I joke but human redundancy is probably your best bet and pretty reassuring considering I've seen Dr. Strangelove twenty times or so. Also I enjoyed this picture. Is it a good idea to store the keys right above the safe to the Emergency War Orders? No matter, if you know the combination to the lock and have a twenty pound sledge, those hastily welded rings holding on the safety padlocks will take a few seconds to remove.
Did you read the text accompanying that picture?
Those keys would not have been on top of the cabinet there - that's a display for the tourists.
Each launch officer had a key to one padlock, meaning that two launch officers were necessary to open that cabinet. The point isn't to keep some random guy from walking in and launching a missile... That's what all the guards, barbed wire, blast doors, etc. are for. The point is to make sure that it takes two launch officers to launch a missile.
Whether it meets some arbitrary definition of "freedom" shouldn't affect its score. If "freedom" is a desirable feature for certain users, they can certainly weigh that appropriately themselves.
VirtualBox is free as in Open Source. Which is very important to some folks, and unimportant to others. But that doesn't mean whether a product is Open Source or not shouldn't factor into these reviews...
Some of these products offer better speed, or better administration, or better 3D support... All of which will matter to some people, but not everyone. Are we going to toss out all of those as well?
If we toss out every single difference between products that some random person out there may not care about, what are we going to base our reviews on?
Debugging is not the user's responsibility. If it never worked to begin with, regardless of cause, a refund is naturally required, EULAs and their writers be damned.
Of course Google Desktop is free... So I wouldn't expect much of a refund.
Sometimes it's even the other way round. In the case of Arma2 (an example I know of, there might be others), the demo has a number of problems that have been long since fixed in the final game. It does show what the game is like but certainly not how it handles.
They should update it but apparently haven't gotten around to doing it (small company and limited resources apparently).
First impressions can be damning.
I recently picked up S.T.A.L.K.E.R. on Steam when it was on sale for just $5. I'd been wanting to play that game for a while, but had been avoiding it because of how buggy it was.
This impression - that the game was terribly buggy - came from leaks and early reviews. I had been given the impression that the game was borderline-unplayable. And while I did run into a few issues, that is no longer the case. I had a great time playing through that game.
If I had known that the game was genuinely playable I probably would have paid more than $5 for it.
You wouldn't expect a refund for something that doesn't even install properly? That's the very definition of why you should get a refund. Yes, it's fine that their program doesn't work on my machine. They shouldn't expect me to let them keep my money if that's the case.
If Google Desktop stopped Demigod from launching, who would I get the refund from? Google, because their software broke Demigod? Or whoever makes Demigod, because they can't play nice with Google?
Sure, Google Desktop is a generally innocuous piece of software... Runs on a ton of computers... Someone goes out and buys Demigod, tries to install it, doesn't work... Looks like Demigod itself is broken.
But if I don't have Google Desktop installed and I'm playing Demigod just fine... Then I go download Google Desktop and my Demigod install breaks... It's fairly obviously Google's fault, isn't it?
Granted, the way software is sold these days it is very hard to know what they expect the software to run on. They'll specify some system requirements, but not really the environment itself. You've got no idea if they tested it with Google Desktop, or AIM, or Norton, or anything else. All you know is that it needs 3.0 GB RAM and a DirectX video card.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for refunds on broken software. But if you can narrow it down to Program X breaks Program Y you probably aren't going to get a refund - they'll just tell you not to run the two programs at once.
What I am saying is, if the product performs well in its standard environment, a customer can't ask for money back. You cannot use a phone under water and say it broke.
What is a standard environment for a piece of software?
Are you talking about some ideal situation where you've got the OS, a game, and nothing else running? That's not terribly "standard" these days, is it? How about a situation where you've got the OS, a game, three different IM programs, two types of antivirus, and a couple pieces of malware - that's far more "standard" these days.
Of course most software lists the requirements on the box... Windows XP or newer, 3.0 GB RAM or more, 2.0 Ghz or better... Except that those requirements are often misleading or simply incorrect. Software will say "XP or newer" and then fall apart under Win7. Or the "minimum" requirements will be just enough for the program to actually run - but far too low for you to actually do anything with the program. Never mind the fact that most of the people buying a piece of software honestly aren't going to know what most of those numbers mean, or where to even look that information up.
The point being that if you want to use it performs well in its standard environment as an excuse not to offer refunds, then you need to do a whole hell of a lot better job of explaining what that "standard environment" is.
