that you've acquired". Yes, quite a few of those efforts are absurd and limit the second-hand market, which is bad, but this "I wasn't going to buy it anyway" justification for piracy is complete and utter nonsense.
Companies aren't guaranteed a profit, but you're also not guaranteed possession of their products for free simply because you disagree with their pricing.
I agree that making no attempt to deny the veracity of the information isn't itself an admission, but you should have stopped there...
he also made no attempt to deny that he killed Jimmy Hoffa. should this be taken as an indication that he knows what's kept at Area 51?
That's very likely because the phone interview didn't cover those topics. That people don't normally comment on their knowledge of topics not currently being discussed is not an argument for why one doesn't comment about their knowledge of topics that are currently being discussed.
BTW, since I've started ranting, I might add this unrelated tidbit: how many times do I have to "revert to the old look" in Gmail for them to understand that I *can't* stand their new look for Gmail, and will hold out until the VERY END???!
They do this with Google Analytics, too (for me, at least) It defaults to the new, still-beta UI. I'll switch back to the old version, but if I don't touch it for—I don't know—an hour, the next click will take me back to the main page of the new look, even if I was already looking at a report. It's annoying as hell.
They even still display the "Make this the default" link in the top right, even though they seem to have already decided to make it the default for me...
Android's relative success in the market is all the more remarkable for not having the marketing team that Apple enjoys.
I doubt the iOS team is responsible for the successful marketing of the iPhone. Also, are you referring to marketing to the handset vendors, or marketing to the public? If the former, I seriously doubt Google sat on their ass and just let vendors stumble upon Android. I suspect you mean the latter, though, since Apple doesn't have to sell iOS to itself. Again, Google isn't exactly a slouch in the marketing arena.
Except, as a private in the US military, that was not Bradley Manning's job or duty to decide.
First, let me say that the only problem I have with Manning releasing all that information is the lack of focus. It hasn't been dangerous yet, but that might change. I also have no problem with his arrest, generally speaking.
That said... sometimes the wrong person needs to make the right decision.
Google+ was declared a failure within 1 month. I mean come on!
By whom? Certainly not anyone at Google. For whatever reason, they need—or want very badly—Google+ to succeed. They're going to great lengths to accommodate their last shot at breaking into the social networking scene. Only since the release of Google+ have they made a serious attempt to create a consistent visual "theme" across all of their services, and they're even reducing the functionality of their other services (e.g. the removal of the + operator from Search) to allow for Google+-related features.
I did. I had completely forgotten about it until I read The MAZZTer's comment. I kind of shrugged it off as the usual email spoofing, but it still seemed odd at the time that it made it through Google's spam filter.
The email, with redactions by me:
Subject: Come join [redacted], a gaming resource community From: webmaster@steampowered.com
Ever wanted to dominate the servers you play on with guaranteed results, but you were too afraid to cheat because of ban risks? Visit [redacted]. It's safe, secure and undetected.
Along with hacks, we've also got some general discussion sections, hacking tutorials and tools, porn, free giveaways and much more. This site has been conditioned to meet all your needs in terms of resources so be sure to take a look and tell us what you think.
You can still use quotes. The only reason the plus was removed (in favour of the quotation marks, which accomplish the same thing) is because it interfered with searching for Google+
No, that's not the reason. The "+" operator only had special meaning when prefixed to a word; it meant nothing at the end of a word. If there was a reason it was removed, it was probably because of the +1 Button.
Correction: The change is likely related to Google+, but not an actual search for [Google+]. Apparently, Google uses "+Cl1mh4224rd" as the method of referring to Google+ profiles. They probably want a search for [+Cl1mh4224rd] to return a Google+ profile instead of regular pages.
It seems Google painted themselves into a corner with this, which means they're getting stupid and careless.
You can still use quotes. The only reason the plus was removed (in favour of the quotation marks, which accomplish the same thing) is because it interfered with searching for Google+
No, that's not the reason. The "+" operator only had special meaning when prefixed to a word; it meant nothing at the end of a word. If there was a reason it was removed, it was probably because of the +1 Button.
But that particular change is awful in one significant way: it doubles the number of characters you have to type to achieve the same result. Instead of searching for [some phrase +something], you have to search for [some phrase "something"]. For a company that prides itself on even minor optimizations to the user experience, this is an odd step backwards.
Still, I find myself doing searches like ["my" "search" "phrase"] more and more often, because Google seems to think it's acceptable to occasionally ignore some of the words I actually typed into the damn search field. The "+" operator shouldn't have even been necessary; if you put a word into that field, it (or its synonyms) should be part of the actual search. For absolutely no reason should a search engine decide that you didn't actually want to search for one of the words you typed in.
