You forgot to close your italics tag. Where I come from, that's called a failure.
Where I come from that's called the sign of a troll.
You need to understand the difference between a failure and a mistake. I don't feel like educating you so go look it up.
Perhaps they mean unstable like Debian means unstable: development release that changes often.
Perhaps they mean unstable as in changes frequently, full of new and varying bugs, and not fit for an end user. This is something someone's suppose to trust their finances to for pity sake. People suggest this sort of SHIT to their friends and relatives as an alternative to a mainstream product, and then wonder why their friends and relatives think they're even more of a basement dwelling geek than before. But of course said geek then blames the end user for not knowing about the latest 0 day patch that fixes the problem or some esoteric command line option that has to be used.
Gee I wonder why Linux hasn't taken off on the desktop.
A person losing their job is a scary thing for that person and their family. It's not necessarily sad.
Tell that to their families, when hopefully temporary but unexpected cash flow problems may result in losing the family home, or having to change schools, or in the extreme case not having food to put on the table. It can take time to find a new job, even if you're good at what you do and you're doing your best to find it.
We also have aircraft manufacturers sueing people (or threatening to sue them) for using their designs and names in games. So people have to build fictional planes instead. Now there is a need to come up for a new simulated symbol for health/medical care in video games.
Pretty soon what you'll get is an extreme divergence between the real world and simulated worlds. Stuff gets less realistic, less educational and just plain less cool.
I say there should be some exemption for such law in simulation.
Re:Where I come from it's called a failure...
on
GnuCash 1.9.0 Released
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Oh yes, testing something that is buggy after years of development is a great use of my time. Even better than watching paint dry!
Where I come from it's called a failure...
on
GnuCash 1.9.0 Released
·
· Score: -1, Troll
"After literally years of waiting, GnuCash is now...unstable."
Um I know the point is it's been ported to GTK, but if this aspect has taken years, and it's a buggy piece of crap, then it's a failure. Unless there's something revolutionary here, how about learning from it and moving on...
Either that or try renaming it GnuCrash. Too bad you're not making money or it could be GnuCashCow. Better yet combine them: GnuCrashCow. I've got a mental image of a cow stuffed in a car, in a crash helmet and the guys from myth busters talking the bollox they always do.
I'd say, standardize on Java, C#, or C++ (depending on your needs) as your primary language, add your scripting language of choice, then fire anyone who can't handle that.
Wow. You're not just a fool. You're a dangerous despotic fool. This is the kind of decision that sees industry leaders fired, and a company with egg on its face.
There's good reason to have a preferred language or tool, and get people to justify the use of other tools, because then you can develop experience in that tool and maintain a reusable codebase that has some chance of being reused (though in practice only framework level components ever get any real reuse).
Picking just one thing and sticking with it is a bad idea, because it kills any kind of diversity and leaves you vulnerable. What if the main tool you picked 10 years ago was Smalltalk (a perfectly good and useable language I've had plenty of experience with). Right now you'd be in trouble because support for most versions is dead or dying (and though there are new variants on the scene libraries were never standard). So picking one tool means if that tool dies off, you're left having to reimplement EVERYTHING from scratch. Excessive specialisation in general is a bad thing for an individual/company to survive.
Oh, and another thing: It pays to listen to your technical people before you dismiss what they say out of hand then fire them for not towing the company line. All you get is yes men if you adopt that mentality.
Damn I hope you're never in management at any company I work for.
You're being deliberately inflamatory, and a wise ass to boot. What's more you're making assumptions and you know what they say that does to you and me.
They tried something totally different once, and bolloxed it up.
If you look at communism it said both the fruits and the work is no longer controlled by the individual, but rather by an all powerful state.
There are several problems with this, most notably: 1) An all powerful state becomes corrupt. 2) By taking away the fruits of someone's labour, you take away their incentive to do the work in the first place.
I'm not proposing that the state has any say or that the work becomes the property of the state. Rather I'm proposing some other system of redress if someone (or a company) believes their work has been used without their being compensated. Instead of everyone suing each other to stop each other using things that they've built, how about suing for a part of the financial gain the company got out of their product (or their loss that resulted from the other person/company making it available another way). However once something has been made public willfully there shouldn't be any way to stop someone else from using it.