You cannot use a phone under water and say it broke.
What a ridiculous statement. It has absolutely no bearing on the discussion at all.
I would no sooner expect a cell phone to work under water than I would a television or laptop.
But I do expect to be able to make calls with my cell phone on dry land, within range of a cell tower, with a charged battery. And if my phone won't make calls under those circumstances, I'm going to complain. And if it becomes apparent that there's some problem with this particular make and model phone... Or an issue with my provider's towers... Or whatever else - I'm going to want some money back.
On the other hand, if game developers are indeed running after bells and whistles instead of a well running game
What constitutes a bell or a whistle? Who gets to say whether a particular feature is necessary to a game or not? Do you have some magical knowledge that tells you which bit of code broke what bit of functionality? Can you point at a game and say "if you'd only left out the silly hats it would all be running fine."
they ought to be some way of compensation to the consumer, maybe a coupon or a free add-on, an not full money-back guarantee.
So they release a broken game... And I waste my hard-earned money on it... And your way of apologizing is to give me a free add-on to a broken piece of crap that I wish I hadn't bought?
No one runs a game with no software other than the OS installed.
A lot of people do this all the time. It's called a console.
Yup. And one of the major reasons I hear all the time for people preferring a console, over a PC for gaming, is that things generally work. Sure, some glitches and bugs here and there... But normally you can expect to buy a game at the store, throw it in your console, and play the thing without too many issues.
Isn't that one of the purposes of demos? Of course, when games like Modern Warfare 2 start being released without demos, something is wrong.
It's been a long time since I relied on a demo to give me a good feeling for the game.
Many developers/publishers never release a demo of any kind.
And the demos that do get released are frequently not representative of the finished product. They'll focus on a single map or level that's been polished to perfection... But the final release will be full of bugs and issues. Or there'll be artificial limitations in the demo that keeps you from trying out key elements of the finished product.
The game looked decent, so I grabbed the demo. At the time, the demo was pretty huge and took a while to download.
I played through the demo several times and thoroughly enjoyed myself. Eventually decided to buy the game.
Problem was that the retail version of the game didn't play much like the demo.
The demo had some extra code in it to move things along in a timely manner. You were only given a dozen turns to play, or 30 minutes, or some short period of time. So the game made sure you had pressure on you - the big evil army was on its way. There was almost a rush to see if you could amass your army and defend yourself. There was more of a feeling of direction and urgency.
In the retail game you were basically just dropped on the world map and allowed to do your thing. The enemies would wander around their own territory, twiddling their thumbs, until you felt you were ready to attack. Which mean that there really wasn't anyone coming to get you. And you could take your time to build up your army as much as you wanted.
Without that pressure, most of the fun was gone. I was bored silly after an hour or so.
Maybe if you read the fine article before jerking one off, you'd be able to answer your own question.
On a PC, the vendor can't control the environment in which their software is run. Something else on the machine completely outwith their control could nobble their app, for example, Google desktop stopping Demigod from launching. I say "for example" since that's the example given in the article that you didn't bother to read.
That's fine. I wouldn't expect a refund in such a case.
But what about all the assorted bugs that wind up being the developer's own fault?
I remember some Myst sequel that absolutely refused to run on my computer because my optical drive was labeled M: instead of D: or E: The developer acknowledged the issue and made a patch available shortly. But it sure seems to me like they shipped a broken product.
"I know many Jewish Israeli people who had their bag shot just because they left it unwatched for a couple of minutes. Yes, this is the unfortunate reality that Israelis live in, where Palestinian terrorist would do anything (such as put bombs cowardly hidden in laptops) to intentionally hurt innocent civilians..."
I can hardly believe some people. Broken laptop vs white phosphorus? Broken laptop vs bombed UN school?! "Unfortunate reality" my backside, I really wonder if some of them know anything whatsoever about reality.
So which part do you disagree with? You don't feel that it's unfortunate? Or you don't believe it is reality?
Because any manufacturer is going to charge the most that you are willing to pay. In lawnmowers, there are cheaper alternatives. With laptops, there are not. Pure market based pricing.
While I'm certain that's part of the issue, I think you're missing a more obvious difference - the form-factor.
A laptop is supposed to be relatively small and portable. Laptop manufacturers will advertise how thick their laptop is, how many pounds it weighs, and how many hours it'll run on a battery. Thus, laptop batteries - while they may be made with the same technology - are as small and dense as possible.
