Sure, I played a console once about 6 months ago, and I'm an adult. And grandma played solitare on her computer, so according to the ESA, she's a "gamer" too!
However, I was talking about sales, not feel-good statistics. I think you'd have trouble arguing that most console game sales aren't aimed at kids and young adults (under 25 say).
Posting this on the Internet was never cool and/or funny.
> Nintendo's real target audience (read: not what the fucktards assume) is EVERYONE
Baloney. The vast majority of console sales go to families with children. There is no such thing as a video game system marketed to "everyone" unless you're talking about Yahoo Games or something. In fact there is no products at all marketed to "everyone" -- it's a word you will never read in a marketing plan.
And for someone so concerned about "fucktards", you sure do an awfully good impression.
"Wii" probably isn't a bad name when you consider that Nintendo's target market is little kids. They'll immediately make the scatological assocation, and little kids *love* scat-stuff.
It seems like the only people in distress over this are the adults who think they're somehow retro-cool for playing Nintendo. Maybe this is Nintendo's message to this crowd telling them to go away.
No, IE legacy CSS is something that predates CSS2.
The issue: Unless IE sees an acceptable DOCTYPE, it goes into legacy mode. Since it doesn't understand XHTML, it assumes it's the same as old-fashioned vendor HTML. This creates the ironic situation where people who are trying to be all standards-compliant actually make their situation worse on IE and end up creating a lot more non-standard workarounds than is actually required.
Also, I think you're confusing the DOCTYPE (in the document) and the MIME type (in the header). IE correctly ignores the XHTML doctype, because it's not an XHTML user agent.
Now, I suppose that MS could easily do what Apple did and makes some minor tweaks to have Pretend-XHTML support. But is that really what the XHTML supporters want? In fact, what *do* the XHTML supporters want? AFAICT it's a "newer==cooler" thing because there's practically no advantage serving XHTML to browser clients. It is either ignored, or it is slower.
(Which is not to say that XHTML can't be used as part of a back-end CMS or something.)
I have to say this is the classic example of someone trying to do things the right way "by the booK", and ends up doing everything wrong. A few points:
+ Sending a XHTML DOCTYPE to IE actually breaks it by putting IE in "legacy CSS" mode. Send a HTML4 DOCTYPE and it's not perfect, but margin and em will work at least.
+ No browser has any sort of XHTML support except for Mozilla Firefox. The rest just fake it as HTML4, except for IE which correctly doesn't accept a MIME type for a document it can't handle correctly. So IE & FF are correct, Safari and Opera are broken.
But here's the fun part: even though Firefox correctly accepts XHTML, it disables progressive rendering and makes your site load much slower. Why would you want to do that?
So, while making XHTML compliant pages is admirable, realistically you want to serve HTML4 to current browsers.
If you search for "n-series" on Dell's site, you can indeed buy systems without Windows. However, they usually aren't $100 cheaper... It's highly unlikely that Dell pays $100 for Windows, and all that crapware represents revenue for Dell.
It's not just a matter of personal preference, it's the fact that QuickTime subverts the normal OS filetyping mechanisms (on both Windows and Mac), thus making it difficult for the user to control the behavior. If someone want to play MP3s in QuickTime, there's shell settings to make it so.
Click on a MP3 file in your browser. Does the file open in your default MP3 player (eg iTunes)? No, you get a blank browser window with a crappy QuickTime progress bar in it. [Yes, it can be turned off, but it's an ass default.]
Behavior is exactly the same on Mac/Windows. Except for IE/Win which uses a different plugin system.
> Have you actually used OS X?
Have you? You haven't demonstrated any particular OS X knowlege, just knee-jerk Appleism.
I'm curious what's so great about QuickTime for OS X, other than the Apple logo, and the fact that it is the only somewhat decent video player for the platform.
Everything that annoys me about QuickTime for Windows (slow startup, crappy browser plugin that steals filetypes, lame "PRO" upgrade crap such as no fullscreen) also exists in the Mac version.
I don't mind iTunes' non-standard UI. The problem is that it fails to follow basic Windows idioms and UI rules. For example, it "eats" background clicks like MacOS, and the right mouse button frequently does nothing or acts just like the left button. Believe this stuff is intentional to make the program more "mac-like".
Hmm. That brings up the question of why Apple thought they could take device-dependant data that has to be interpreted subjectively and build support for it directly into the core OS imaging routines. It seems like you're always going to have to "convert" RAW, so why not just do it once into 16-bit TIFF or something.
The flamefest at Ars Technica about that was actually quite informative. RAW really is a raw dump of Camera sensors and looks like nothing without being "prettyed-up". So's apparently it is incorrect to say that Apple wasn't manipulating the RAW, they just weren't doing it to the same level of other products.
