if it ain't broke don't fix it! I see no BSOD's here I see no need to reboot everyday Everybody hates success........
Actually I haven't had a BSOD in over 5 years (oddly since Vista came out) now (my girlfriend's PC did, but that was thanks to a dying video card). I haven't rebooted in over 3 weeks, on any of my boxes (OpenSuse, Mint Debian, OS X, and 3x Windows 7), with one of the Windows boxes having the most uptime, period. Right now my main Win7 box is the most stable PC in our house, with pretty much no reported errors or crashes in a two year period. My OpenSuse laptop is a bigger mess than any Windows box I've worked on for a very long time, but that's mostly because Tumbleweed is terrible (Hey Mint, can I have my rolling KDE release yet?).
Every modern OS is almost completely equivalent these days, the only real differences are aesthetics and moronic tribal affiliations.
The filesystem transparently compresses files in small clusters, and it suffers from fragmentation problems, like you also mention.
Which is better than not having the option at all. I generally only use NTFS compression on directories of old, but essencial, files, that aren't frequently accessed. I have a rather large amount of RAW files that I've already processed, for instance, I don't need to access any given file frequently, and I almost never modify them, but I can't just store them away either since I often need to access at least on of them. I also have a couple directories full of old documentation and research, again I might only need to access one file of hundreds in a given month. This is nice since the drive I used for old files (old, slow, and salvaged) is getting to the point where I'm getting paranoid about space, but not at the point where I really feel like going through the hassle of swapping/buying drives.
My old laptop, when it ran Windows, also had copious compression on pretty much every system folder that was accessed or modified (which is strangely common in Windows) less than monthly.
It is flawed, but I still think it is a valid feature in some cases. Which isn't to say that I really miss it too much on my Linux machines, but then again they are generally leaner, and I also generally don't use them for the same things I use my Windows box for.
I used to be a rather heavy pot smoker, I pretty much got bored with it so I quit over ten years ago. I still might smoke a a small hit at social occasions once a year or so (at almost of two years now of accidental "sobriety"). I DO crave joints, from time to time though. I crave them the same way I crave my weekly double of good bourbon. Some times it would be nice to sit on the patio, smoke a joint and relax.
Then again I'd say this craving has very little to do with addiction.
I'm pretty much completely drug free (sans moderate alcohol use, and rather heavy caffeine use), but I find the anti-marijuana stuff perplexing. Who cares? On the totem pole of harmful drugs (addictive or no), marijuana comes somewhere far below perfectly legal alcohol and cigarettes. As a person who grew up in a family rife with alcoholism, from a region known for it (Wisconsin), I'd take a pot head over an alcoholic any day.
hat sucks is that its potential will never be fully realized (at least by any third party). All development is done for either a PS3 or 360 and then ported.
I doubt it will be anything like the Wii, since its going to be more powerful than anything in the current Gen. From everything I've read; a lot of developers are getting frustrated with the aging current gens hardware bottlenecks, and might leap at the fact that they get to develop for some actual modern hardware. The current gen consoles are outdated by eons now, in computer years. My girlfriends 3 year old Dell (with a hand me down video card) is around twice as powerful as anything in the current gen. My middle of the road gaming rig can blow just about any of the current batch of consoles out of the water.
As for the "kids and grandpa"/"wagglewear" (very nice!), this might still be a problem. I wish people would realize that you can cater to casual gamer, and serious (or whatever they're called) gamers on the same hardware. You CAN have Cooking Mama and Fallout on the same console, without hurting either. I'm still pissed that the Wii never got Soul Caliber, personally. Yes, I'm generally a casual gamer type when I'm sitting around in the living room with my girlfriend, but we still used to love fighting games, but all we have is Smash Brothers, which is fun, but has long since become boring and simplistic. I managed to keep playing the Dreamcast version of Soul Caliber for YEARS, but somehow Smash Bros just... Its good (the GC version was better), but it lacks something that a real fighter has.
it'd take an hour to download a 50GB game, which is a pretty damn long time
Which is why they should use some form of streaming download system. Quickly download the engine and early content, then download all the other content while the user plays, with priority on early zones. By the time the player reaches the end of zone one, zones two and three will be done, etc... Obviously this wouldn't work on open or sandbox games like the Fallout and Elder Scrolls series, but for most console titles it would work fine. If I'm not mistaken WoW is doing something like this now.
This, sadly, ignores the fact that many ISPs have inane caps now.
Also, why the hell would the big three bother with 4k? What the hell is wrong with 1080, and are we, consumers, supposed to go out and buy another multi-thousand dollar whiz-bang TV now, after we already just finished updating our tube-based sets barely? I can see 3D, since a couple people actually bought into that bandwagon, but not 4k. Hell, as you pointed out, that would be one hell of a large download (media-less), and some games have already saturated BluRay with just 1080. What are they going to do, ship games on a 1TB HDD (I'd say SSD but then we'd be jacking up prices to some insane levels). I suppose, then, at least, the days of the cartridge would be back upon us... Which would be amusing.
Normal human beings commonly experience nostalgia for things that have brought them positive feelings.
This is true. But feeling nostalgia over something only ten years old, that is still produced, is equally odd. Can you really be nostalgic for something less than a generation old? I suppose you can, but its still... I mean people are nostalgic, generally, for things that were around when they were kids. But most people who were kids when it came out (who had really generous parents), are now young adults at best. Can you really have nostalgia when your in your early 20s?
Also, I do like my iPod, and will freely admit that its the best music player I've ever encountered (hence being on #3), at least for my needs; bits of it were genuinely innovative. But it really was just an iteration of a pre-existing theme. I can see being a bit misty for the birth of MP3 players. But the iPod is just another one of those, regardless of its nice bits.