A lawnmower, on the other hand, has wheels on it. While you'd have a hard time shoving a 1 ton brick around your yard, it probably doesn't make much difference if the thing ways 15 lbs or 25 lbs... It'll still move easily enough. And if you're going to make it self-propelled it'll matter even less. The same thing goes for the size/volume of the thing... It isn't like this thing has to fit into an overhead bin or a backpack. Hell, your cutting deck is already several feet square - the battery probably isn't going to be the biggest thing on it.
So you've got laptops (and cell phones) where you're trying to build a tiny, dense battery... And lawn mowers where you just need enough juice to run the mower for a couple hours and it really doesn't matter how bulky the thing is.
And folks are surprised that there's a price difference why?
Fine, they suffered a bit... So did pretty much everyone else - especially anyone in the entertainment industry. Money is tight, folks aren't spending as much on games. The fact that there are different consoles that don't run each-other's games just spread the money even thinner. Deal with it.
However, I do think gaming in general is going to have to make some adjustments.
$60 for a game that barely offers 10 hours of gameplay just isn't going to cut it. I think the gaming industry is going to have to either start delivering smaller, cheaper games on an accelerated timetable - episodic stuff. Or they're going to have to start delivering much more substantial gameplay for that $60 price point.
Anyone else (unemployed and looking like me) feel like a disturbing portion of the job market is constituted of 'blame taking positions'?
It's probably paranoia, but I feel like the businessworld is composed of corrupt people who will lie and bullshit, and then the poor saps that get stuck with the 'blame taking positions'.
In my youth, I had naive libertarian beliefs about talented and competent people winning out in the free market against those types. Now that I've witnessed the naked annihilation of even the illusion of capitalism, via the bank bailouts... I just have no real hope that there is any way to make a living without either being one of those bullshitters, or poor blame taking saps. I guess the honorable thing is to just accept a sequence of blame taking jobs, and survive and get fed until we see a better age.
What you want is a manufacturing job of some sort. A job where you can actually point at an object and say I made that.
Service sort of works for this as well... Except that it's very easy to wind up in a service position where your customers are blaming you anyway. Manufacturing generally results in an object that either does what it is supposed to, or doesn't - and there isn't typically a whole lot of room for shifting blame.
Now, I'm not necessarily suggesting that you get a factory job - though there's nothing wrong with that. But working in construction, or carpentry, or producing some kind of art, or music, or putting on some kind of show can deliver similar results.
The basic idea, ultimately, is a job where you can actually point at an object that was either produced or not. Or point at a person who was either served or not. Instead of a job where your duties solely involve making decisions - which can ultimately be questioned or blamed by anyone, regardless of how things turned out, because it could possibly have turned out even better.
Because 99.99% of the web hosting companies offer LAMP setups?
Yup. Like it or not, MySQL is the default generic database that's available almost everywhere.
Pretty much any web host out there offers MySQL databases. Sure, they might very well offer other databases as well... But it'll vary some from one host to another. The one you can pretty much count on being supported anywhere is MySQL.
So the assorted blog/CMS software gets written to interface with MySQL. Again, very often various packages will talk to other databases... But they almost all support MySQL.
I think you are confusing organic food with the true meaning of organic, comes from life. Oil is organic as it is fossilized remains of things that lived many years ago. Last I checked Uranium is not organic. Think organic chemistry, not organic hippies.
Organic chemistry has nothing to do with life. It has to do with carbon compounds - which just so happen to appear in living things.
I might be missing something; which part of the process is done with organic materials. I see that it's not silicon based, but perhaps I am misunderstanding their usage of organic. Regardless to that fact, though, it's still pretty interesting stuff.
In terms of chemistry, organic refers to stuff made from carbon.
BG is good enough, tied to residential/office network, and hard to notice the benefit of N.
Do you do much copying of files at all? We can see a huge difference on our network (have had n since the first 11n Airport Extreme), with speeds 3-5 times faster than G in the same environment. For us, 11n actually made wireless an acceptable alternative.
From what I've seen, higher speeds reduce range.
Yes, I know, N is supposed to do fancy things with multiple antennas and all that good stuff... Supposed to actually have a better range... But, honestly, I haven't seen it.
Typically, with the installations we do, range is more important than connection speed. I will normally still set WAPs to do B - it generally has better range than G or N.
