Quick hint... if you're going to troll try to be funny, insightful, or intelligent. If you're not even going to hit the mark on ONE of those three points, don't bother.
I dunno about the rest of you, but I'm pretty excited about this. I know there are smaller motherboards out there, but this one actually seems like it could make a useable computer. I'm working on installing a number of computers in my car, but what I really need is a small, portable computer that can support dual monitors. Oh, well - things are at least getting closer.
Can't agree more. Two capital ships dueling with weapons that could level an entire planet is infinitely more cool than a bunch of little starfighters (that are never, ever going to exist in real life) somehow blowing apart a ship hundreds of times larger by ramming into its bridge. The sight of a nuclear explosion tearing across the hull of some hulking battlecruiser would be like a dream. But, like you said, it's never gonna happen.
As a quick side note, special effects for a more realistic space battle would probably be a lot more spectacular than anything we're seeing here.
What makes the "blame" here fall on tech workers is the fact that the tech workers made the economy. Companies were not only staffed by techies, but run by them as well. There were a lot of factors that caused the bubble to burst, but yeah... the founders of the companies involved did play some role in it.
However, I wouldn't be so quick to blame their "geekiness" and "unproved business plans". For a while they were doing good. Things started going bad when everyone else jumped in. The trendy urban folk with their New Beetles and iMacs who jumped all over this new "fad".
Not to sound bitter or anything, but I still think that the two groups that will be responsible for the downfall of the internet are the suits and the people who thought bell-bottoms were making a come-back.
I've got to say, I've probably gotten more value out of my PS2 than any console I've ever owned. GTA3 and GT3 are probably two of the biggest, most playable and replayable console games ever released. Final Fantasy X is a great game, and this is coming from someone who though FF3 (US) was the greatest Final Fantasy ever. And, of course, Metal Gear Solid 2's depth is mind blowing, even if it is short. SSX: Tricky is quite nice as well.
I would imagine it's to cover the costs of development when selling to a much smaller audience (the majority of universities and businesses use windows or linux systems). Less will be sold, so more per unit has to be made.
How about that he exaggerated to influence a group of people who don't know better and lied about the amount of content that could be gleaned in this way?
(sorry about any grammar/spelling mistakes, car crash left my right wrist prettyu much useless... so typing is difficult)
Fox carries some interesting stories, but their conservative bias is getting stronger. The fact is, it really doesn't matter to which side of the political spectrum you subscribe - most intelligent people I know have a mix of beliefs from both sides. "Left" and "Right" have become almost meaningless. The left cries about censorship while democratic congressmen make laws permitting it and the right complains about big government while republican congressmen try to expand it. And there isn't any hope in the far left ("Bomb us! Kill everyone! We'll never fight back! War is bad! Here, have a flower.") or far right ("Arr! Where's my AK!? Those federal bastards be sniffing 'round my bunker again...").
And to keep things remotely on-topic... when it comes to computers or any newer technology it's time to realize the majority of our representatives just don't care. They're wooed by 'experts' who claim the SSSCA can do no harm. Even worse, some of these experts are from law enforcement agencies who have a vested interest in security technologies and heavy-handed legislation. When it comes to this stuff the government just seems to lack any interest in what will make it easy or fair on the average person and instead looks for what will make it easy for law enforcement agencies to back up complaints from companies.
Mod this up so us whiny bastards can put slashdot out of business.
Re:Now I wish Americans would watch alternative me
on
The Satellite Subversives
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So, we think the issue to ponder is: who's right, the hawks or the doves? Nobody in the US press could ever even float the following idea: "Maybe Iran has a right to defend its people with modern weapons, just like we do." Or how about "Since Iran is obviously making the transition to military modernization, we should see to it that they end up our allies."
Sorry if this sounds hostile, but how can you expect major news networks to carry viewpoints that are insane? Normally I would say here, "Maybe I'm just close-minded, but.." but not in this case, because I know I'm right. Before I go on I should probably say that I understand your point, but it's a flawed one and your example is especially flawed.
First of all, "right-wing" and "left-wing" does describe the opinion of the majority of the American populace. If that weren't the case the kind of media you want people to pay attention to wouldn't be considered alternative. My biggest problem with those who subscribe to viewpoints that don't fit with these larger groups is that they just assume that since the average American doesn't agree with them the average American must a) not understand them or b) be too stupid to understand them.
In the case of what National Iranian Television is doing there's a purpose to it. The government in Iran is preventing the broadcast of independent television and so they're serving a useful purpose. The majority of people in Iran can realize the state-sponsored stuff they're being fed isn't all that exists (and, more importantly, they don't agree with it) so they're willing to turn to other forms of entertainment and information. This is far from the case in the United States, where the majority of people do (and yes, I find it strange too) enjoy what's being broadcast to them. Those who don't turn to other outlets. It's that simple.