Now you need someone to arbitrate the disputes. Perhaps the courts as now, perhaps some other system not encumbered in 400 years of antiquated process. Regardless, this should not be a single central organisation with absolute power, or you will get corruption.
Stallman's problems are many, but that he's not mainstream isn't the main problem. (That he comes across as a nutter however is a problem, and is probably due to a lack of social skills common to many a "geek"). I think we should be calling for a total abolition of copyright, but here's why...
We should be finding ways to allow people MORE freedom (while still compensating software creators, artists and the like). Stallman's taken a draconian approach that actually means that there are less places you can use the software that most people have written. He's like the anti-terror legislator that talks about freedom while whittling away all of our freedoms supposedly for the common good. He's destroying the very freedom he claims to cherish.
Ideally once a piece of software is written it should be usuable by anyone who wishes to use it. Anything that gets in the way of that. DRM, software licenses etc. is bad. It means you either have to get the permission of an author who might not wish to give it, (or will only give it if financially compensated to an amount that makes your whole project no longer economically feasible), or if other Intellectual Property laws allow you can write your own from scratch IF you have the expertise. What all of this leads to is duplication of effort, inefficiency and people not having access to software that's out there.
What we need to do is find a way to compensate artists, software authors and inventors WITHOUT limiting distribution (in the case of software, both binary and source distribution should not be limited). I don't believe the author/artist should have control of their work once it's released, but they should have a right to the FRUITS of their labour - ie. if there's money being made, they should get some of it. This is quite a huge challenge technically, and a fundamental principle that no one in the mainstream is even attempting to address. However, if we could do it, we'd live in a world where source code is available for you to examine and modify, new cures and treatments aren't held to ransom by the inventing company, music distribution cartels can't come after you etc. etc. I think it's possible though, so why isn't there anyone persuing it? Simple there's more money to be made this way by the greedy, and those who can manipulate the system.
"Unless it's completely open and completely free in every possible sense of the word, it's wrong"
He's always said this, and he's always had an ego (even though as best as I can tell his hacking days are somewhat behind him, impressive as his contributions were). He's also always been a lot left of center. I met the man once, and he did not impress me. In my eyes, his social skills left a lot to be desired.
and even more hours uninstalling it after it wouldn't listen to my yelling
Assuming you're not speaking figuratively, you lost me right there. There's no reason to ever yell at tech support even if they do something stupid, or if the company policy is screwing you. You make the person feel like shit, and they're LESS likely to want to help. In other words that's absolutely the stupidest most self defeating thing you can do.
4. What you think everyone has gigabit or ADSL2? How many people do you know that exceed 20 or 30 gig a month? They're not the usual user either.
5. I'm not willing to install HL2/steam to find out, but if single player isn't already crippled how long before it is until it phones home and authenticates? How long till some company decides it's costing money so lets charge for this? If you can't see the agenda you're being obtuse on purpose.
6. It's not necessarily true that a company will fold. How many game companies have in recent years? So lets be generous and say your odds are that 50% of companies you buy games from fold. Now in a couple of years 50% of your games are unplayable. This is okay with you?
M$ Fanboy alert!!! then P.S. I use steam, and have bought games from it, but only after the release of HL2. It seems to be up 99.9+% of the time, and is only getting better.
This sums up your maturity level nicely. Who's the "fanboy" again??? Do you have any idea how stupid this makes you look, or how much it undermines the post for anyone reading? Fact: Most PC gaming still happens on a Windows platform. Fact:Most games are still written for Windows first or Windows only. As for steam who cares that it seems to be up 99% of the time for you. You're a sample size of one, dipshit. "It works for me, if it doesn't work for you, you're stupid" is the sign of a truely socially inept wanker, and totally unhelpful to anyone. Shave the patchy 2mm face fuzz, get a real job, and grow the fuck up.
Yeah sorry for getting that wrong. Money sucking company X or money sucking company Y. Who cares. They all have one agenda: Make a buck, and oh if you have to provide a service of some sort to do it so be it.
Bandwidth however is a finite thing. It doesn't matter if you get it from company X or company Y either. (Well it may matter to your bank account but in the grand scheme that's your choice, provided you live somewhere where you can get unlimited bandwidth - not something you can assume is true for everyone, so your statement that you should just switch ISP is kind of the equivalent of "let them eat cake").