If you're really concerned about speed, N will get you up around 100 Mbps... Which is certainly better than 11 or 54... But it isn't really that fast these days. I can buy a cheap little Gb switch for $50 or so... And most computers come with Gb NICs these days. If I'm really worried about speeds, I'll just plug in a line.
I don't believe I've ever had a situation where I needed an increase in speed badly enough to use N... Yet not badly enough to run a new network line to get Gb speeds.
My password has nothing to do with my privacy. It has to do with your ability to impersonate me.
In respect to my privacy, I will again state that it is basically non-existent on Facebook - regardless of any privacy controls of passwords. The whole point in posting something on Facebook is that other people can see it - hence the "social" part of social networking. I will again state that on Facebook you do not have walls or locked doors protecting your privacy - you have a chainlink fence.
In respect to your ability to impersonate me and post messages claiming to be from me, I suppose my password would be acting as a door - or maybe more appropriately as a unique identifier. It doesn't really prevent access to things... Rather, it acts to ensure that I am who I claim to be. However that isn't exactly relevant to a discussion about privacy, is it?
All this is necessary because kids never hang out with older kids in REAL LIFE and hear those words from them! How about just teaching your kids what is and isn't appropriate -- eventually they are going to have to learn to cope with these bad influences anyway.
Exactly.
The world is not child-safe. There are movies, games, books, pictures, and people that your child probably shouldn't have access to.
Parents are supposed to actually raise their children. They're supposed to do the content filtering - not some computer program. And they're supposed to explain the content as it becomes appropriate for their children.
I would much rather not have to deal with other people's children or silly rules to protect them. Build kiddie pools and throw the little snots and the content filters in them.
Except that isn't how it will work.
The reason we need things like this in the first place is because parents aren't doing their job. If parents were paying enough attention to realize that Grand Theft Auto probably wasn't child safe... Or if parents were actually explaining what is appropriate language and behavior... It wouldn't be necessary to come up with these rules and filters to protect them.
The fact of the matter is that many parents just toss their kids in front of videogames. It's easier than actually parenting them yourself. It keeps them distracted and quiet while you go do your thing. Except that not all videogames are child-safe. And weeding out the child-safe ones from the adult titles would require effort these folks are obviously not interested in expending. So the ultimate goal here would be to render absolutely everything child-safe.
Which means that all your videogames would become kiddie pools. And even though you're an adult, you'd have to put up with the content filters and rules that are designed to protect the children of these lazy parents.
Really? Can I have your facebook username and password? Oh I can't? Would that be a chain link fence or a door with a lock on it?
My Facebook username is the same as my Slashdot username. Have fun.
Of course I won't be giving you my password, as that will do more than grant you access to my private information. It would allow you to log into my account and post information. In essence, it allows you to assume my identity.
And while I'm not terribly worried about you seeing the "private" information I have on Facebook... I'd rather you didn't log in as me and post stories about the affair I'm having with the hot secretary at work.
People were relying on the privacy settings so that they could post stuff that only their friends could see on Facebook. For example you might not care that the world can see a picture of you, but you might want your contact details "private" so you can choose by "friending" someone to let them see that stuff, rather than have the idiot from highschool start calling you and harassing you just because it is so easy to find you again on Facebook.
The key problem with this, of course, isn't the privacy settings (or lack there-of).
By posting something on the Internet, even if it is theoretically protected somehow, you've made it publicly available.
One of your friends could easily repost or relay that "private" information to someone you would rather they didn't. Or a server could hiccup and email all your private information to the Enquirer. Or maybe one of your buddies uses a public terminal and doesn't log out. Or maybe your wife has a really lousy password that anyone can guess.
If you are genuinely concerned about making your information publicly available, it should not be posted on the Internet.
Why do people in their house with the blinds closed and the doors lock expect privacy? Because the previous controls to limit your exposure were synonymous with window shades and door locks.
I open the shades so I can see out, and with that I accept the risk that someone can see in. At least before these changes I had the ability to do just that. Now? Not so much.
Except that you're posting on Facebook, not sitting in your house.
Facebook is a social networking site on the Internet. There were never any walls, or blinds, or doors to lock... At best there were some chainlink fences and a "private property" sign.
Slashdot Mirror
I joke but human redundancy is probably your best bet and pretty reassuring considering I've seen Dr. Strangelove twenty times or so. Also I enjoyed this picture. Is it a good idea to store the keys right above the safe to the Emergency War Orders? No matter, if you know the combination to the lock and have a twenty pound sledge, those hastily welded rings holding on the safety padlocks will take a few seconds to remove.