MS already ships something exactly like REXX/AppleScript with Windows Script (usually VBScript). The main difference with "PowerShell" is that it's designed to be more of an interactive command language than a scripting/programming language.
The impression I got is that it's ease to find Linux people that will recommend stuff because it's "Open Source, therefore Good", but it's hard to find Linux people that are actually objective about solutions and know what works and what doesn't
You see this attitude on Slashdot frequently where second-rate software is pushed just because it conforms to someone's ideological agenda.
Couldn't LDAP-Kerberos have solved the first problem
That's pretty much the root of the problem right there. You can get a 100 Linux Nerds to point you in a certain direction, but in reality, how many know how to set up LDAP/Kerberos/VPN so that it works?
San Jose to San Rafael via public transit would involve these transfers:
Bus to Light Rail to Commuter Rail to Light Rail to Ferry Boat to Bus.
I'd be suprised if you could do it in 8 hours one way.
Re:Media Center software is not commercially viabl
on
Viiv Falls Flat
·
· Score: 1
It seems to me that the concept of a Media Center PC is totally at odds with current corporate movements towards content protection.
Not really. If you look at the latest in greatest DRM schemes, the idea is more along the lines of making it more useful without having to crack the DRM.
For example, with a DVD you can't do anything with it except play the disk (unless you crack it). With HD-DVD, the "managed copy" infrastructure is in there so you could theoretically stream it, or copy it to your jukebox, or whathave you. Which means that legit companies could actually sell products that do this stuff -- which they can't right now.
It's somewhat contrary thinking -- but the goal of DRM is really to lock things down to the extent that it can be unlocked as needed. You see this with Apple's iTunes for example.
Slashdot Mirror
So, they removed a feature in favor of a marketing tagline.
Sure, I played a console once about 6 months ago, and I'm an adult. And grandma played solitare on her computer, so according to the ESA, she's a "gamer" too!
However, I was talking about sales, not feel-good statistics. I think you'd have trouble arguing that most console game sales aren't aimed at kids and young adults (under 25 say).
> BZZZZZZZZ!
Posting this on the Internet was never cool and/or funny.
> Nintendo's real target audience (read: not what the fucktards assume) is EVERYONE
Baloney. The vast majority of console sales go to families with children. There is no such thing as a video game system marketed to "everyone" unless you're talking about Yahoo Games or something. In fact there is no products at all marketed to "everyone" -- it's a word you will never read in a marketing plan.
And for someone so concerned about "fucktards", you sure do an awfully good impression.
"Wii" probably isn't a bad name when you consider that Nintendo's target market is little kids. They'll immediately make the scatological assocation, and little kids *love* scat-stuff.
It seems like the only people in distress over this are the adults who think they're somehow retro-cool for playing Nintendo. Maybe this is Nintendo's message to this crowd telling them to go away.
Correction: IE correctly ignores the XHTML MIME Type, because it's not an XHTML user agent.
Following up on my other response. There's two kinds of IE-Haters:
People who don't know what they are doing and complain about "em". This is you.
People who do what what they are doing and complain about the "Peekaboo Bug" and the lack of position:static and so on. This is not you.
No, IE legacy CSS is something that predates CSS2.
The issue: Unless IE sees an acceptable DOCTYPE, it goes into legacy mode. Since it doesn't understand XHTML, it assumes it's the same as old-fashioned vendor HTML. This creates the ironic situation where people who are trying to be all standards-compliant actually make their situation worse on IE and end up creating a lot more non-standard workarounds than is actually required.
Also, I think you're confusing the DOCTYPE (in the document) and the MIME type (in the header). IE correctly ignores the XHTML doctype, because it's not an XHTML user agent.
Now, I suppose that MS could easily do what Apple did and makes some minor tweaks to have Pretend-XHTML support. But is that really what the XHTML supporters want? In fact, what *do* the XHTML supporters want? AFAICT it's a "newer==cooler" thing because there's practically no advantage serving XHTML to browser clients. It is either ignored, or it is slower.
(Which is not to say that XHTML can't be used as part of a back-end CMS or something.)
If you're not into gaming, $50 is way too much. Just buy a system with integrated video and it usually works about to about $15.
I have to say this is the classic example of someone trying to do things the right way "by the booK", and ends up doing everything wrong. A few points:
+ Sending a XHTML DOCTYPE to IE actually breaks it by putting IE in "legacy CSS" mode. Send a HTML4 DOCTYPE and it's not perfect, but margin and em will work at least.