As for your example (which is what prompted me to respond, even though this posted ended up being much lengthier than I intended) it just proves the misguided, "if-it's-not-the-popular-opinion-it-must-be-the-in tellectual-one" attitude of "alternative" media in America. If the people in Iran turn to alternative media (which is, as was stated, outlawed) it means they're fed-up with the state sponsored media that they're given. From the little I know about Iran, I can say with confidence this isn't the only part of their culture which not only goes against U.S., but is undesirable for the people living there. Even worse, the attitude of the government could potentially threaten the country's immediate neighbors, allies of the US further away, and the US itself. It amazes me that people are foolish enough to even argue that something doesn't needed to be done.
And, once again, this is the problem with American alternative media. It often consists of stubborn people presenting views that are outspoken for a reason. Obviously there's nothing wrong with this, but it bothers me that these people consistently take on the "how can I possibly be wrong?" mentality.
So, real printers are supported. Terrible printers aren't.
This is why Linux is never, ever going to reach the level of popularity it deserves. As long as the Linux community and its developers continue to shrug and say, "Hey.. it's not the kind of [hardware goes here] that I like, so it deserves to not be supported" it's never going to get anywhere. How is Linux supposed to advance when the attitude is "Well, it was designed for Windows so we give up"? Newsflash: If you want to get anywhere with the Windows crowd you need to support their hardware, whether it's bad or not. If people wanted to go out and buy a whole new computer so they could use a different operating system they might as well buy an (egh) Mac.
It's hard for me to say anything on this topic. First of all, I love Abandonware. There are so many old programs that I've lost over the years and would kill to play again. Sites like The Underdogs have helped me get a hold of these games and yes, a few others that I never got a chance to play (probably because my hardware couldn't handle it back then). Until I bought my new laptop these were the only games I could really play on it happily and I probably would have bought them if they were available somewhere.
Then again, I'm a hypocrite. I do think that companies have the right to not want their software distributed (this is a big reason I only download from Underdogs - they're big enough that they can't keep up games that they're asked to take down and hope not to have their whole site shut down), but I don't really understand it. Even though a few other people and myself might buy these older games for nostalgia the vast majority of people won't. So not only are they not losing money, they're not even potentially losing money. Unless a company released every single "abandoned" game on a single CD the odds are they won't ever be able to make money from reviving these old, dead games. So what's holding them back? Spite?
Re:...and there was much rejoicing.
on
Photoshop for OS X
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Disclaimer: This isn't a troll or anything like that, it's just how I feel.
----
When is Apple going to give me a reason to switch? I'm being 100% honest when I say that I truly cannot understand what's so great about Macs. My job almost exclusively involves content creation, mostly in the form of graphics-for-the-web design and a bit of back-end programming. I use a windows machine for graphic work and a linux box for programming. The people I work with think I'm insane, yet my work comes out as good (if not better) as theres. I've yet to experience one reason that I should switch to a Mac, yet I'm constantly told that Macs are best for contention creation. What's the point?
Despite having bunches of computers at my house (and I'm proud to say not one is a Mac) there are only two I use regularly: One is a Linux "server" that I use to test things and my "desktop" boots between Win2k, WinXP, and Linux. I've never once seen an application on a Mac that I wanted that wasn't either ported from the PC (and therefor is available to me) or that was ported to the PC (and is also available to me). So what'st he point?
To make things worse I can't stand the thought of not being able to build my own computer. I'm spoiled - I like being able to choose my own processor and motherboard and then the case I want to put it in. And while this post is probably going to get modded down for being off-topic, it's simply a response to the above post. Again - what's the point?
I won't bother whining and bitching about the loss of the desktop, because I do realize it's going to be inevitable sooner or later (but I'll never get rid of my desktop computer! NEVER! NEEEEEEEEEVER! Ahem...), but as for Linux...
Maybe "Linux" won't reach a desktop audience as it exists right now, but I think Linux (or even something based on Unix) has a much better chance of dethroning M$ than a completely new operating system. In terms of development Linux has already surpassed Microsoft and that's with a smaller userbase and much smaller official development team. There just has to be a company out there, somewhere, that is willing to put the time and energy into developing something that can compete with Microsoft.
I stand by the argument that Linux hasn't failed to compete with Microsoft, it just hasn't started trying yet.
What Linux needs in general is a robust set of applications that consumers can use transparently with Microsoft products. If attractively priced, this could conceivably pull users to the OS, especially in light of Microsofts new licensing trends.
It's funny. A few weeks ago I might have said that Microsoft's new licensing is really only hurting big businesses, who normally follow the software license anyway. But lately I've been noticing that a lot of people I know (some of them even being computer illiterate types) are complaining because they can't install Windows XP on their computer and their kids computer as well. I know a lot of people are saying that the licensing scheme isn't a particularly big deal, but I stand by the argument that M$ is really alienating a lot of their customers...