Clogging up the existing bandwidth with this unecessary traffic however is unforgivable and assinine. You have to ask why a company would do this. The only reason is that they wish to turn it to their advantage in the long run by charging money.
There are a LOAD of disadvantages to steam, most really obvious and all well documented.
1) If your internet connection is down, so is your game. 2) If you're out of bandwidth for the month, you can't play your game. 3) Bandwidth is not free. 4) No internet connection is going to be faster than CD. 5) If Blizzard go bankrupt or decide to start charging for the use of their servers you're basically at their mercy. It'll happen in the near future and the argument will be that people pay to play already. 6) When the game is no longer supported, you can no longer play it. 7) Imagine the increased traffic if each hardcore gamer had to re-download their entire game collection each time they got a new rig or had to reinstall the OS.
Steam is a model of greed, not good software distribution! It's not progressive or forward thinking, it's garbage. How hard is it to download a damned patch off the net and double click the exe. Only thing I have left to say is I will not buy these games. You know where you can stick your steam, Valve!
I work two jobs (one for God, and one for currency)
If that's all it was y our answer would be simple. Quit the job for God, and take on a new job for God: Making yourself healthier, happier and better able to contribute. Lose the weight first THEN you'll be able to do more with less effort, and therefore be more use to people or God or whatever you believe in your "second job" when you take it back up.
Too many people use religion to soothe themselves while they do things they know aren't right.
It takes a lot more than just time and effort to lose weight - those are necessary but not sufficient. If there is an actual virus contributes it'd be a nice explanation There's something out there that makes overweight people hungry when they shouldn't be! It's not just about self control. Ask an overweight person if they're hungry half an hour after a meal and I bet they're much more likely to say yes than a skinny person. In all honesty I believe it's probably more a genetic disposition than a disease sadly.
The movie industry doesn't want this sort of venture to succeed. They're not all stupid and retarded as one poster said. They want this to fail so that they can point and say "see there's no legitimate use for P2P. When we offered a legitimate P2P service people didn't use it. So your honour we should just shut down all the P2P since it's only used by theives!". Of course they won't mention the fact that they'd kept prices high, while forcing the customer to pay twice (once for the movie, once for the bandwidth).
I mean for pity sake if they wanted to distribute the content to the users in a better way, they could just drop the price on the DVDs and make it possible to back them up instead of wasting money on this little venture. Success is not their goal here!
I vividly recall telling a former employer that I'd completed a major contract for a very happy client, and that the revenues would keep the company afloat for the rest of the year (we would otherwise have been out of business.) He said, "Yeah, that's good" and then moved on to the next thing, which was the "great job" being done by a charismatic under-achiever who was running a year behind on an eight-month contract and whose inability to do his job was the reason why the company was just about broke. My information didn't have the right emotional cues packaged with it--it was just a factual report of a successfully completed major contract.
I think you're still missing the cues here. Bad communication or not, your boss would have understood the facts and figures (unless he was totally incompetent) so I put it to you there's another explanation here. Possible ones that come to mind:
1) The boss simply didn't believe you or see it the same way. 2) The other guy was related to the boss 3) The other guy had something on the boss 4) The boss simply doesn't like you for whatever reason (perhaps something you did, perhaps related to the way you communicate) 5) The boss is incopetent and doesn't understand his own business.
Otherwise even a socially inept person would get some recognition for saving a company.
the tragedy I feel is that it seems like NASA has done almost nothing of note since then.
The tragedy it that you think all NASA does is manned flight.
What do you call launching and maintaining Hubble and all the discovery that's resulted in? What do you call landing a spacecraft (not designed to do it by the way) on a comet? What do you call returning dust from a comet (Stardust?) What do you call going into orbit around an asteriod? What do you call the Mars rover missions that did succeed (including Spirit and Opportunity)? What do you call the launch of a Spacecraft to Pluto (New Horizons)? What do you call the Galileo and Cassini probles? What do you call a solar observation platform in space (SOHO)?
The tragedy is that people can spend their lives, work long hours and weekends, miss out on time with family etc., and someone can arrogantly and offhandly claim they've done nothing noteworthy.
3 MAIN sets. Episodes of Frasier also included Niles' and Maris' house, Nile' appartment (when they split up), and lots of other sets used for just one episode like the Space Needle, and the house used for a wake when a doctor that worked in his building died.