If the tabs are on the bottom then the tab's container holds the address bar, navigation buttons, print button and everything EXCEPT the actual web page. Silly.
This issue isn't about allowing tabs to be placed at the bottom of the browser window; it's about allowing tabs to be placed below the address/location bar.
I use Firefox, but I actually prefer the tabs above the address field. A tab is just a container and the address field contains information that's directly associated with the other content within the tab. The same goes for the back and forward buttons; their state is dependent on the browsing history of a specific tab.
Still... giving people the option to switch shouldn't be something that's denied with a heavy fist. That's just poor PR.
End the Wars Tax the Rich This isn't Rocket Science
I certainly don't disagree with ending the wars, but why is that one of the goals of a movement called "Occupy Wall Street"? That sounds like a poorly focused movement.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously. Who pays for a web browser?
A couple things have changed while you were in your apparent coma: nearly 3,000 people were killed and World Trade Centers 1, 2, 3 and 7 were destroyed in a terrorist attack on the United States 10.5 years ago and desktop Opera has been free for roughly 12 years now.
Welcome back.
What we really have to worry/consider are the things that we never even know happen, not just "don't know their purpose."
I think people have better things to do than worry about the infinite number of possibilities that "things that we never even know happen" implies.
"UK is firmly below the global average, with just 27 percent of computer users admitting they have acquired software illegally last year. This translates into an approximate £1.2 billion loss by the software industry." -
"People who use software without paying for it" != "People who would pay for it if they couldn't get it for free".
I admit that I have and occasionally still do pirate software and download music albums without paying for them, however...
The more I hear that argument, the worse it sounds. The point isn't that a person wouldn't pay for it if they couldn't get it for free; it's that they actually have it without paying for it. How is it deceptive to call that a lost sale?
Meanwhile, there are plenty of real problems to be solved and discoveries to be made here on Earth, if anyone is still interested.
I'm pretty sure the human race can multitask...
Who else read that as "NASA's Metroid Environment Office"?
If I'm not going to buy it, you're not going to eat in any case
And if you're not going to buy it, you shouldn't have possession of it (barring gifts and inheritance, of course).
Most people are trying to frame the anti-piracy efforts of companies as simply "we want money" when it's actually more like "we want money for that product of ours that you've acquired". Yes, quite a few of those efforts are absurd and limit the second-hand market, which is bad, but this "I wasn't going to buy it anyway" justification for piracy is complete and utter nonsense.
Companies aren't guaranteed a profit, but you're also not guaranteed possession of their products for free simply because you disagree with their pricing.
I am not sure why these random sets of ten years were chosen [...]
Random? We call that sequential...
The editor in charge of the magazine wanted the experiments rerun with Randi controlling the protocols.
So my beef with Randi is that he butted in to a science lab experiment [...]
It's not "butting in" if you've been invited.
which you'd expect.
I agree that making no attempt to deny the veracity of the information isn't itself an admission, but you should have stopped there...
he also made no attempt to deny that he killed Jimmy Hoffa. should this be taken as an indication that he knows what's kept at Area 51?
That's very likely because the phone interview didn't cover those topics. That people don't normally comment on their knowledge of topics not currently being discussed is not an argument for why one doesn't comment about their knowledge of topics that are currently being discussed.
[...] but the characters' dialog is still in modern English so that the author didn't have to invent a new language like Tolkein's Sindarin.
That, and requiring potential readers to learn an entirely new language just to understand all character dialog would guarantee limited success...
BTW, since I've started ranting, I might add this unrelated tidbit: how many times do I have to "revert to the old look" in Gmail for them to understand that I *can't* stand their new look for Gmail, and will hold out until the VERY END???!
They do this with Google Analytics, too (for me, at least) It defaults to the new, still-beta UI. I'll switch back to the old version, but if I don't touch it for—I don't know—an hour, the next click will take me back to the main page of the new look, even if I was already looking at a report. It's annoying as hell.
They even still display the "Make this the default" link in the top right, even though they seem to have already decided to make it the default for me...
If it's that trivial to reverse engineer is it really worth the patent?
It doesn't have to be trivial; it just has to be cheaper, and it usually is.
Android's relative success in the market is all the more remarkable for not having the marketing team that Apple enjoys.
I doubt the iOS team is responsible for the successful marketing of the iPhone. Also, are you referring to marketing to the handset vendors, or marketing to the public? If the former, I seriously doubt Google sat on their ass and just let vendors stumble upon Android. I suspect you mean the latter, though, since Apple doesn't have to sell iOS to itself. Again, Google isn't exactly a slouch in the marketing arena.