I don't mean to sound overly hostile. People getting all teary over their little white devices doesn't affect me. I'm just a bit confused by the phenomena. Should I be attaching as much meaning to my blender, toaster, or whatnot? Whats the difference between an iPod and a blender, really? Why is one worth all the brouhaha and warm feelings, while the other is more useful but completely not a bit of veneration?
You guys absolutely can't stand that this company has so much influence on the tech industry. Too bad.
Either that or we really just don't care. Woohoo, a silly gadget turns 10! Who cares?
I'm sick of the "you hate Apple, since you don't worship Apple" shit, though. I have exactly as much loyalty towards Apple as Apple has towards me. Actually, I have exactly as much loyalty towards Apple as I do any company. None. I don't care. If Apple makes a product that meets my needs more than anything else with a comparable price, then I'll buy their product. If, when it breaks, there is something better made by another manufacturer, then I'll buy it instead. Apple has made some decent products, I have owned some of them and enjoyed them. They have made some crappy decisions too, and that is why I don't own anything more than an iPod anymore (down from having 2 MacBooks, and a MacMini). When my iPod breaks, I will probably replace it with another (unless they kill the Classic). If my PC or laptop dies, I'm not buying an Apple still. If my Android Phone dies, or I can get a replacement, I'm getting another Android, and not an iPhone. This has nothing to do with me hating Apple, or loving Google, it has to do with what meets my personal, individual, needs.
If you really love a company, or have any loyalty to them (outside of them having the best product for your own work or life style), then you truly are pathetic. Apple is not better than Google, who is no better than Microsoft, who is not better than any other company out there. Sure, some of them might be a bit more ethical, sure, some have better packaging or quality control... But your basing something of your identity on products... This is something I can't understand. Apple fans (or Google fans) are no better than this chick I once knew who had a Nike tattoo. That isn't a compliment.
Attacking people for attacking a product is equally moronic. Why does one have the need to defend Apple, or Google? Do they need your help? Are you worried that some mean kids are going to beat them up after school? They are giant corporations, they don't CARE about you, and they don't CARE if your defend them. Why bother? If someone hates your iPod, GOOD FOR THEM! How does that affect you in any way?
Back to the beginning, I find it hard to give two shits about the anniversary of an idiotic consumer product. ANY idiotic consumer product, buy any company. I don't really care if it was an influential product or not, or an innovative product or not... IT IS AN IDIOTIC CONSUMER PRODUCT. What is there to celebrate, or retrospect? Its a gadget like any other. Big deal. Don't you have bigger things to care about?
I felt the same way, mostly. I probably would still buy it ($60 = no big deal), but I was highly skeptical of it being anywhere near as good as Diablo 2 (among the top ten games ever). It was a lower priority than Torchlight 2 or Grim Dawn.
But watching some beta videos, I'm impressed. It still probably won't beat DII, but it still looks damn fun. I don't care about the cash auctions (and if you can still use in game currency, I will enjoy it, I spent more time in the AH in WoW than doing content), I can ignore them if they suck. Being online all the time is annoying... But I am online all the time anyways, and this already is dreadfully common. I can live with it, even if I find it a bit obnoxious. Blizz with get my money, and I'll like it. If I don't like it, it can sit next to Dungeon Siege III (the last $60 I blew on absolute, irredeemable, crap), and I can use it for target practice.
I don't understand the hate, personally.
As for, and on topic, the WOW changes... I thought it was April Fool's. The Pandaran were a great gag, but... it's a really stupid idea in practice. As is Pokemon pets, and completely removing skill trees (which oddly I was using as a punchline for the dumbing down of WoW three days ago... I'm prescient, it seems) I'm glad I ditched WoW before Cataclysm, there hasn't been a single change that impressed me. The next expansion is just going to have a single button, you press it, things instantly die.
I just hope that Blizz only jumped the shark for WoW, and not their whole line-up.
This is true. But being a good way for state governments to make some money is a far cry from being "built to detect smugglers".
What the other person who replied to you said is true too, a lot of those fines are deserved. I'm not a truck driver, but my dad was one for 40 years, and he's been stuck with some terrible trucks, and had to deal with terrible in-house maintenance over the years, even from very large carriers.
...which was why the weigh station system was built.
This is not true. States have weight limits. Mostly based on the amount of tonnage allowable per axle. They have these for safety, and road maintenance. Smuggling has nothing to do with it, as a weigh station would be useless for finding it, unless your smuggling tons of material. How would a weigh station even detect smuggling? A lot of times trucks aren't weighed upon leaving the terminal, unless it is to measure compliance with local laws about load weight. And truck weight is highly variable too. So if a truck left the depot weighing X (there is no requirement as far as I know to report this to the state, if this measurement is even taken), and ends up at a station weighing X+1, that weight could even fuel, oil, the trucker purchasing souvenirs, a hitchhiker, a passenger, mud stuck to the chassis, etc...
I'm sick of this line of reasoning... How the hell did college magically become synonymous with "trade school"? You do realize that our society needs drama and literature people as badly as we need profitable trades, right? The liberal arts and humanities are just as valuable as engineering. Well, if you go with the original definition of the term "valuable", and not the idiotic modern American one ("only pertaining to wealth, or its potential"), at least.
College isn't just about the future betterment of your wallet, or your corporate overlords; it is also about bettering yourself (as an individual), and bettering your society. Or at least it used to be. I'd hate to live in a world stripped of the drama, arts, literature, and philosophy majors, who would give our lives content and context? Personally I find these people more valuable than 90% of the CS or engineering majors I've ever met. And more fun a parties. (Yes, I overstate a bit, in college most of my friends were either in astronomy (useless!), engineering, or math.)
You also realize that a huge amount of very valuable (in the original sense) pure scientific degrees are about as useless as "drama", right? Barring straight forward things like engineering, CS, and medicine, most people never get employed doing what they went to school for. BUT... they still acquired skills that are useful for whatever they end up doing, even if they aren't directly applicable.
