We all know what a second monitor means to the developer-at-large. We all know as well that a second monitor is most often not a need, but a desire.
What we may not be considering is the type of developer the question is posited for, and what that developer's optimal screen real-estate needs are.
If you are involved in the purchasing of computer hardware for your developers and are looking to get a jump on what a new developer on your team might need, I humbly submit the following guidelines:
The Mac developer needs two monitors. One monitor to run XCode, Mono and Eclipse (all at the same time) - the other to run the iPhone simulator to full effect (the iPad, just being a really big iPhone anyway).
The Linux developer needs, at a bare minimum, two monitors. One to run EMACS, the other to run Firefox (or alternately Opera) pointing to http://slashdot.org./ Possibly a third if sourcing to Subversion.
The Windows developer needs only one monitor. It will be used in full displaying IE9 pointed at Facebook, Fox news, some cute "LOL cats" website with flashing "you are the 1 millionth visitor" and some pr0n tabbed out and ready for fast switching. It doesn't have to be really big either as none of the site form-factors are really above 1024x768 pixels.
Annoying Recorded Phone Service Program: "In order to complete your purchase, we have instituted new measures to protect you against fraud. Please state your passphrase. You will be verified in a matter of moments. Thank you. Please state passphrase now..."
"Are you talkin' ta me?"
Phone: "Please re-state your passphrase, the system could not verify your identity. You may try, now..."
"Are YOU talkin' ta me?"
Phone: "We're sorry, the passphrase you entered is invalid for verification purposes. Please restate passphrase, now..."
"Are you talkin' ta ME?"
Phone: "..."
"Are you TALKIN' ta ME?"
Phone: "Thank you, passphrase verified. We are now able to process your order. Thank you for your purchase. Good bye."
Woot! I can't wait! I have mail coming in. Auctions going off. Guildies to see. Quests to complete and/or turn in. Yesterday was awesome, and tonight's been all planned out!
I open WoW and discover a new patch is on it's way to my machine. Oh, GOODIE!
... wait... downloading. ... wait... patching. ... wait... (remember) time to recover/reconfigure UI mods. ... wait... reconnect after 1 hour in the queue. [WUPS! disconnected from server] ... wait... reconnect after 1 hour in the queue. ... and then, you guessed it, now we get to...
I was talking to the point that perhaps a mechanism limiting such value might help future problems of this nature. I guess the title of the response was misleading. Thanks for the input, however.
"Qiu and a friend jointly won their weapon...and lent it to Zhu who then sold it..."
Here's the crux of the problem.
In-game items ARE sold for tangible value (money). This flat-out proves that tangible value is associated with ephemeral goods.
However, if a digital item is bound to a MMORPG player upon acquisition or use, they would not be able to lend/loan/sell it. I see this mechanic in World of Warcraft, and now I completely agree with its value as an item-value moderation technique.
Because of this mechanism, the item has a specific use (within the game) and extends the player's abilities insofar as that player continues to make use of it. After a while, it becomes useless (as the player grows out of its usefulness) and is either disassembled for a small monetary profit, or outright destroyed. This re-maps the penultimate use and value of the item in terms of time, rather than its perceived monetary value.
Maybe this mechanic could have saved a life in this case. One will never know.
I'm addressing the fact that some people are arguing the actual need for a dupe-checking methodology greater than what Taco has in place. Not only that, but one of them just got modded to (Score: 5, insightful). That pissed me off, simply because when that happened, it seemed as though it was a affirmative nod to the critic's offensive, off-topic, and Taco-targetted content, when in fact I (personally) don't give a flying leap if the origin article was a dupe or not. I find it a weak basis for a mod that high on an offensive post. If I had meta-mod points left I would have tried to hit that "not insightful" checkbox so hard that the modder would have felt it.
If the critic needs the functionality so bad, they can go and write it themselves, and quit bitching. It's not an open source burnout stance, it's a point of opinion from an offended reader of highly modded Taco critic. I'll side with Taco, immediately, regardless of how he is going to approach the dupe subject in the future, and on whatever time-scale Slashdot chooses. No-one doing this job actually deserves to be treated that way. And if it involves code to produce a fix for some moron's peeve (read: lack of innate brain-based dupe-filter), then they can go and code the thing themselves.