Cheers - 1 set (bar) depending on series between 4 and 6 characters
Again occassional other sets.
I'm sure it's true of the rest of the shows too.
The reason you have a handful of main sets and characters are: 1) Audience familiarity. When they watch a sitcom, people want that same old comfortable feel to the show. Too many new places and the show changes enough that you're taking a risk with it - some people might love it, others might hate it! 2) Cost. The more main actors, and the more sets the more your costs skyrocket (particularly since sitcom stars can be paid 6 or 7 figures per episode).
The types of games that I keep coming back to are simulators with a sandbox interface, that require you to develop a new skill or learn something new. Flight simulators are particularly challenging - There's always something new to learn on Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004, and similarly for remote controlled aircraft on Realflight G3.
In fact I'm a bit of a flight sim nut so long as the sim is sufficiently complex. There is always something new you haven't tried. Learnt Acrobatics? Try navigation. Learnt to navigate, learn to fly a 747 properly. Learnt that too how about crosswind landings, night flying etc. With the remote control sims there's always a new trick to try and master and your accuracy to improve. What's more you don't have to spend $200 and 3 weekends fixing things after every crash.
Then there's software that teaches you a classic game like Chessmaster. You can always get better at chess, and there are lots of tutorials in Chessmaster 10 so you can go through them again after a year or so and you're reminded of something you'd learnt but almost forgotten. The I can play in a virtual tournament against a number of virtual opponents.
These are the sorts of games I keep coming back to. They manage to keep your mind and/or your reflexes going without being completely artificial...and sure it's a cartoon world with virtual this and that, but hell I'll never get to land a real 747 or play chess against a grandmaster for real, so I appreciate these experiences.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot to close your italics tag. Where I come from, that's called a failure.
Where I come from that's called the sign of a troll.
You need to understand the difference between a failure and a mistake. I don't feel like educating you so go look it up.
Perhaps they mean unstable like Debian means unstable: development release that changes often.
Perhaps they mean unstable as in changes frequently, full of new and varying bugs, and not fit for an end user. This is something someone's suppose to trust their finances to for pity sake. People suggest this sort of SHIT to their friends and relatives as an alternative to a mainstream product, and then wonder why their friends and relatives think they're even more of a basement dwelling geek than before. But of course said geek then blames the end user for not knowing about the latest 0 day patch that fixes the problem or some esoteric command line option that has to be used.
Gee I wonder why Linux hasn't taken off on the desktop.
A person losing their job is a scary thing for that person and their family. It's not necessarily sad.
Tell that to their families, when hopefully temporary but unexpected cash flow problems may result in losing the family home, or having to change schools, or in the extreme case not having food to put on the table. It can take time to find a new job, even if you're good at what you do and you're doing your best to find it.
Troll!
If you fork, you must contribute your code back to the main base.
Same as any LGPL. You must make the source available. Nothing to see here.
If you fork, Marc will sue your ass.
Only if you call it JBoss!
This is typical IP law gone nuts
We also have aircraft manufacturers sueing people (or threatening to sue them) for using their designs and names in games. So people have to build fictional planes instead. Now there is a need to come up for a new simulated symbol for health/medical care in video games.
Pretty soon what you'll get is an extreme divergence between the real world and simulated worlds. Stuff gets less realistic, less educational and just plain less cool.
I say there should be some exemption for such law in simulation.
Oh yes, testing something that is buggy after years of development is a great use of my time. Even better than watching paint dry!
"After literally years of waiting, GnuCash is now...unstable."
Um I know the point is it's been ported to GTK, but if this aspect has taken years, and it's a buggy piece of crap, then it's a failure. Unless there's something revolutionary here, how about learning from it and moving on...
Either that or try renaming it GnuCrash. Too bad you're not making money or it could be GnuCashCow. Better yet combine them: GnuCrashCow. I've got a mental image of a cow stuffed in a car, in a crash helmet and the guys from myth busters talking the bollox they always do.
I'd say, standardize on Java, C#, or C++ (depending on your needs) as your primary language, add your scripting language of choice, then fire anyone who can't handle that.
Wow. You're not just a fool. You're a dangerous despotic fool. This is the kind of decision that sees industry leaders fired, and a company with egg on its face.