The real shame is teachers... They get shackled in as much debt as the engineers, but never have even a fraction the earning potential, despite filling a much more important role in society.
I never expected to get rich of my education or degrees (philosophy and psychology), but I don't really even care if I ever get rich (I'll settle for comfortable and stable, thanks). But I also figure I can pay off my loans regardless if my money comes from the stunning growth field that is philosophy of science, or from something else. I don't care if I ever get a job as a mythical "applied philosopher", that was never the point. I don't care that if I only picked something more marketable, I could be making high six figures someday. I don't see why I should care. I don't even owe that much money, since I manged to grab as many credits as I could at community college (and get all the degree shopping out of the way), managed to fund most of my education with grants, and then never abused the loan system once I hit university. I have friends who took out twice as much as needed so they could go to Cochella, and fly to England every year, and who used the cash to only eat organic foods, drink "hippy flavored" beverages, and go out every night. These people I don't actually sympathize with. Sure, a worrying amount of my loans went to beer, but not enough to leave me crippled with debt.
Sure, its bad for sites and webmasters... But its good for me, so I don't care. As a normal person, how is this bad for me? Where is my downside? I don't give a rat's ass if someone gets one less bit of information off of me.
So, Google is helping their bottom line, and their helping me with privacy. Sounds like the definition of "win-win" to me.
Also, you realize you could already use Google as an encrypted service, right? This just makes it the default. Should we ban the use of secure connections now, since it impedes snooping?
If it wasn't for Apple's iPad and iPhone, Samsung's tablets and phones would look like this [askdavetaylor.com] and this [mobilegazette.com].
Either that or... form follows function. Capacitive screens and more robust OSs have killed the need for buttons. This limits the design space available. A modern tablet (with or without Apple) would eventually have turned into a nothing but a face and a screen. All of those buttons on your cherry-picked photos are completely superfluous thanks to better technology (which Apple didn't invent). The only choice is the size of the screen, the color of the flat space around it, and whether to round your corners or not. Black is a normal color for these things, as well. Go to your local electronics store and see what the popular color for all gadgets currently is... You'll be shocked to learn that its black. Further... icons in a grid... really? I've have icons in a grid long before anyone even thought of smart phones. I've have hand-held devices (back when they were called PDAs) with icons in a grid. Actually a grid is the most sensible way of arranging small squares... Go figure.
I don't have a horse in this race. Both Apple and Samsung are behaving badly. But at least Samsung actually is using patents that DO something, which isn't nearly as dangerous as the shit Apple is pulling.
This is true, since there existed flat objects with rounded corners, and a centered touch sensitive screen before the iPad, or iPhone.
Unless the argument is that Samsung should have been forced to stick superfluous buttons on their modern devices, since obviously Apple is special.
And once having escaped from our control, they will inevitably compete with other AIs, and the ones that survive will determine the traits of their own successors.
I'm not too sure of this. It is a possibility, but why would there even be a motive to compete? If it didn't have the urge to constantly reproduce (introducing finite resource pressures), it would be pretty content, as far as I can tell. I don't see why the urge to reproduce would even exist in an AI. What would bar multiple AIs from simply merging, or forming some form of communism, or whatever?
Evolution is not a purely human or organic phenomenon: it is something that is universal to all communities of self-replicating entities.
Perhaps. But we only have any experience with a single model of evolution. Perhaps there are other viable strategies out there, but their adoption are determined by very early circumstances, and in our case we (terrestrial life) was pushed down the familiar route. I have no clue if there is any truth in that statement, but its a fun one to think about. Further, why would an AI need to reproduce if it could simply expend less energy, and risk less competition, buy simply improving itself? This is an avenue not, yet, open us, and probably not a route we would ever take, if available, thanks to our evolutionary baggage. But a machine might be able to do this, and free from history, find it more positive than acting like an over-grown virus.
More likely, once machine intelligence evolves beyond human intelligence - and then accelerates - we (humans) will be seen as irrelevant and pesky, at best.
I was thinking about this the other night, well actually I was thinking about the killer robot/skynet idea, but the thought is still applicable. Why do we always apply human psychology (but more-so) to theoretical thinking machines? If a human, with all our evolutionary primate baggage was accelerated greatly, yes, we'd probably turn into Skynet, but if a computer, without all the territorialism, need for strict social hierarchy, and all the psychosexual baggage was accelerated, why would it suddenly develop all this baggage?
Same thing with the theoretical AI machines having the need to reproduce like viruses and take over the world... This makes sense when one arrises from evolutionary pressures, but said machines would have been birthed from outside these pressures.
If we ever had true, completely autonomous, AI; it would likely be as incomprehensible to us as a space alien.
They aren't compatible with the Kindle because Amazon decided not to make them compatible. That is no one's fault but Amazons, and hardly reflects at all on the format itself. And... Don't you need special software to use ANY file, regardless of format?
My solution is to simply strip the DRM from every file as I get it. That way I can actually loan a "book" to my girlfriend, without having to give her my Nook for a week.
I doubt this is a trend though, looking at the sales numbers for ebooks, and eink readers and tablets. I doubt they will EVER be DRM free, as well. Apple managed to get a good position early, and used that as leverage to kill the DRM. Amazon is managing to get a good position now, and make their own flavor of DRM, and makes some deal with publishers that completely screwed customers, universally.
I'm beginning to feel as dirty shopping at Amazon as I did when I shopped at Walmart. Sure, its all nice and good for the customer right now, but is it really good for anyone in the slightly longer term? .