So, no... I will not "cut it with the 'you try and do that' responses". Maybe YOU could come up with that dupe filter it seems you so desperately need. I could care less about such a thing, and what that actually proves to me is that it's superfluous to my daily routine of reading some of the best news the net has to offer in one place.
Your choice to use my post as a springboard to bash the site, or Taco, even further is really nothing more than a grab at attention. I was succinct with my statement, and now that I've explained it to the readers of your post, I have nothing further. Get modded however you like. Thank you very much.
A comerce-centric way of looking at the problem, to be sure.
However, someone once told me one time that chickens keep running around even when their heads are chopped off.
It may not be "finally" if SCO is delisted, but it will be a very short time thereafter when SCO finds itself feeling a little faint.
It may die at that point, but more likely, it'll push even harder to come up with a revenue stream that fills it's coffers even quicker. Call me crazy, but I see SCO as already comfortable with frivolous suits... Where do you think SCO's direction would be, then? I suspect more of the same.
Ergo: More SCO news.
No, keep them listed until the point of no return. Then, >pop, no more SCO.
I cannot tell you just how peeved this article has made me.
But, I've learned a lot by reading the complaint and the verdict.
1) If you have the money, you can try to buy a domain that exists from someone who may already have it.
2) If you can't buy that domain, and you have the money for it, you can sue for the domain.
3) If you have an extraordinarily large amount of money, you can win the rights to a generic noun in the dictionary (as used in a domain name), even when someone else clearly owns said domain name and you've completely branded the noun.
4) If you own a domain called "GAME.co.uk" do not use it to sell GAMES. That would be COMPLETELY inappropriate, and in bad taste, and you will become the taget of a large company that will sue your *** and cry about the injustice of the world until somebody hands them the domain on a gold platter.
By the way, after reading the Expert's opinion, I'm almost agreeable with the result, however, and let me make that clear, this really IS a David -vs- Goliath story. GAME is clearly branded, and for all the talk about how so "many" contacts they received pertained to game.co.uk's business, I want to know just how many mistakes were committed in reverse. Namely, how many calls or contacts game.co.uk got that were intended for GAME.
I bet is was disproportional to the amount GAME was getting, indicating that in fact the stronger of the two companies was in fact branded much better. The transfer of the game.co.uk domain to the Claimant is an injustice. If the facts say that the Respondent was in error, and was using the domain... um... in poor taste?... That still does not win GAME the right to the domain name. It never did belong to GAME, and they had unsuccessfully tried to bargain for it for years, simply because that portion of the company sucks, I'm sure.
So, instead of paying a decent price for THE best *.co.uk names POSSIBLE for GAME in the very beginning from someone who obviously knew it's value, instead of making the purchase-of-such a priority and keeping the peace, they wait until the competition starts nipping at their profit margins and then squashes them... oh, and they get the domain name flat-out given to them!?!
People... Can't you see, it is specifically BECAUSE GAME didn't come up with a good price in the beginning, and since the gaming industry HAS become so large that the owner of SUCH a lucrative domain "game.co.uk" TURNED TO selling games. What a stroke of genius! I mean to actually use the domain for a purpose that it is highly suited for? OMG, and he actually PROVIDED for himself in the process? Completely unacceptable!
IMHO, GAME truly has no right to the domain at all, much less deserving of it.
This whole suit sickens me and contains absolutely no justice other than the corporate justice of killing off compentition.
Write your own. The basis, Slashcode, is available as an open-source project, but it'll take a deft hand if... um... you... wish to find it. It's hidden behind an anti-flame firewall.
...about transparent circuits, I immediately think "wearable computing" and how I could watch the stock ticker scrolling accross my boss' secretary's...
"...personal checks, paper bills, gift certificates, etc."
I tend to believe that legal documents would benefit with a greater or more reasonable return on investment than financial documents when using an imbedded chip.
For the above mentioned applications, a simple example. Imagine walking into a driver's lincense bureau and being redirected to the proper location for your DL renewal without waiting in line.
I'm sure the possibilities are endless, but doesn't it seem that legal documents would get more long-term play out of this interesting technology?