There's good reason to have a preferred language or tool, and get people to justify the use of other tools, because then you can develop experience in that tool and maintain a reusable codebase that has some chance of being reused (though in practice only framework level components ever get any real reuse).
Picking just one thing and sticking with it is a bad idea, because it kills any kind of diversity and leaves you vulnerable. What if the main tool you picked 10 years ago was Smalltalk (a perfectly good and useable language I've had plenty of experience with). Right now you'd be in trouble because support for most versions is dead or dying (and though there are new variants on the scene libraries were never standard). So picking one tool means if that tool dies off, you're left having to reimplement EVERYTHING from scratch. Excessive specialisation in general is a bad thing for an individual/company to survive.
Oh, and another thing: It pays to listen to your technical people before you dismiss what they say out of hand then fire them for not towing the company line. All you get is yes men if you adopt that mentality.
Damn I hope you're never in management at any company I work for.
BitTorrent doesn't have the strength Coca-Cola does
That's why I drink coke while I download with BitTorrent.
You're being deliberately inflamatory, and a wise ass to boot. What's more you're making assumptions and you know what they say that does to you and me.
They tried something totally different once, and bolloxed it up.
If you look at communism it said both the fruits and the work is no longer controlled by the individual, but rather by an all powerful state.
There are several problems with this, most notably:
1) An all powerful state becomes corrupt.
2) By taking away the fruits of someone's labour, you take away their incentive to do the work in the first place.
I'm not proposing that the state has any say or that the work becomes the property of the state. Rather I'm proposing some other system of redress if someone (or a company) believes their work has been used without their being compensated. Instead of everyone suing each other to stop each other using things that they've built, how about suing for a part of the financial gain the company got out of their product (or their loss that resulted from the other person/company making it available another way). However once something has been made public willfully there shouldn't be any way to stop someone else from using it.
Now you need someone to arbitrate the disputes. Perhaps the courts as now, perhaps some other system not encumbered in 400 years of antiquated process. Regardless, this should not be a single central organisation with absolute power, or you will get corruption.
Stallman's problems are many, but that he's not mainstream isn't the main problem. (That he comes across as a nutter however is a problem, and is probably due to a lack of social skills common to many a "geek"). I think we should be calling for a total abolition of copyright, but here's why...
We should be finding ways to allow people MORE freedom (while still compensating software creators, artists and the like). Stallman's taken a draconian approach that actually means that there are less places you can use the software that most people have written. He's like the anti-terror legislator that talks about freedom while whittling away all of our freedoms supposedly for the common good. He's destroying the very freedom he claims to cherish.
Ideally once a piece of software is written it should be usuable by anyone who wishes to use it. Anything that gets in the way of that. DRM, software licenses etc. is bad. It means you either have to get the permission of an author who might not wish to give it, (or will only give it if financially compensated to an amount that makes your whole project no longer economically feasible), or if other Intellectual Property laws allow you can write your own from scratch IF you have the expertise. What all of this leads to is duplication of effort, inefficiency and people not having access to software that's out there.
What we need to do is find a way to compensate artists, software authors and inventors WITHOUT limiting distribution (in the case of software, both binary and source distribution should not be limited). I don't believe the author/artist should have control of their work once it's released, but they should have a right to the FRUITS of their labour - ie. if there's money being made, they should get some of it. This is quite a huge challenge technically, and a fundamental principle that no one in the mainstream is even attempting to address. However, if we could do it, we'd live in a world where source code is available for you to examine and modify, new cures and treatments aren't held to ransom by the inventing company, music distribution cartels can't come after you etc. etc. I think it's possible though, so why isn't there anyone persuing it? Simple there's more money to be made this way by the greedy, and those who can manipulate the system.
Too bad too.
"Unless it's completely open and completely free in every possible sense of the word, it's wrong"
He's always said this, and he's always had an ego (even though as best as I can tell his hacking days are somewhat behind him, impressive as his contributions were). He's also always been a lot left of center. I met the man once, and he did not impress me. In my eyes, his social skills left a lot to be desired.
and even more hours uninstalling it after it wouldn't listen to my yelling
Assuming you're not speaking figuratively, you lost me right there. There's no reason to ever yell at tech support even if they do something stupid, or if the company policy is screwing you. You make the person feel like shit, and they're LESS likely to want to help. In other words that's absolutely the stupidest most self defeating thing you can do.