On one hand I agree, on the other I don't. If everyone went to school for something practical they would have less to complain about, even if the glut of engineers and programmers would lower the over-all wages and importance of everyone currently in the fields. But on the other hand our society would become a big, boring, mess completely lacking in content or context. We, as a society, need history, philosophy, and art majors as much as we need engineers. There should be more to education than being a mere high-level trade school. Further, many applied fields would also have to be included, much of math and physics are pretty much useless (from a purely economic point of view). Yes, expecting to get rich from art school is also pretty stupid, but there is nothing wrong with following your passions instead of the almighty dollar. I have more respect for your average English major than someone doing a business program, since it is doubtful the person doing the latter has any actual interest in being a better person.
Yes, I'm biased, as one half of my education is pretty much universally considered "useless" (and I don't care). I never expect to get rich from it, I never expect to be able to formally apply it (sans being a professor), I never expected to exploit my education so I can buy another house/car/arbitrary symbol of monetary success. I really don't even care if I can, since that wasn't the point. I could have gone to school for something "valuable", but chose not to, since I don't care if I'm ever rich. Hell, everyone tried to nudge me down engineering or CS, since they match my real life interests and hobbies. I could never bring myself to do it though, since I don't want to turn my hobbies into a soul-less, joyless, life of drudgery (unless I'm extraordinarily lucky). I also don't complain that people won't hire me based on my academic program, though.
The other half my my education is useful if one takes it down the practical path, sadly I focused on the purely academic, research path instead.
I was going to bring up Spiral Knights. So far its my favorite "freemium" game. I disagree about needing real money to advance though, somewhat. When I started playing (when it hit Steam) I coughed up $5.00 for the in game currency, and since then I haven't had to pay a dime, thanks to playing the ever inflating markets, and being wise in my upgrades and grinding. Its odd, though, that it almost encourages you to not play too much. To keep up with upgrades and such, it makes the most sense to only utilize your daily free energy, and not dip into you actionable/buy-able reserves, as such I only log in for about an hour a day.
Though I've pretty much stopped playing since it is, at core, a very shallow game once you get beyond the economic mini-game.
LOL has a serious problem though... You are not allowed to learn how to play. I logged on, played five games, then deleted it thanks to being called all manner of stupid names, and being verbally assaulted for not memorizing all the silly terms ("leash blue!", wtf?) before hand. It seemed fun, but the community verges too much on "hardcore" (read: 13 year old boys) for my tastes. I miss silly online shooters, like UT2k3. TF2 is close, but I got sick of Valve updating the whole 30Gb package every three days just to include a stupid hat.
. Why would you say that "it ignores" this, when it so clearly states it as true?
It was more the insinuation that people who don't prefer your own way of learning are somehow deficient. This sets up a weird dichotomy where there are more than one learning style, but really only one; for smart people like you. It also moves the sole metric for learning style preference down to "ability to read", which I find a bit erroneous.
For example, I majored in philosophy. My course of study involved a huge amount of reading, mostly of highly difficult, highly technical, and hugely opaque texts. This was fine, and for the most part I had no difficulty interpreting the texts without the help of a professor. But the lectures were also very important, since they formed a way of translating the pure theory into more practical things. They also were very Socratic in methodology, with the professor merely refereeing the debate. In my other major (psychology), your point stands a bit more, since the lectures were often a bit superfluous to the reading, and the content didn't work as well with the format, as it did philosophy.
This also ignores the fact that we need different cues to help encode bulk, book, knowledge into long-term memory. If not for the lecture and discussion component of the philosophy courses, I'd probably remember much less than I do now, years down the road. The more modes of experience a course touches upon the higher the odds of long term retention. This is completely independent of individual reading levels, or deficiencies. Reading alone is deficient for much of the population, regardless of their own ability to read (or skim).
One of the things I did love about lectures, and would miss if it was absent, was the conversational style. I could ask questions, demand clarification, as the need arrived. Further, I often managed to learn about things outside the scope of the course by asking questions, and listening to answers of other's questions. One of my psych classes managed to turn into two classes thanks to an interjection. We went from purely learning about the various systems of visual perception and their interactions, to an exploration on the possible innate physical properties leading to a sense of aesthetics. A live lecture allows for more digression and exploration.
Imagine your self in a high level science class, one that generally has a strong lab component. Now imagine completely excise all the lecture and lab elements, and basing your education wholly on the text. Will you have as deep an experience with the material as someone who also has access to the lecture and lab components? Each of them access a different area of the brain, and each of them encode information differently.
A good educational system would acknowledge the differences in learning styles, and not hold a student back by forcing them all to use an approach that's suboptimal for many of the students.
I fully agree with you here. To be honest I felt your point in every single math, technical, or low level science class (or any other low level class, for that matter) I've ever been in. In one of my early math course (100 level), I remember have an overbearing wish for the teacher to just hand me all of the future homework, and a copy of the final exam, and let me finish it in a week or two, sparing me the frustrating diversions brought about by students who have a VERY deficient previous education (You don't even know basic algebra... In college?). But in most other situations lectured worked fine, and I assure you I read at a high level, and have no issue with "skimming".
also eventually ran across a clever explanation: The classroom lecture is the best method developed so far to teach students who can't read.
This may or not be true, but it ignores the fact that people learn in different ways, and different forms of teaching benefit different subjects and different skills classes differently. I loved a well structured lecture, as long as it didn't focus on the slowest students, and was allowed to lapse into Socratic methodology or discussion from time to time. I could never stand group learning, but I'm sure it benefits others (who aren't inferior to me). As such, I HATE online classes, since they inevitably turn into pointless group work, and idiotic pro forma discussions. But then again I know people who excel at them.
But then again I went to school for a subject that thrived on discussion, and dialogue.
Slashdot Mirror
if it ain't broke don't fix it! I see no BSOD's here I see no need to reboot everyday Everybody hates success........