It's a simple extension of the cheap-a$$ T.V. ads politician's run during election season. The really good thing is this: I don't have to be subjected to their view, as I won't go to a politician's website to get the skinny on them. Doing so exposes one to a slanted view of the politician in question -- now either for OR against.
I'll say the same thing I do about the T.V. ads. Quit spending money (possibly my own tax dollars) to give me twisted facts and figures. I'll always prefer an objective NPR or PBS report or public debate to re-processed, faction-spun data.
Standards are the scientific community's way of expressing the myriad ways of getting data (a thought, content, algorithm, etc.) out in a way that is most efficient for themselves. It will take agreement with others that that "standard" is recognizable as a means of transferring that cognitive substance. Given the level of agreement in the scientific community (commonly low), and the number of scientific classifications of endeavors (usually high), I would (IHMO) say no, the number of "standards" (or those systems of transference that are actually agreed upon from within the scientific community) do not number over any conceivable upper-bound.
From a commercial standpoint, having one "standard" (in any area of focus, to be sure) would be the Holy Grail, given you were the sole proprietor of the format or that format was innately "perfect" for carrying the data you wish to deliver. Standards always meet up with resistance at some point due to changes in methodologies or ideals. In today's world, there is a constant battle to outdate and outmode current standards in lieu of others that are more efficient and tailored to any specific class of problem wherein a transference of data is necessary, not because standards equate to clout, but because there is always a real need to revisit older standards for weaknesses....Oh, and because IE is so much fun to break.
Slashdot Mirror
So, I shortened it. See:
http://bit.ly/i8zRxz
Did I miss something?
We all know what a second monitor means to the developer-at-large. We all know as well that a second monitor is most often not a need, but a desire.
What we may not be considering is the type of developer the question is posited for, and what that developer's optimal screen real-estate needs are.
If you are involved in the purchasing of computer hardware for your developers and are looking to get a jump on what a new developer on your team might need, I humbly submit the following guidelines:
The Mac developer needs two monitors. One monitor to run XCode, Mono and Eclipse (all at the same time) - the other to run the iPhone simulator to full effect (the iPad, just being a really big iPhone anyway).
The Linux developer needs, at a bare minimum, two monitors. One to run EMACS, the other to run Firefox (or alternately Opera) pointing to http://slashdot.org./ Possibly a third if sourcing to Subversion.
The Windows developer needs only one monitor. It will be used in full displaying IE9 pointed at Facebook, Fox news, some cute "LOL cats" website with flashing "you are the 1 millionth visitor" and some pr0n tabbed out and ready for fast switching. It doesn't have to be really big either as none of the site form-factors are really above 1024x768 pixels.
I hope this helps.
Man, does being a coder get easier and easier... Wonder what their turnaround time is going to be?
Annoying Recorded Phone Service Program: "In order to complete your purchase, we have instituted new measures to protect you against fraud. Please state your passphrase. You will be verified in a matter of moments. Thank you. Please state passphrase now..."
"Are you talkin' ta me?"
Phone: "Please re-state your passphrase, the system could not verify your identity. You may try, now..."
"Are YOU talkin' ta me?"
Phone: "We're sorry, the passphrase you entered is invalid for verification purposes. Please restate passphrase, now..."
"Are you talkin' ta ME?"
Phone: "..."
"Are you TALKIN' ta ME?"
Phone: "Thank you, passphrase verified. We are now able to process your order. Thank you for your purchase. Good bye."
Woot! I can't wait! I have mail coming in. Auctions going off. Guildies to see. Quests to complete and/or turn in. Yesterday was awesome, and tonight's been all planned out!
I open WoW and discover a new patch is on it's way to my machine. Oh, GOODIE!
MAN, I'm stoked!
I don't know whether this was supposed to be funny or not... Either way...
Don't quit your day job.
You mentioned this before. OMG, how very very crass of you! You should be ashamed of yourself!
Happy 4/1/05, /.'ers.
I was talking to the point that perhaps a mechanism limiting such value might help future problems of this nature. I guess the title of the response was misleading. Thanks for the input, however.
Here's the crux of the problem.
In-game items ARE sold for tangible value (money). This flat-out proves that tangible value is associated with ephemeral goods.