It has to be said: who can prove aliens have the attention span to spend 3 billion years colonizing? There seem to be two assumptions that almost everyone makes that really bug me:
1) Assuming we don't blow ourselves apart (a less likely scenario than most think, I'd say) we'll eventually spend three billion years colonizing the universe. Think about it! If humanity is still in a technological state where we even want to bother colonizing the universe three billion years from now (or even a million years from now) it'd be unbelievably pathetic. Go ahead and think this is trollish, but at least consider what I'm saying first. Technology is increasing exponentially. There was a time when technological gains couldn't be perceived over three lifetimes. And yet, in the last one hundred years, we've seen completely revolutions in warfare, travel, communications, mathematics, physics - you name it, we've done it. My parents saw these changes and they completely altered the way life is lived. In my relatively short life time I've seen life totally altered by personal computers and the internet. I expect to see medical breakthroughs before long. Just one million years is roughly 10,000 lifetimes. How can you even hope to imagine what our goals will be 100 lifetimes from now, or even 10? I'm willing to bet even a mere 10,000 years from now things like "colonizing the stars" will seem completely alien to us.
2) That intelligent aliens are similiar enough to us that they have any reason to move to the stars. Maybe they're so physically tiny that it would take them millions of years just to fully explore their own world, and the rest of the universe is too large for them to ever consider. Or maybe they are like us. Who's to say that in our TINY amount of recorded history we'd just happen to be lucky enough to see them. If it really is impossible to move at the speed of light then how do you know they didn't eventually give up? What makes you think that they're going to spend 3 billion years colonizing? Maybe what we consider to be habitable is totally inhospitable to 99.99999% of the life in the universe, so our system holds absolutely no value to them. There are a million reasons why they wouldn't be here, why they'll never be here, and why we'll probably never be there.
(Heh, this turned out to be a pretty logical post. Too bad I posted too late for anyone to see it)
This probably won't matter to a lot of people, but I've been working to build computers (and LCD screens, of course) into my car for a while now. I was also vaguely planning to get a PS2 in there sooner or later. I could kill two birds with one stone this way. And, to be honest, $300 for another PS2 + $200 for the kit would cost about the same as the regular computer hardware and it would be more compact. Hmm...
4. Intelligent routing to prevent the gnutella users from sucking up all the bandwidth. You can do this without entirely blocking the ports, thus letting it happen but preserving the bulk of the bandwidth for other (presumably more legitimate) uses.
Before anyone bites my head off - I really don't do much file-sharing and I live off campus. These really are just my opinions. So here goes:
For those living on campus the school's network is the only way to get broadband access. I can't say for sure, but I'm guessing most schools don't allow students to have DSL or cable installed in their dorm rooms. On top of that, don't schools with network running to each room figure that into the cost of living there? It seems generally unfair to penalize students who live on campus by restricting their internet access in anyway. Even more unfair at schools that require students to live on campus freshman year.
I agree. Slapstick comedy, when it's alone, no matter how well executed... has no hidden intellectual quality. A guy falling down on his ass, no matter how funny it may be to some is still just a guy falling down on his ass. The difference is when the idiocy of the plot is used to convey some message that is worth talking about. When that message is "Most Kung Foo movies are really bad!" then there's nothing deeper. That should have been obvious from the trailers and from the press around the movie.
I'd say The Simpsons is a whole different monster, though. The Simpsons is satire wrapped in (mostly) funny, over the top comedy. It's not worth teaching a philosophy class over, but for people who can understand the messages behind the shows they are there.
First of all, PocketPCs aren't useful for any of the features you mentioned. Do you really want to type out a full word doc on a PocketPC? And if not, then why can't you use the memopad on a Palmpilot? Same goes for Excel. Another thing.. Palmpilot's can integrate seamlessly with outlook in the same way PocketPC's can (yes, right out of the box). The PalmOS also has a larger base of software and while the processor speed may seem slow it's blazingly fast for almost every application available for it.
Yes, even games on the PalmOS are significantly more advanced than on the PocketPC. And mp3 playback? Puh-lease. I'm really not that interested in storing two mp3s on my PocketPC and then being completely unable to put any programs on it.
So am I saying Palm is better than WinCE? No, not really. I have devices running both operating systems, but there are a lot of things about PocketPCs that bother me. The amount of programs available is small and generally limited to commercial apps. Most of those are pretty task-specific and will only be of use to certain people. The rest are very general purpose and are available for any platform on Earth (PDA or otherwise).
On the other hand, the WinCE interface is "prettier" and more "familiar". It's easy to understand how to use one for basic functions if you know how to use windows. What's that mean? Well, it means that the learning curve is about five minutes shorter than on a PalmOS based device. More advanced functions, like file management, still require learning, reading, and frustration.