Actually I haven't had a BSOD in over 5 years (oddly since Vista came out) now (my girlfriend's PC did, but that was thanks to a dying video card). I haven't rebooted in over 3 weeks, on any of my boxes (OpenSuse, Mint Debian, OS X, and 3x Windows 7), with one of the Windows boxes having the most uptime, period. Right now my main Win7 box is the most stable PC in our house, with pretty much no reported errors or crashes in a two year period. My OpenSuse laptop is a bigger mess than any Windows box I've worked on for a very long time, but that's mostly because Tumbleweed is terrible (Hey Mint, can I have my rolling KDE release yet?).
Every modern OS is almost completely equivalent these days, the only real differences are aesthetics and moronic tribal affiliations.
The filesystem transparently compresses files in small clusters, and it suffers from fragmentation problems, like you also mention.
Which is better than not having the option at all. I generally only use NTFS compression on directories of old, but essencial, files, that aren't frequently accessed. I have a rather large amount of RAW files that I've already processed, for instance, I don't need to access any given file frequently, and I almost never modify them, but I can't just store them away either since I often need to access at least on of them. I also have a couple directories full of old documentation and research, again I might only need to access one file of hundreds in a given month. This is nice since the drive I used for old files (old, slow, and salvaged) is getting to the point where I'm getting paranoid about space, but not at the point where I really feel like going through the hassle of swapping/buying drives.
My old laptop, when it ran Windows, also had copious compression on pretty much every system folder that was accessed or modified (which is strangely common in Windows) less than monthly.
It is flawed, but I still think it is a valid feature in some cases. Which isn't to say that I really miss it too much on my Linux machines, but then again they are generally leaner, and I also generally don't use them for the same things I use my Windows box for.
. I've never craved a joint.
I used to be a rather heavy pot smoker, I pretty much got bored with it so I quit over ten years ago. I still might smoke a a small hit at social occasions once a year or so (at almost of two years now of accidental "sobriety"). I DO crave joints, from time to time though. I crave them the same way I crave my weekly double of good bourbon. Some times it would be nice to sit on the patio, smoke a joint and relax.
Then again I'd say this craving has very little to do with addiction.
I'm pretty much completely drug free (sans moderate alcohol use, and rather heavy caffeine use), but I find the anti-marijuana stuff perplexing. Who cares? On the totem pole of harmful drugs (addictive or no), marijuana comes somewhere far below perfectly legal alcohol and cigarettes. As a person who grew up in a family rife with alcoholism, from a region known for it (Wisconsin), I'd take a pot head over an alcoholic any day.
hat sucks is that its potential will never be fully realized (at least by any third party). All development is done for either a PS3 or 360 and then ported.
I doubt it will be anything like the Wii, since its going to be more powerful than anything in the current Gen. From everything I've read; a lot of developers are getting frustrated with the aging current gens hardware bottlenecks, and might leap at the fact that they get to develop for some actual modern hardware. The current gen consoles are outdated by eons now, in computer years. My girlfriends 3 year old Dell (with a hand me down video card) is around twice as powerful as anything in the current gen. My middle of the road gaming rig can blow just about any of the current batch of consoles out of the water.
As for the "kids and grandpa"/"wagglewear" (very nice!), this might still be a problem. I wish people would realize that you can cater to casual gamer, and serious (or whatever they're called) gamers on the same hardware. You CAN have Cooking Mama and Fallout on the same console, without hurting either. I'm still pissed that the Wii never got Soul Caliber, personally. Yes, I'm generally a casual gamer type when I'm sitting around in the living room with my girlfriend, but we still used to love fighting games, but all we have is Smash Brothers, which is fun, but has long since become boring and simplistic. I managed to keep playing the Dreamcast version of Soul Caliber for YEARS, but somehow Smash Bros just... Its good (the GC version was better), but it lacks something that a real fighter has.
it'd take an hour to download a 50GB game, which is a pretty damn long time
Which is why they should use some form of streaming download system. Quickly download the engine and early content, then download all the other content while the user plays, with priority on early zones. By the time the player reaches the end of zone one, zones two and three will be done, etc... Obviously this wouldn't work on open or sandbox games like the Fallout and Elder Scrolls series, but for most console titles it would work fine. If I'm not mistaken WoW is doing something like this now.
This, sadly, ignores the fact that many ISPs have inane caps now.
Also, why the hell would the big three bother with 4k? What the hell is wrong with 1080, and are we, consumers, supposed to go out and buy another multi-thousand dollar whiz-bang TV now, after we already just finished updating our tube-based sets barely? I can see 3D, since a couple people actually bought into that bandwagon, but not 4k. Hell, as you pointed out, that would be one hell of a large download (media-less), and some games have already saturated BluRay with just 1080. What are they going to do, ship games on a 1TB HDD (I'd say SSD but then we'd be jacking up prices to some insane levels). I suppose, then, at least, the days of the cartridge would be back upon us... Which would be amusing.
Actually the reply was more about mocking fanboys. Which, you must admit, a worthy topic.
I see your point... but...
Normal human beings commonly experience nostalgia for things that have brought them positive feelings.
This is true. But feeling nostalgia over something only ten years old, that is still produced, is equally odd. Can you really be nostalgic for something less than a generation old? I suppose you can, but its still... I mean people are nostalgic, generally, for things that were around when they were kids. But most people who were kids when it came out (who had really generous parents), are now young adults at best. Can you really have nostalgia when your in your early 20s?
Also, I do like my iPod, and will freely admit that its the best music player I've ever encountered (hence being on #3), at least for my needs; bits of it were genuinely innovative. But it really was just an iteration of a pre-existing theme. I can see being a bit misty for the birth of MP3 players. But the iPod is just another one of those, regardless of its nice bits.