However, if a digital item is bound to a MMORPG player upon acquisition or use, they would not be able to lend/loan/sell it. I see this mechanic in World of Warcraft, and now I completely agree with its value as an item-value moderation technique.
Because of this mechanism, the item has a specific use (within the game) and extends the player's abilities insofar as that player continues to make use of it. After a while, it becomes useless (as the player grows out of its usefulness) and is either disassembled for a small monetary profit, or outright destroyed. This re-maps the penultimate use and value of the item in terms of time, rather than its perceived monetary value.
Maybe this mechanic could have saved a life in this case. One will never know.
Excuse? Sir, you are way off base.
I'm addressing the fact that some people are arguing the actual need for a dupe-checking methodology greater than what Taco has in place. Not only that, but one of them just got modded to (Score: 5, insightful). That pissed me off, simply because when that happened, it seemed as though it was a affirmative nod to the critic's offensive, off-topic, and Taco-targetted content, when in fact I (personally) don't give a flying leap if the origin article was a dupe or not. I find it a weak basis for a mod that high on an offensive post. If I had meta-mod points left I would have tried to hit that "not insightful" checkbox so hard that the modder would have felt it.
If the critic needs the functionality so bad, they can go and write it themselves, and quit bitching. It's not an open source burnout stance, it's a point of opinion from an offended reader of highly modded Taco critic. I'll side with Taco, immediately, regardless of how he is going to approach the dupe subject in the future, and on whatever time-scale Slashdot chooses. No-one doing this job actually deserves to be treated that way. And if it involves code to produce a fix for some moron's peeve (read: lack of innate brain-based dupe-filter), then they can go and code the thing themselves.
So, no... I will not "cut it with the 'you try and do that' responses". Maybe YOU could come up with that dupe filter it seems you so desperately need. I could care less about such a thing, and what that actually proves to me is that it's superfluous to my daily routine of reading some of the best news the net has to offer in one place.
Your choice to use my post as a springboard to bash the site, or Taco, even further is really nothing more than a grab at attention. I was succinct with my statement, and now that I've explained it to the readers of your post, I have nothing further. Get modded however you like. Thank you very much.
YOU go and write slashcode, Richard.
"The reports, as you know are limited to MMORPGs. Go get a copy of a 'classic' and I want you to deeply analyze l33tsp34k.
(groans)
"No, no! I don't want to hear any of that... Just get into it and take your time. Make it count. Your grade depends on it..."
Daddy! It's for a report! My grade depends on it! DADDY!
"Delist them and let them go away. Finally."
A comerce-centric way of looking at the problem, to be sure.
However, someone once told me one time that chickens keep running around even when their heads are chopped off.
It may not be "finally" if SCO is delisted, but it will be a very short time thereafter when SCO finds itself feeling a little faint.
It may die at that point, but more likely, it'll push even harder to come up with a revenue stream that fills it's coffers even quicker. Call me crazy, but I see SCO as already comfortable with frivolous suits... Where do you think SCO's direction would be, then? I suspect more of the same.
Ergo: More SCO news.
No, keep them listed until the point of no return. Then, >pop, no more SCO.
But, I've learned a lot by reading the complaint and the verdict.
1) If you have the money, you can try to buy a domain that exists from someone who may already have it.
2) If you can't buy that domain, and you have the money for it, you can sue for the domain.
3) If you have an extraordinarily large amount of money, you can win the rights to a generic noun in the dictionary (as used in a domain name), even when someone else clearly owns said domain name and you've completely branded the noun.
4) If you own a domain called "GAME.co.uk" do not use it to sell GAMES. That would be COMPLETELY inappropriate, and in bad taste, and you will become the taget of a large company that will sue your *** and cry about the injustice of the world until somebody hands them the domain on a gold platter.
By the way, after reading the Expert's opinion, I'm almost agreeable with the result, however, and let me make that clear, this really IS a David -vs- Goliath story. GAME is clearly branded, and for all the talk about how so "many" contacts they received pertained to game.co.uk's business, I want to know just how many mistakes were committed in reverse. Namely, how many calls or contacts game.co.uk got that were intended for GAME.