Did you read the text accompanying that picture?
Those keys would not have been on top of the cabinet there - that's a display for the tourists.
Each launch officer had a key to one padlock, meaning that two launch officers were necessary to open that cabinet. The point isn't to keep some random guy from walking in and launching a missile... That's what all the guards, barbed wire, blast doors, etc. are for. The point is to make sure that it takes two launch officers to launch a missile.
Whether it meets some arbitrary definition of "freedom" shouldn't affect its score. If "freedom" is a desirable feature for certain users, they can certainly weigh that appropriately themselves.
VirtualBox is free as in Open Source. Which is very important to some folks, and unimportant to others. But that doesn't mean whether a product is Open Source or not shouldn't factor into these reviews...
Some of these products offer better speed, or better administration, or better 3D support... All of which will matter to some people, but not everyone. Are we going to toss out all of those as well?
If we toss out every single difference between products that some random person out there may not care about, what are we going to base our reviews on?
Debugging is not the user's responsibility. If it never worked to begin with, regardless of cause, a refund is naturally required, EULAs and their writers be damned.
Of course Google Desktop is free... So I wouldn't expect much of a refund.
I grabbed STALKER Complete 2009.
From what I read online it delivered the best experience while still maintaining the original storyline and missions.
Terrific game.
Now I'm anxiously waiting for Call of Pripyat....
Sometimes it's even the other way round. In the case of Arma2 (an example I know of, there might be others), the demo has a number of problems that have been long since fixed in the final game. It does show what the game is like but certainly not how it handles.
They should update it but apparently haven't gotten around to doing it (small company and limited resources apparently).
First impressions can be damning.
I recently picked up S.T.A.L.K.E.R. on Steam when it was on sale for just $5. I'd been wanting to play that game for a while, but had been avoiding it because of how buggy it was.
This impression - that the game was terribly buggy - came from leaks and early reviews. I had been given the impression that the game was borderline-unplayable. And while I did run into a few issues, that is no longer the case. I had a great time playing through that game.
If I had known that the game was genuinely playable I probably would have paid more than $5 for it.
You wouldn't expect a refund for something that doesn't even install properly? That's the very definition of why you should get a refund. Yes, it's fine that their program doesn't work on my machine. They shouldn't expect me to let them keep my money if that's the case.
If Google Desktop stopped Demigod from launching, who would I get the refund from? Google, because their software broke Demigod? Or whoever makes Demigod, because they can't play nice with Google?
Sure, Google Desktop is a generally innocuous piece of software... Runs on a ton of computers... Someone goes out and buys Demigod, tries to install it, doesn't work... Looks like Demigod itself is broken.
But if I don't have Google Desktop installed and I'm playing Demigod just fine... Then I go download Google Desktop and my Demigod install breaks... It's fairly obviously Google's fault, isn't it?
Granted, the way software is sold these days it is very hard to know what they expect the software to run on. They'll specify some system requirements, but not really the environment itself. You've got no idea if they tested it with Google Desktop, or AIM, or Norton, or anything else. All you know is that it needs 3.0 GB RAM and a DirectX video card.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for refunds on broken software. But if you can narrow it down to Program X breaks Program Y you probably aren't going to get a refund - they'll just tell you not to run the two programs at once.
What I am saying is, if the product performs well in its standard environment, a customer can't ask for money back. You cannot use a phone under water and say it broke.
What is a standard environment for a piece of software?
Are you talking about some ideal situation where you've got the OS, a game, and nothing else running? That's not terribly "standard" these days, is it? How about a situation where you've got the OS, a game, three different IM programs, two types of antivirus, and a couple pieces of malware - that's far more "standard" these days.
Of course most software lists the requirements on the box... Windows XP or newer, 3.0 GB RAM or more, 2.0 Ghz or better... Except that those requirements are often misleading or simply incorrect. Software will say "XP or newer" and then fall apart under Win7. Or the "minimum" requirements will be just enough for the program to actually run - but far too low for you to actually do anything with the program. Never mind the fact that most of the people buying a piece of software honestly aren't going to know what most of those numbers mean, or where to even look that information up.
The point being that if you want to use it performs well in its standard environment as an excuse not to offer refunds, then you need to do a whole hell of a lot better job of explaining what that "standard environment" is.
You cannot use a phone under water and say it broke.