I don't mean to sound overly hostile. People getting all teary over their little white devices doesn't affect me. I'm just a bit confused by the phenomena. Should I be attaching as much meaning to my blender, toaster, or whatnot? Whats the difference between an iPod and a blender, really? Why is one worth all the brouhaha and warm feelings, while the other is more useful but completely not a bit of veneration?
You guys absolutely can't stand that this company has so much influence on the tech industry. Too bad.
Either that or we really just don't care. Woohoo, a silly gadget turns 10! Who cares?
I'm sick of the "you hate Apple, since you don't worship Apple" shit, though. I have exactly as much loyalty towards Apple as Apple has towards me. Actually, I have exactly as much loyalty towards Apple as I do any company. None. I don't care. If Apple makes a product that meets my needs more than anything else with a comparable price, then I'll buy their product. If, when it breaks, there is something better made by another manufacturer, then I'll buy it instead. Apple has made some decent products, I have owned some of them and enjoyed them. They have made some crappy decisions too, and that is why I don't own anything more than an iPod anymore (down from having 2 MacBooks, and a MacMini). When my iPod breaks, I will probably replace it with another (unless they kill the Classic). If my PC or laptop dies, I'm not buying an Apple still. If my Android Phone dies, or I can get a replacement, I'm getting another Android, and not an iPhone. This has nothing to do with me hating Apple, or loving Google, it has to do with what meets my personal, individual, needs.
If you really love a company, or have any loyalty to them (outside of them having the best product for your own work or life style), then you truly are pathetic. Apple is not better than Google, who is no better than Microsoft, who is not better than any other company out there. Sure, some of them might be a bit more ethical, sure, some have better packaging or quality control... But your basing something of your identity on products... This is something I can't understand. Apple fans (or Google fans) are no better than this chick I once knew who had a Nike tattoo. That isn't a compliment.
Attacking people for attacking a product is equally moronic. Why does one have the need to defend Apple, or Google? Do they need your help? Are you worried that some mean kids are going to beat them up after school? They are giant corporations, they don't CARE about you, and they don't CARE if your defend them. Why bother? If someone hates your iPod, GOOD FOR THEM! How does that affect you in any way?
Back to the beginning, I find it hard to give two shits about the anniversary of an idiotic consumer product. ANY idiotic consumer product, buy any company. I don't really care if it was an influential product or not, or an innovative product or not... IT IS AN IDIOTIC CONSUMER PRODUCT. What is there to celebrate, or retrospect? Its a gadget like any other. Big deal. Don't you have bigger things to care about?
I felt the same way, mostly. I probably would still buy it ($60 = no big deal), but I was highly skeptical of it being anywhere near as good as Diablo 2 (among the top ten games ever). It was a lower priority than Torchlight 2 or Grim Dawn.
But watching some beta videos, I'm impressed. It still probably won't beat DII, but it still looks damn fun. I don't care about the cash auctions (and if you can still use in game currency, I will enjoy it, I spent more time in the AH in WoW than doing content), I can ignore them if they suck. Being online all the time is annoying... But I am online all the time anyways, and this already is dreadfully common. I can live with it, even if I find it a bit obnoxious. Blizz with get my money, and I'll like it. If I don't like it, it can sit next to Dungeon Siege III (the last $60 I blew on absolute, irredeemable, crap), and I can use it for target practice.
I don't understand the hate, personally.
As for, and on topic, the WOW changes... I thought it was April Fool's. The Pandaran were a great gag, but... it's a really stupid idea in practice. As is Pokemon pets, and completely removing skill trees (which oddly I was using as a punchline for the dumbing down of WoW three days ago... I'm prescient, it seems) I'm glad I ditched WoW before Cataclysm, there hasn't been a single change that impressed me. The next expansion is just going to have a single button, you press it, things instantly die.
I just hope that Blizz only jumped the shark for WoW, and not their whole line-up.
This is true. But being a good way for state governments to make some money is a far cry from being "built to detect smugglers".
What the other person who replied to you said is true too, a lot of those fines are deserved. I'm not a truck driver, but my dad was one for 40 years, and he's been stuck with some terrible trucks, and had to deal with terrible in-house maintenance over the years, even from very large carriers.
...which was why the weigh station system was built.
This is not true. States have weight limits. Mostly based on the amount of tonnage allowable per axle. They have these for safety, and road maintenance. Smuggling has nothing to do with it, as a weigh station would be useless for finding it, unless your smuggling tons of material. How would a weigh station even detect smuggling? A lot of times trucks aren't weighed upon leaving the terminal, unless it is to measure compliance with local laws about load weight. And truck weight is highly variable too. So if a truck left the depot weighing X (there is no requirement as far as I know to report this to the state, if this measurement is even taken), and ends up at a station weighing X+1, that weight could even fuel, oil, the trucker purchasing souvenirs, a hitchhiker, a passenger, mud stuck to the chassis, etc...
I'm sick of this line of reasoning... How the hell did college magically become synonymous with "trade school"? You do realize that our society needs drama and literature people as badly as we need profitable trades, right? The liberal arts and humanities are just as valuable as engineering. Well, if you go with the original definition of the term "valuable", and not the idiotic modern American one ("only pertaining to wealth, or its potential"), at least.
College isn't just about the future betterment of your wallet, or your corporate overlords; it is also about bettering yourself (as an individual), and bettering your society. Or at least it used to be. I'd hate to live in a world stripped of the drama, arts, literature, and philosophy majors, who would give our lives content and context? Personally I find these people more valuable than 90% of the CS or engineering majors I've ever met. And more fun a parties. (Yes, I overstate a bit, in college most of my friends were either in astronomy (useless!), engineering, or math.)
You also realize that a huge amount of very valuable (in the original sense) pure scientific degrees are about as useless as "drama", right? Barring straight forward things like engineering, CS, and medicine, most people never get employed doing what they went to school for. BUT... they still acquired skills that are useful for whatever they end up doing, even if they aren't directly applicable.