Now he'll never get the message that Doc is alive and well in the wild west!
Counter arguments:
2. Many if not most ISPs gouge for extra usage
4. What you think everyone has gigabit or ADSL2? How many people do you know that exceed 20 or 30 gig a month? They're not the usual user either.
5. I'm not willing to install HL2/steam to find out, but if single player isn't already crippled how long before it is until it phones home and authenticates? How long till some company decides it's costing money so lets charge for this? If you can't see the agenda you're being obtuse on purpose.
6. It's not necessarily true that a company will fold. How many game companies have in recent years? So lets be generous and say your odds are that 50% of companies you buy games from fold. Now in a couple of years 50% of your games are unplayable. This is okay with you?
M$ Fanboy alert!!!
then
P.S. I use steam, and have bought games from it, but only after the release of HL2. It seems to be up 99.9+% of the time, and is only getting better.
This sums up your maturity level nicely. Who's the "fanboy" again??? Do you have any idea how stupid this makes you look, or how much it undermines the post for anyone reading? Fact: Most PC gaming still happens on a Windows platform. Fact:Most games are still written for Windows first or Windows only. As for steam who cares that it seems to be up 99% of the time for you. You're a sample size of one, dipshit. "It works for me, if it doesn't work for you, you're stupid" is the sign of a truely socially inept wanker, and totally unhelpful to anyone. Shave the patchy 2mm face fuzz, get a real job, and grow the fuck up.
Yeah sorry for getting that wrong. Money sucking company X or money sucking company Y. Who cares. They all have one agenda: Make a buck, and oh if you have to provide a service of some sort to do it so be it.
Bandwidth however is a finite thing. It doesn't matter if you get it from company X or company Y either. (Well it may matter to your bank account but in the grand scheme that's your choice, provided you live somewhere where you can get unlimited bandwidth - not something you can assume is true for everyone, so your statement that you should just switch ISP is kind of the equivalent of "let them eat cake").
Clogging up the existing bandwidth with this unecessary traffic however is unforgivable and assinine. You have to ask why a company would do this. The only reason is that they wish to turn it to their advantage in the long run by charging money.
Just what are you smoking?
There are a LOAD of disadvantages to steam, most really obvious and all well documented.
1) If your internet connection is down, so is your game.
2) If you're out of bandwidth for the month, you can't play your game.
3) Bandwidth is not free.
4) No internet connection is going to be faster than CD.
5) If Blizzard go bankrupt or decide to start charging for the use of their servers you're basically at their mercy. It'll happen in the near future and the argument will be that people pay to play already.
6) When the game is no longer supported, you can no longer play it.
7) Imagine the increased traffic if each hardcore gamer had to re-download their entire game collection each time they got a new rig or had to reinstall the OS.
Steam is a model of greed, not good software distribution! It's not progressive or forward thinking, it's garbage. How hard is it to download a damned patch off the net and double click the exe. Only thing I have left to say is I will not buy these games. You know where you can stick your steam, Valve!
Waiting each time he has to install to play a game he's already paid for.
Yeah I see no problem with that. Every gamer has hours to waste redownloading everything they've already bought.
I'd sure call that bullshit.
You're talking rubbish but if you want a detailed argument you'll have to do better than respond as A/C
I work two jobs (one for God, and one for currency)
If that's all it was y our answer would be simple. Quit the job for God, and take on a new job for God: Making yourself healthier, happier and better able to contribute. Lose the weight first THEN you'll be able to do more with less effort, and therefore be more use to people or God or whatever you believe in your "second job" when you take it back up.
Too many people use religion to soothe themselves while they do things they know aren't right.
It takes a lot more than just time and effort to lose weight - those are necessary but not sufficient. If there is an actual virus contributes it'd be a nice explanation There's something out there that makes overweight people hungry when they shouldn't be! It's not just about self control. Ask an overweight person if they're hungry half an hour after a meal and I bet they're much more likely to say yes than a skinny person. In all honesty I believe it's probably more a genetic disposition than a disease sadly.
You're completely missing the point entirely.