What a ridiculous statement. It has absolutely no bearing on the discussion at all.
I would no sooner expect a cell phone to work under water than I would a television or laptop.
But I do expect to be able to make calls with my cell phone on dry land, within range of a cell tower, with a charged battery. And if my phone won't make calls under those circumstances, I'm going to complain. And if it becomes apparent that there's some problem with this particular make and model phone... Or an issue with my provider's towers... Or whatever else - I'm going to want some money back.
On the other hand, if game developers are indeed running after bells and whistles instead of a well running game
What constitutes a bell or a whistle? Who gets to say whether a particular feature is necessary to a game or not? Do you have some magical knowledge that tells you which bit of code broke what bit of functionality? Can you point at a game and say "if you'd only left out the silly hats it would all be running fine."
they ought to be some way of compensation to the consumer, maybe a coupon or a free add-on, an not full money-back guarantee.
So they release a broken game... And I waste my hard-earned money on it... And your way of apologizing is to give me a free add-on to a broken piece of crap that I wish I hadn't bought?
A lot of people do this all the time. It's called a console.
Yup. And one of the major reasons I hear all the time for people preferring a console, over a PC for gaming, is that things generally work. Sure, some glitches and bugs here and there... But normally you can expect to buy a game at the store, throw it in your console, and play the thing without too many issues.
Isn't that one of the purposes of demos? Of course, when games like Modern Warfare 2 start being released without demos, something is wrong.
It's been a long time since I relied on a demo to give me a good feeling for the game.
Many developers/publishers never release a demo of any kind.
And the demos that do get released are frequently not representative of the finished product. They'll focus on a single map or level that's been polished to perfection... But the final release will be full of bugs and issues. Or there'll be artificial limitations in the demo that keeps you from trying out key elements of the finished product.
The last game that I actually trusted a demo was Lords of Magic: Special Edition.
The game looked decent, so I grabbed the demo. At the time, the demo was pretty huge and took a while to download.
I played through the demo several times and thoroughly enjoyed myself. Eventually decided to buy the game.
Problem was that the retail version of the game didn't play much like the demo.
The demo had some extra code in it to move things along in a timely manner. You were only given a dozen turns to play, or 30 minutes, or some short period of time. So the game made sure you had pressure on you - the big evil army was on its way. There was almost a rush to see if you could amass your army and defend yourself. There was more of a feeling of direction and urgency.
In the retail game you were basically just dropped on the world map and allowed to do your thing. The enemies would wander around their own territory, twiddling their thumbs, until you felt you were ready to attack. Which mean that there really wasn't anyone coming to get you. And you could take your time to build up your army as much as you wanted.
Without that pressure, most of the fun was gone. I was bored silly after an hour or so.
Ever since then I haven't trusted a demo.
Maybe if you read the fine article before jerking one off, you'd be able to answer your own question.
On a PC, the vendor can't control the environment in which their software is run. Something else on the machine completely outwith their control could nobble their app, for example, Google desktop stopping Demigod from launching. I say "for example" since that's the example given in the article that you didn't bother to read.
That's fine. I wouldn't expect a refund in such a case.
But what about all the assorted bugs that wind up being the developer's own fault?
I remember some Myst sequel that absolutely refused to run on my computer because my optical drive was labeled M: instead of D: or E: The developer acknowledged the issue and made a patch available shortly. But it sure seems to me like they shipped a broken product.
"I know many Jewish Israeli people who had their bag shot just because they left it unwatched for a couple of minutes. Yes, this is the unfortunate reality that Israelis live in, where Palestinian terrorist would do anything (such as put bombs cowardly hidden in laptops) to intentionally hurt innocent civilians..."
I can hardly believe some people. Broken laptop vs white phosphorus? Broken laptop vs bombed UN school?!
"Unfortunate reality" my backside, I really wonder if some of them know anything whatsoever about reality.
So which part do you disagree with? You don't feel that it's unfortunate? Or you don't believe it is reality?
Because any manufacturer is going to charge the most that you are willing to pay. In lawnmowers, there are cheaper alternatives. With laptops, there are not. Pure market based pricing.
While I'm certain that's part of the issue, I think you're missing a more obvious difference - the form-factor.
A laptop is supposed to be relatively small and portable. Laptop manufacturers will advertise how thick their laptop is, how many pounds it weighs, and how many hours it'll run on a battery. Thus, laptop batteries - while they may be made with the same technology - are as small and dense as possible.