The real shame is teachers... They get shackled in as much debt as the engineers, but never have even a fraction the earning potential, despite filling a much more important role in society.
I never expected to get rich of my education or degrees (philosophy and psychology), but I don't really even care if I ever get rich (I'll settle for comfortable and stable, thanks). But I also figure I can pay off my loans regardless if my money comes from the stunning growth field that is philosophy of science, or from something else. I don't care if I ever get a job as a mythical "applied philosopher", that was never the point. I don't care that if I only picked something more marketable, I could be making high six figures someday. I don't see why I should care. I don't even owe that much money, since I manged to grab as many credits as I could at community college (and get all the degree shopping out of the way), managed to fund most of my education with grants, and then never abused the loan system once I hit university. I have friends who took out twice as much as needed so they could go to Cochella, and fly to England every year, and who used the cash to only eat organic foods, drink "hippy flavored" beverages, and go out every night. These people I don't actually sympathize with. Sure, a worrying amount of my loans went to beer, but not enough to leave me crippled with debt.
Is it? Almost everyone I know searches while logged in, at least on PCs.
Sure, its bad for sites and webmasters... But its good for me, so I don't care. As a normal person, how is this bad for me? Where is my downside? I don't give a rat's ass if someone gets one less bit of information off of me.
So, Google is helping their bottom line, and their helping me with privacy. Sounds like the definition of "win-win" to me.
Also, you realize you could already use Google as an encrypted service, right? This just makes it the default. Should we ban the use of secure connections now, since it impedes snooping?
If it wasn't for Apple's iPad and iPhone, Samsung's tablets and phones would look like this [askdavetaylor.com] and this [mobilegazette.com].
Either that or... form follows function. Capacitive screens and more robust OSs have killed the need for buttons. This limits the design space available. A modern tablet (with or without Apple) would eventually have turned into a nothing but a face and a screen. All of those buttons on your cherry-picked photos are completely superfluous thanks to better technology (which Apple didn't invent). The only choice is the size of the screen, the color of the flat space around it, and whether to round your corners or not. Black is a normal color for these things, as well. Go to your local electronics store and see what the popular color for all gadgets currently is... You'll be shocked to learn that its black. Further... icons in a grid... really? I've have icons in a grid long before anyone even thought of smart phones. I've have hand-held devices (back when they were called PDAs) with icons in a grid. Actually a grid is the most sensible way of arranging small squares... Go figure.
I don't have a horse in this race. Both Apple and Samsung are behaving badly. But at least Samsung actually is using patents that DO something, which isn't nearly as dangerous as the shit Apple is pulling.
This is true, since there existed flat objects with rounded corners, and a centered touch sensitive screen before the iPad, or iPhone.
Unless the argument is that Samsung should have been forced to stick superfluous buttons on their modern devices, since obviously Apple is special.
Further, icons in a grid
And once having escaped from our control, they will inevitably compete with other AIs, and the ones that survive will determine the traits of their own successors.
I'm not too sure of this. It is a possibility, but why would there even be a motive to compete? If it didn't have the urge to constantly reproduce (introducing finite resource pressures), it would be pretty content, as far as I can tell. I don't see why the urge to reproduce would even exist in an AI. What would bar multiple AIs from simply merging, or forming some form of communism, or whatever?
Evolution is not a purely human or organic phenomenon: it is something that is universal to all communities of self-replicating entities.
Perhaps. But we only have any experience with a single model of evolution. Perhaps there are other viable strategies out there, but their adoption are determined by very early circumstances, and in our case we (terrestrial life) was pushed down the familiar route. I have no clue if there is any truth in that statement, but its a fun one to think about. Further, why would an AI need to reproduce if it could simply expend less energy, and risk less competition, buy simply improving itself? This is an avenue not, yet, open us, and probably not a route we would ever take, if available, thanks to our evolutionary baggage. But a machine might be able to do this, and free from history, find it more positive than acting like an over-grown virus.
. Most industry leaders believe that we are on the threshold of creating machines that actually think.
And we've been on this threshold for the last 40 years.
More likely, once machine intelligence evolves beyond human intelligence - and then accelerates - we (humans) will be seen as irrelevant and pesky, at best.
I was thinking about this the other night, well actually I was thinking about the killer robot/skynet idea, but the thought is still applicable. Why do we always apply human psychology (but more-so) to theoretical thinking machines? If a human, with all our evolutionary primate baggage was accelerated greatly, yes, we'd probably turn into Skynet, but if a computer, without all the territorialism, need for strict social hierarchy, and all the psychosexual baggage was accelerated, why would it suddenly develop all this baggage?
Same thing with the theoretical AI machines having the need to reproduce like viruses and take over the world... This makes sense when one arrises from evolutionary pressures, but said machines would have been birthed from outside these pressures.
If we ever had true, completely autonomous, AI; it would likely be as incomprehensible to us as a space alien.
Other than major releases they usually don't break extensions.
Aren't they all major releases now?
They aren't compatible with the Kindle because Amazon decided not to make them compatible. That is no one's fault but Amazons, and hardly reflects at all on the format itself. And... Don't you need special software to use ANY file, regardless of format?
My solution is to simply strip the DRM from every file as I get it. That way I can actually loan a "book" to my girlfriend, without having to give her my Nook for a week.
I doubt this is a trend though, looking at the sales numbers for ebooks, and eink readers and tablets. I doubt they will EVER be DRM free, as well. Apple managed to get a good position early, and used that as leverage to kill the DRM. Amazon is managing to get a good position now, and make their own flavor of DRM, and makes some deal with publishers that completely screwed customers, universally.
I'm beginning to feel as dirty shopping at Amazon as I did when I shopped at Walmart. Sure, its all nice and good for the customer right now, but is it really good for anyone in the slightly longer term?