+ No browser has any sort of XHTML support except for Mozilla Firefox. The rest just fake it as HTML4, except for IE which correctly doesn't accept a MIME type for a document it can't handle correctly. So IE & FF are correct, Safari and Opera are broken.
But here's the fun part: even though Firefox correctly accepts XHTML, it disables progressive rendering and makes your site load much slower. Why would you want to do that?
So, while making XHTML compliant pages is admirable, realistically you want to serve HTML4 to current browsers.
Actually there was a study linked here that showed that Apache-based sites are hacked more than IIS-based ones.
AFAIK, there's never been any evidence that IIS servers are "attacked more", unless you consider a couple automated wormes that attacked everything.
If you search for "n-series" on Dell's site, you can indeed buy systems without Windows. However, they usually aren't $100 cheaper ... It's highly unlikely that Dell pays $100 for Windows, and all that crapware represents revenue for Dell.
I don't know what point you are trying to make, because Intel is a lot more profitable than AMD, anyw ay you slice it.
90% of Apple computers sold are either laptops or SFF desktops, and Intel simply has the better product in these markets with Core.
It's not just a matter of personal preference, it's the fact that QuickTime subverts the normal OS filetyping mechanisms (on both Windows and Mac), thus making it difficult for the user to control the behavior. If someone want to play MP3s in QuickTime, there's shell settings to make it so.
> crappy browser plugin that steals filetypes
Click on a MP3 file in your browser. Does the file open in your default MP3 player (eg iTunes)? No, you get a blank browser window with a crappy QuickTime progress bar in it. [Yes, it can be turned off, but it's an ass default.]
Behavior is exactly the same on Mac/Windows. Except for IE/Win which uses a different plugin system.
> Have you actually used OS X?
Have you? You haven't demonstrated any particular OS X knowlege, just knee-jerk Appleism.
However Quicktime and iTunes on OS X is great.
I'm curious what's so great about QuickTime for OS X, other than the Apple logo, and the fact that it is the only somewhat decent video player for the platform.
Everything that annoys me about QuickTime for Windows (slow startup, crappy browser plugin that steals filetypes, lame "PRO" upgrade crap such as no fullscreen) also exists in the Mac version.
I don't mind iTunes' non-standard UI. The problem is that it fails to follow basic Windows idioms and UI rules. For example, it "eats" background clicks like MacOS, and the right mouse button frequently does nothing or acts just like the left button. Believe this stuff is intentional to make the program more "mac-like".
Hmm. That brings up the question of why Apple thought they could take device-dependant data that has to be interpreted subjectively and build support for it directly into the core OS imaging routines. It seems like you're always going to have to "convert" RAW, so why not just do it once into 16-bit TIFF or something.
The flamefest at Ars Technica about that was actually quite informative. RAW really is a raw dump of Camera sensors and looks like nothing without being "prettyed-up". So's apparently it is incorrect to say that Apple wasn't manipulating the RAW, they just weren't doing it to the same level of other products.
MS already ships something exactly like REXX/AppleScript with Windows Script (usually VBScript). The main difference with "PowerShell" is that it's designed to be more of an interactive command language than a scripting/programming language.
> I got the impression that these companies took a bunch of Windows admins and threw them onto Linux without any training.
Acutally, I thought it was pretty clear that the "Open Source Guys" came back with the 3 password VPN thing and thought it was hunky-dory.
The impression I got is that it's ease to find Linux people that will recommend stuff because it's "Open Source, therefore Good", but it's hard to find Linux people that are actually objective about solutions and know what works and what doesn't
You see this attitude on Slashdot frequently where second-rate software is pushed just because it conforms to someone's ideological agenda.
Couldn't LDAP-Kerberos have solved the first problem
That's pretty much the root of the problem right there. You can get a 100 Linux Nerds to point you in a certain direction, but in reality, how many know how to set up LDAP/Kerberos/VPN so that it works?
San Jose to San Rafael via public transit would involve these transfers:
Bus
to Light Rail
to Commuter Rail
to Light Rail
to Ferry Boat
to Bus.
I'd be suprised if you could do it in 8 hours one way.
It seems to me that the concept of a Media Center PC is totally at odds with current corporate movements towards content protection.
Not really. If you look at the latest in greatest DRM schemes, the idea is more along the lines of making it more useful without having to crack the DRM.
For example, with a DVD you can't do anything with it except play the disk (unless you crack it). With HD-DVD, the "managed copy" infrastructure is in there so you could theoretically stream it, or copy it to your jukebox, or whathave you. Which means that legit companies could actually sell products that do this stuff -- which they can't right now.
It's somewhat contrary thinking -- but the goal of DRM is really to lock things down to the extent that it can be unlocked as needed. You see this with Apple's iTunes for example.