A lawnmower, on the other hand, has wheels on it. While you'd have a hard time shoving a 1 ton brick around your yard, it probably doesn't make much difference if the thing ways 15 lbs or 25 lbs... It'll still move easily enough. And if you're going to make it self-propelled it'll matter even less. The same thing goes for the size/volume of the thing... It isn't like this thing has to fit into an overhead bin or a backpack. Hell, your cutting deck is already several feet square - the battery probably isn't going to be the biggest thing on it.
So you've got laptops (and cell phones) where you're trying to build a tiny, dense battery... And lawn mowers where you just need enough juice to run the mower for a couple hours and it really doesn't matter how bulky the thing is.
And folks are surprised that there's a price difference why?
No, console gaming is not dying, yet.
Fine, they suffered a bit... So did pretty much everyone else - especially anyone in the entertainment industry. Money is tight, folks aren't spending as much on games. The fact that there are different consoles that don't run each-other's games just spread the money even thinner. Deal with it.
However, I do think gaming in general is going to have to make some adjustments.
$60 for a game that barely offers 10 hours of gameplay just isn't going to cut it. I think the gaming industry is going to have to either start delivering smaller, cheaper games on an accelerated timetable - episodic stuff. Or they're going to have to start delivering much more substantial gameplay for that $60 price point.
Anyone else (unemployed and looking like me) feel like a disturbing portion of the job market is constituted of 'blame taking positions'?
It's probably paranoia, but I feel like the businessworld is composed of corrupt people who will lie and bullshit, and then the poor saps that get stuck with the 'blame taking positions'.
In my youth, I had naive libertarian beliefs about talented and competent people winning out in the free market against those types. Now that I've witnessed the naked annihilation of even the illusion of capitalism, via the bank bailouts... I just have no real hope that there is any way to make a living without either being one of those bullshitters, or poor blame taking saps. I guess the honorable thing is to just accept a sequence of blame taking jobs, and survive and get fed until we see a better age.
What you want is a manufacturing job of some sort. A job where you can actually point at an object and say I made that.
Service sort of works for this as well... Except that it's very easy to wind up in a service position where your customers are blaming you anyway. Manufacturing generally results in an object that either does what it is supposed to, or doesn't - and there isn't typically a whole lot of room for shifting blame.
Now, I'm not necessarily suggesting that you get a factory job - though there's nothing wrong with that. But working in construction, or carpentry, or producing some kind of art, or music, or putting on some kind of show can deliver similar results.
The basic idea, ultimately, is a job where you can actually point at an object that was either produced or not. Or point at a person who was either served or not. Instead of a job where your duties solely involve making decisions - which can ultimately be questioned or blamed by anyone, regardless of how things turned out, because it could possibly have turned out even better.
That position is a blame-taking position,' Spafford said."
Someone who's actually paid to be the goat.
I can do that! Were can I get a job like that.
Seems like just about any IT position would qualify...
Because 99.99% of the web hosting companies offer LAMP setups?
Yup. Like it or not, MySQL is the default generic database that's available almost everywhere.
Pretty much any web host out there offers MySQL databases. Sure, they might very well offer other databases as well... But it'll vary some from one host to another. The one you can pretty much count on being supported anywhere is MySQL.
So the assorted blog/CMS software gets written to interface with MySQL. Again, very often various packages will talk to other databases... But they almost all support MySQL.
So, that's what gets used.
I think you are confusing organic food with the true meaning of organic, comes from life. Oil is organic as it is fossilized remains of things that lived many years ago. Last I checked Uranium is not organic. Think organic chemistry, not organic hippies.
Organic chemistry has nothing to do with life. It has to do with carbon compounds - which just so happen to appear in living things.
I might be missing something; which part of the process is done with organic materials. I see that it's not silicon based, but perhaps I am misunderstanding their usage of organic. Regardless to that fact, though, it's still pretty interesting stuff.
In terms of chemistry, organic refers to stuff made from carbon.
Plastic is made from carbon.
BG is good enough, tied to residential/office network, and hard to notice the benefit of N.
Do you do much copying of files at all? We can see a huge difference on our network (have had n since the first 11n Airport Extreme), with speeds 3-5 times faster than G in the same environment. For us, 11n actually made wireless an acceptable alternative.
From what I've seen, higher speeds reduce range.