I bet is was disproportional to the amount GAME was getting, indicating that in fact the stronger of the two companies was in fact branded much better. The transfer of the game.co.uk domain to the Claimant is an injustice. If the facts say that the Respondent was in error, and was using the domain... um... in poor taste?... That still does not win GAME the right to the domain name. It never did belong to GAME, and they had unsuccessfully tried to bargain for it for years, simply because that portion of the company sucks, I'm sure.
So, instead of paying a decent price for THE best *.co.uk names POSSIBLE for GAME in the very beginning from someone who obviously knew it's value, instead of making the purchase-of-such a priority and keeping the peace, they wait until the competition starts nipping at their profit margins and then squashes them... oh, and they get the domain name flat-out given to them!?!
People... Can't you see, it is specifically BECAUSE GAME didn't come up with a good price in the beginning, and since the gaming industry HAS become so large that the owner of SUCH a lucrative domain "game.co.uk" TURNED TO selling games. What a stroke of genius! I mean to actually use the domain for a purpose that it is highly suited for? OMG, and he actually PROVIDED for himself in the process? Completely unacceptable!
IMHO, GAME truly has no right to the domain at all, much less deserving of it.
This whole suit sickens me and contains absolutely no justice other than the corporate justice of killing off compentition.
Oh, bravo, GAME... Jolly good show.
Write your own. The basis, Slashcode, is available as an open-source project, but it'll take a deft hand if ... um... you... wish to find it. It's hidden behind an anti-flame firewall.
Good luck.
Slashposted at 1:01:00pm
...and you're waiting for another track? Amazing. I thought the Slashholiday season was about Slashtolerance. ;)
Sladdotted at 1:01:30pm
Slashbashed at 1:02:00pm
...about transparent circuits, I immediately think "wearable computing" and how I could watch the stock ticker scrolling accross my boss' secretary's...
Ah, never mind.
"...personal checks, paper bills, gift certificates, etc."
I tend to believe that legal documents would benefit with a greater or more reasonable return on investment than financial documents when using an imbedded chip.
Birth Certificates?
Driver's Licenses?
Deeds?
Wills?
For the above mentioned applications, a simple example. Imagine walking into a driver's lincense bureau and being redirected to the proper location for your DL renewal without waiting in line.
I'm sure the possibilities are endless, but doesn't it seem that legal documents would get more long-term play out of this interesting technology?
It's a simple extension of the cheap-a$$ T.V. ads politician's run during election season. The really good thing is this: I don't have to be subjected to their view, as I won't go to a politician's website to get the skinny on them. Doing so exposes one to a slanted view of the politician in question -- now either for OR against.
I'll say the same thing I do about the T.V. ads. Quit spending money (possibly my own tax dollars) to give me twisted facts and figures. I'll always prefer an objective NPR or PBS report or public debate to re-processed, faction-spun data.
Insensitive Clods.
WTF ...then my vote is going to a guy with pen.
By the way, enjoy the debate tonight. I hear Kerry may even NOT bring a pen!
The excitement is almost overwhelming, isn't it?!?
As a developer, and in a word... No.
...Oh, and because IE is so much fun to break.
Standards are the scientific community's way of expressing the myriad ways of getting data (a thought, content, algorithm, etc.) out in a way that is most efficient for themselves. It will take agreement with others that that "standard" is recognizable as a means of transferring that cognitive substance. Given the level of agreement in the scientific community (commonly low), and the number of scientific classifications of endeavors (usually high), I would (IHMO) say no, the number of "standards" (or those systems of transference that are actually agreed upon from within the scientific community) do not number over any conceivable upper-bound.
From a commercial standpoint, having one "standard" (in any area of focus, to be sure) would be the Holy Grail, given you were the sole proprietor of the format or that format was innately "perfect" for carrying the data you wish to deliver. Standards always meet up with resistance at some point due to changes in methodologies or ideals. In today's world, there is a constant battle to outdate and outmode current standards in lieu of others that are more efficient and tailored to any specific class of problem wherein a transference of data is necessary, not because standards equate to clout, but because there is always a real need to revisit older standards for weaknesses.
Wups... Who said that?
Try 35.50 Million.
. ht m
http://www.etforecasts.com/products/ES_cinusev2
Hypothetical:
...after being /.'ed to see what all the buzz was about.
"Shanda stock (Nasdaq: SNDA, news) climbs 50% as BNB reaches 1.4M concurrent users"