When performance is important, you get a different picture. For instance, how many FPS games have a ribbon-type interface for weapon selection?
Quite a few, actually. The Half-Life series being one I'm immediately aware of.
[...] the only hope they'll have is million dollar stat boxes that make lots of wrong guesses and snip VIP VPNs.
At the customer's and/or taxpayer's expense, in more than one way...
Except, as a private in the US military, that was not Bradley Manning's job or duty to decide.
First, let me say that the only problem I have with Manning releasing all that information is the lack of focus. It hasn't been dangerous yet, but that might change. I also have no problem with his arrest, generally speaking.
That said... sometimes the wrong person needs to make the right decision.
Google+ was declared a failure within 1 month. I mean come on!
By whom? Certainly not anyone at Google. For whatever reason, they need—or want very badly—Google+ to succeed. They're going to great lengths to accommodate their last shot at breaking into the social networking scene. Only since the release of Google+ have they made a serious attempt to create a consistent visual "theme" across all of their services, and they're even reducing the functionality of their other services (e.g. the removal of the + operator from Search) to allow for Google+-related features.
Google's betting a lot on Google+.
They did? I never got that one myself.
I did. I had completely forgotten about it until I read The MAZZTer's comment. I kind of shrugged it off as the usual email spoofing, but it still seemed odd at the time that it made it through Google's spam filter.
The email, with redactions by me:
Subject: Come join [redacted], a gaming resource community
From: webmaster@steampowered.com
Ever wanted to dominate the servers you play on with guaranteed results, but you were too afraid to cheat because of ban risks? Visit [redacted]. It's safe, secure and undetected.
Along with hacks, we've also got some general discussion sections, hacking tutorials and tools, porn, free giveaways and much more. This site has been conditioned to meet all your needs in terms of resources so be sure to take a look and tell us what you think.
Thanks again,
the [redacted] team.
Software developers are mainly concerned with creating software that works, and that works well.
Can someone tell me when the prevailing opinion shifted from "programmers suck at UI design" to "programmers make the best UI's"?
You can still use quotes. The only reason the plus was removed (in favour of the quotation marks, which accomplish the same thing) is because it interfered with searching for Google+
No, that's not the reason. The "+" operator only had special meaning when prefixed to a word; it meant nothing at the end of a word. If there was a reason it was removed, it was probably because of the +1 Button.
Correction: The change is likely related to Google+, but not an actual search for [Google+]. Apparently, Google uses "+Cl1mh4224rd" as the method of referring to Google+ profiles. They probably want a search for [+Cl1mh4224rd] to return a Google+ profile instead of regular pages.
It seems Google painted themselves into a corner with this, which means they're getting stupid and careless.
You can still use quotes. The only reason the plus was removed (in favour of the quotation marks, which accomplish the same thing) is because it interfered with searching for Google+
No, that's not the reason. The "+" operator only had special meaning when prefixed to a word; it meant nothing at the end of a word. If there was a reason it was removed, it was probably because of the +1 Button.
But that particular change is awful in one significant way: it doubles the number of characters you have to type to achieve the same result. Instead of searching for [some phrase +something], you have to search for [some phrase "something"]. For a company that prides itself on even minor optimizations to the user experience, this is an odd step backwards.
Still, I find myself doing searches like ["my" "search" "phrase"] more and more often, because Google seems to think it's acceptable to occasionally ignore some of the words I actually typed into the damn search field. The "+" operator shouldn't have even been necessary; if you put a word into that field, it (or its synonyms) should be part of the actual search. For absolutely no reason should a search engine decide that you didn't actually want to search for one of the words you typed in.
If the tabs are on the bottom then the tab's container holds the address bar, navigation buttons, print button and everything EXCEPT the actual web page. Silly.
This issue isn't about allowing tabs to be placed at the bottom of the browser window; it's about allowing tabs to be placed below the address/location bar.
I use Firefox, but I actually prefer the tabs above the address field. A tab is just a container and the address field contains information that's directly associated with the other content within the tab. The same goes for the back and forward buttons; their state is dependent on the browsing history of a specific tab.
Still... giving people the option to switch shouldn't be something that's denied with a heavy fist. That's just poor PR.
End the Wars
Tax the Rich
This isn't Rocket Science
I certainly don't disagree with ending the wars, but why is that one of the goals of a movement called "Occupy Wall Street"? That sounds like a poorly focused movement.
That's why (in terms of Establishment priorities) it's okay to give them so much media attention.
Err... Isn't one of the major complaints that the media is giving them almost no attention? Who to believe, who to believe...