Yes, I know, N is supposed to do fancy things with multiple antennas and all that good stuff... Supposed to actually have a better range... But, honestly, I haven't seen it.
Typically, with the installations we do, range is more important than connection speed. I will normally still set WAPs to do B - it generally has better range than G or N.
If you're really concerned about speed, N will get you up around 100 Mbps... Which is certainly better than 11 or 54... But it isn't really that fast these days. I can buy a cheap little Gb switch for $50 or so... And most computers come with Gb NICs these days. If I'm really worried about speeds, I'll just plug in a line.
I don't believe I've ever had a situation where I needed an increase in speed badly enough to use N... Yet not badly enough to run a new network line to get Gb speeds.
My password has nothing to do with my privacy. It has to do with your ability to impersonate me.
In respect to my privacy, I will again state that it is basically non-existent on Facebook - regardless of any privacy controls of passwords. The whole point in posting something on Facebook is that other people can see it - hence the "social" part of social networking. I will again state that on Facebook you do not have walls or locked doors protecting your privacy - you have a chainlink fence.
In respect to your ability to impersonate me and post messages claiming to be from me, I suppose my password would be acting as a door - or maybe more appropriately as a unique identifier. It doesn't really prevent access to things... Rather, it acts to ensure that I am who I claim to be. However that isn't exactly relevant to a discussion about privacy, is it?
All this is necessary because kids never hang out with older kids in REAL LIFE and hear those words from them! How about just teaching your kids what is and isn't appropriate -- eventually they are going to have to learn to cope with these bad influences anyway.
Exactly.
The world is not child-safe. There are movies, games, books, pictures, and people that your child probably shouldn't have access to.
Parents are supposed to actually raise their children. They're supposed to do the content filtering - not some computer program. And they're supposed to explain the content as it becomes appropriate for their children.
I would much rather not have to deal with other people's children or silly rules to protect them. Build kiddie pools and throw the little snots and the content filters in them.
Except that isn't how it will work.
The reason we need things like this in the first place is because parents aren't doing their job. If parents were paying enough attention to realize that Grand Theft Auto probably wasn't child safe... Or if parents were actually explaining what is appropriate language and behavior... It wouldn't be necessary to come up with these rules and filters to protect them.
The fact of the matter is that many parents just toss their kids in front of videogames. It's easier than actually parenting them yourself. It keeps them distracted and quiet while you go do your thing. Except that not all videogames are child-safe. And weeding out the child-safe ones from the adult titles would require effort these folks are obviously not interested in expending. So the ultimate goal here would be to render absolutely everything child-safe.
Which means that all your videogames would become kiddie pools. And even though you're an adult, you'd have to put up with the content filters and rules that are designed to protect the children of these lazy parents.
Really? Can I have your facebook username and password? Oh I can't? Would that be a chain link fence or a door with a lock on it?
My Facebook username is the same as my Slashdot username. Have fun.
Of course I won't be giving you my password, as that will do more than grant you access to my private information. It would allow you to log into my account and post information. In essence, it allows you to assume my identity.
And while I'm not terribly worried about you seeing the "private" information I have on Facebook... I'd rather you didn't log in as me and post stories about the affair I'm having with the hot secretary at work.
People were relying on the privacy settings so that they could post stuff that only their friends could see on Facebook. For example you might not care that the world can see a picture of you, but you might want your contact details "private" so you can choose by "friending" someone to let them see that stuff, rather than have the idiot from highschool start calling you and harassing you just because it is so easy to find you again on Facebook.
The key problem with this, of course, isn't the privacy settings (or lack there-of).
By posting something on the Internet, even if it is theoretically protected somehow, you've made it publicly available.
One of your friends could easily repost or relay that "private" information to someone you would rather they didn't. Or a server could hiccup and email all your private information to the Enquirer. Or maybe one of your buddies uses a public terminal and doesn't log out. Or maybe your wife has a really lousy password that anyone can guess.
If you are genuinely concerned about making your information publicly available, it should not be posted on the Internet.
Why do people in their house with the blinds closed and the doors lock expect privacy? Because the previous controls to limit your exposure were synonymous with window shades and door locks.
I open the shades so I can see out, and with that I accept the risk that someone can see in. At least before these changes I had the ability to do just that. Now? Not so much.
Except that you're posting on Facebook, not sitting in your house.
Facebook is a social networking site on the Internet. There were never any walls, or blinds, or doors to lock... At best there were some chainlink fences and a "private property" sign.