The movie industry doesn't want this sort of venture to succeed. They're not all stupid and retarded as one poster said. They want this to fail so that they can point and say "see there's no legitimate use for P2P. When we offered a legitimate P2P service people didn't use it. So your honour we should just shut down all the P2P since it's only used by theives!". Of course they won't mention the fact that they'd kept prices high, while forcing the customer to pay twice (once for the movie, once for the bandwidth).
I mean for pity sake if they wanted to distribute the content to the users in a better way, they could just drop the price on the DVDs and make it possible to back them up instead of wasting money on this little venture. Success is not their goal here!
I vividly recall telling a former employer that I'd completed a major contract for a very happy client, and that the revenues would keep the company afloat for the rest of the year (we would otherwise have been out of business.) He said, "Yeah, that's good" and then moved on to the next thing, which was the "great job" being done by a charismatic under-achiever who was running a year behind on an eight-month contract and whose inability to do his job was the reason why the company was just about broke. My information didn't have the right emotional cues packaged with it--it was just a factual report of a successfully completed major contract.
I think you're still missing the cues here. Bad communication or not, your boss would have understood the facts and figures (unless he was totally incompetent) so I put it to you there's another explanation here. Possible ones that come to mind:
1) The boss simply didn't believe you or see it the same way.
2) The other guy was related to the boss
3) The other guy had something on the boss
4) The boss simply doesn't like you for whatever reason (perhaps something you did, perhaps related to the way you communicate)
5) The boss is incopetent and doesn't understand his own business.
Otherwise even a socially inept person would get some recognition for saving a company.
...or am I reading the enquirer? Come on people. "Scam artist claims to use new technology to create infaliable lie detector" isn't news!!!
the tragedy I feel is that it seems like NASA has done almost nothing of note since then.
The tragedy it that you think all NASA does is manned flight.
What do you call launching and maintaining Hubble and all the discovery that's resulted in? What do you call landing a spacecraft (not designed to do it by the way) on a comet? What do you call returning dust from a comet (Stardust?) What do you call going into orbit around an asteriod? What do you call the Mars rover missions that did succeed (including Spirit and Opportunity)? What do you call the launch of a Spacecraft to Pluto (New Horizons)? What do you call the Galileo and Cassini probles? What do you call a solar observation platform in space (SOHO)?
The tragedy is that people can spend their lives, work long hours and weekends, miss out on time with family etc., and someone can arrogantly and offhandly claim they've done nothing noteworthy.
Fraser - 3 sets (appartement, Studio, coffee shop) - 5 main characters
3 MAIN sets. Episodes of Frasier also included Niles' and Maris' house, Nile' appartment (when they split up), and lots of other sets used for just one episode like the Space Needle, and the house used for a wake when a doctor that worked in his building died.
Cheers - 1 set (bar) depending on series between 4 and 6 characters
Again occassional other sets.
I'm sure it's true of the rest of the shows too.
The reason you have a handful of main sets and characters are:
1) Audience familiarity. When they watch a sitcom, people want that same old comfortable feel to the show. Too many new places and the show changes enough that you're taking a risk with it - some people might love it, others might hate it!
2) Cost. The more main actors, and the more sets the more your costs skyrocket (particularly since sitcom stars can be paid 6 or 7 figures per episode).
The types of games that I keep coming back to are simulators with a sandbox interface, that require you to develop a new skill or learn something new. Flight simulators are particularly challenging - There's always something new to learn on Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004, and similarly for remote controlled aircraft on Realflight G3.
In fact I'm a bit of a flight sim nut so long as the sim is sufficiently complex. There is always something new you haven't tried. Learnt Acrobatics? Try navigation. Learnt to navigate, learn to fly a 747 properly. Learnt that too how about crosswind landings, night flying etc. With the remote control sims there's always a new trick to try and master and your accuracy to improve. What's more you don't have to spend $200 and 3 weekends fixing things after every crash.
Then there's software that teaches you a classic game like Chessmaster. You can always get better at chess, and there are lots of tutorials in Chessmaster 10 so you can go through them again after a year or so and you're reminded of something you'd learnt but almost forgotten. The I can play in a virtual tournament against a number of virtual opponents.
These are the sorts of games I keep coming back to. They manage to keep your mind and/or your reflexes going without being completely artificial...and sure it's a cartoon world with virtual this and that, but hell I'll never get to land a real 747 or play chess against a grandmaster for real, so I appreciate these experiences.