.
On one hand I agree, on the other I don't. If everyone went to school for something practical they would have less to complain about, even if the glut of engineers and programmers would lower the over-all wages and importance of everyone currently in the fields. But on the other hand our society would become a big, boring, mess completely lacking in content or context. We, as a society, need history, philosophy, and art majors as much as we need engineers. There should be more to education than being a mere high-level trade school. Further, many applied fields would also have to be included, much of math and physics are pretty much useless (from a purely economic point of view). Yes, expecting to get rich from art school is also pretty stupid, but there is nothing wrong with following your passions instead of the almighty dollar. I have more respect for your average English major than someone doing a business program, since it is doubtful the person doing the latter has any actual interest in being a better person.
Yes, I'm biased, as one half of my education is pretty much universally considered "useless" (and I don't care). I never expect to get rich from it, I never expect to be able to formally apply it (sans being a professor), I never expected to exploit my education so I can buy another house/car/arbitrary symbol of monetary success. I really don't even care if I can, since that wasn't the point. I could have gone to school for something "valuable", but chose not to, since I don't care if I'm ever rich. Hell, everyone tried to nudge me down engineering or CS, since they match my real life interests and hobbies. I could never bring myself to do it though, since I don't want to turn my hobbies into a soul-less, joyless, life of drudgery (unless I'm extraordinarily lucky). I also don't complain that people won't hire me based on my academic program, though.
The other half my my education is useful if one takes it down the practical path, sadly I focused on the purely academic, research path instead.
I was going to bring up Spiral Knights. So far its my favorite "freemium" game. I disagree about needing real money to advance though, somewhat. When I started playing (when it hit Steam) I coughed up $5.00 for the in game currency, and since then I haven't had to pay a dime, thanks to playing the ever inflating markets, and being wise in my upgrades and grinding. Its odd, though, that it almost encourages you to not play too much. To keep up with upgrades and such, it makes the most sense to only utilize your daily free energy, and not dip into you actionable/buy-able reserves, as such I only log in for about an hour a day.
Though I've pretty much stopped playing since it is, at core, a very shallow game once you get beyond the economic mini-game.
LOL has a serious problem though... You are not allowed to learn how to play. I logged on, played five games, then deleted it thanks to being called all manner of stupid names, and being verbally assaulted for not memorizing all the silly terms ("leash blue!", wtf?) before hand. It seemed fun, but the community verges too much on "hardcore" (read: 13 year old boys) for my tastes. I miss silly online shooters, like UT2k3. TF2 is close, but I got sick of Valve updating the whole 30Gb package every three days just to include a stupid hat.
. Why would you say that "it ignores" this, when it so clearly states it as true?
It was more the insinuation that people who don't prefer your own way of learning are somehow deficient. This sets up a weird dichotomy where there are more than one learning style, but really only one; for smart people like you. It also moves the sole metric for learning style preference down to "ability to read", which I find a bit erroneous.
For example, I majored in philosophy. My course of study involved a huge amount of reading, mostly of highly difficult, highly technical, and hugely opaque texts. This was fine, and for the most part I had no difficulty interpreting the texts without the help of a professor. But the lectures were also very important, since they formed a way of translating the pure theory into more practical things. They also were very Socratic in methodology, with the professor merely refereeing the debate. In my other major (psychology), your point stands a bit more, since the lectures were often a bit superfluous to the reading, and the content didn't work as well with the format, as it did philosophy.
This also ignores the fact that we need different cues to help encode bulk, book, knowledge into long-term memory. If not for the lecture and discussion component of the philosophy courses, I'd probably remember much less than I do now, years down the road. The more modes of experience a course touches upon the higher the odds of long term retention. This is completely independent of individual reading levels, or deficiencies. Reading alone is deficient for much of the population, regardless of their own ability to read (or skim).
One of the things I did love about lectures, and would miss if it was absent, was the conversational style. I could ask questions, demand clarification, as the need arrived. Further, I often managed to learn about things outside the scope of the course by asking questions, and listening to answers of other's questions. One of my psych classes managed to turn into two classes thanks to an interjection. We went from purely learning about the various systems of visual perception and their interactions, to an exploration on the possible innate physical properties leading to a sense of aesthetics. A live lecture allows for more digression and exploration.
Imagine your self in a high level science class, one that generally has a strong lab component. Now imagine completely excise all the lecture and lab elements, and basing your education wholly on the text. Will you have as deep an experience with the material as someone who also has access to the lecture and lab components? Each of them access a different area of the brain, and each of them encode information differently.
A good educational system would acknowledge the differences in learning styles, and not hold a student back by forcing them all to use an approach that's suboptimal for many of the students.
I fully agree with you here. To be honest I felt your point in every single math, technical, or low level science class (or any other low level class, for that matter) I've ever been in. In one of my early math course (100 level), I remember have an overbearing wish for the teacher to just hand me all of the future homework, and a copy of the final exam, and let me finish it in a week or two, sparing me the frustrating diversions brought about by students who have a VERY deficient previous education (You don't even know basic algebra... In college?). But in most other situations lectured worked fine, and I assure you I read at a high level, and have no issue with "skimming".
also eventually ran across a clever explanation: The classroom lecture is the best method developed so far to teach students who can't read.
This may or not be true, but it ignores the fact that people learn in different ways, and different forms of teaching benefit different subjects and different skills classes differently. I loved a well structured lecture, as long as it didn't focus on the slowest students, and was allowed to lapse into Socratic methodology or discussion from time to time. I could never stand group learning, but I'm sure it benefits others (who aren't inferior to me). As such, I HATE online classes, since they inevitably turn into pointless group work, and idiotic pro forma discussions. But then again I know people who excel at them.
But then again I went to school for a subject that thrived on discussion, and dialogue.