As flame-like as this might seem... it's just my opinion. Handhelds running Linux are geeky and fun (argh! damn it all! I want one that I can install Linux on!), handhelds running PalmOS are practical and fun (like I said - mucho games, many good), and handhelds running WinCE are pretty. Organizational tasks are possible on any of them, but in the end I still think the PalmOS has 'em all beat for its practicality and usability.
I mean, sure, history says that games based on franchises aren't doing well. But sitting here bashing a games playability or fun factor without ever playing it is kinda a little over the top, right? Or is there some part of the logic I'm missing? (Let me know if there is!)
Until a game comes out all there is to do is speculate about how much fun it's going to be. And all you've got to speculate on is what you know about the game itself and other games like it. As long as the discussion's intelligent, what's the problem?
(yes, it is off-topic and so was my reply - sorry.. still gonna reply:) )
So they've officially declared war now? I mean real war, as an act of Govt (congress?), not some idealistic crap like 'war on terrorism'
When talking about what's going on in Afghanistan? Yes. The previous government of Afghanistan declared War on the U.S. It's not possible to have a one-sided war. So, with or without an act of congress, we are at war. Whether Congress declares War or through an executive order troops attack another country (or bomb or whatever) that other country is going to defend itself. Then it's a war. Simple.
Well, this game sure as hell has a lot going against it. First, it's based on a license. We all know how great licenses in gaming are. Then it's being put out by Simon and Schuster - a company with a particularly bad record when it comes to licensed games and games in general. And on top of that, it's being billed as an "action/adventure" - a genre which has very few gems. And the comparisons to Diablo frighten me.
Farscape is an alright show. It doesn't interest me too much, but regardless - I don't see this game as doing anything but tarnishing the franchise. Then again, I'm not too fond of firingsquad either... so here's to hoping their information is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Quick hint... if you're going to troll try to be funny, insightful, or intelligent. If you're not even going to hit the mark on ONE of those three points, don't bother.
I dunno about the rest of you, but I'm pretty excited about this. I know there are smaller motherboards out there, but this one actually seems like it could make a useable computer. I'm working on installing a number of computers in my car, but what I really need is a small, portable computer that can support dual monitors. Oh, well - things are at least getting closer.
Can't agree more. Two capital ships dueling with weapons that could level an entire planet is infinitely more cool than a bunch of little starfighters (that are never, ever going to exist in real life) somehow blowing apart a ship hundreds of times larger by ramming into its bridge. The sight of a nuclear explosion tearing across the hull of some hulking battlecruiser would be like a dream. But, like you said, it's never gonna happen.
As a quick side note, special effects for a more realistic space battle would probably be a lot more spectacular than anything we're seeing here.
What makes the "blame" here fall on tech workers is the fact that the tech workers made the economy. Companies were not only staffed by techies, but run by them as well. There were a lot of factors that caused the bubble to burst, but yeah... the founders of the companies involved did play some role in it.
However, I wouldn't be so quick to blame their "geekiness" and "unproved business plans". For a while they were doing good. Things started going bad when everyone else jumped in. The trendy urban folk with their New Beetles and iMacs who jumped all over this new "fad".
Not to sound bitter or anything, but I still think that the two groups that will be responsible for the downfall of the internet are the suits and the people who thought bell-bottoms were making a come-back.
I've got to say, I've probably gotten more value out of my PS2 than any console I've ever owned. GTA3 and GT3 are probably two of the biggest, most playable and replayable console games ever released. Final Fantasy X is a great game, and this is coming from someone who though FF3 (US) was the greatest Final Fantasy ever. And, of course, Metal Gear Solid 2's depth is mind blowing, even if it is short. SSX: Tricky is quite nice as well.
I would imagine it's to cover the costs of development when selling to a much smaller audience (the majority of universities and businesses use windows or linux systems). Less will be sold, so more per unit has to be made.
How about that he exaggerated to influence a group of people who don't know better and lied about the amount of content that could be gleaned in this way?
(sorry about any grammar/spelling mistakes, car crash left my right wrist prettyu much useless... so typing is difficult)
Fox carries some interesting stories, but their conservative bias is getting stronger. The fact is, it really doesn't matter to which side of the political spectrum you subscribe - most intelligent people I know have a mix of beliefs from both sides. "Left" and "Right" have become almost meaningless. The left cries about censorship while democratic congressmen make laws permitting it and the right complains about big government while republican congressmen try to expand it. And there isn't any hope in the far left ("Bomb us! Kill everyone! We'll never fight back! War is bad! Here, have a flower.") or far right ("Arr! Where's my AK!? Those federal bastards be sniffing 'round my bunker again...").
And to keep things remotely on-topic... when it comes to computers or any newer technology it's time to realize the majority of our representatives just don't care. They're wooed by 'experts' who claim the SSSCA can do no harm. Even worse, some of these experts are from law enforcement agencies who have a vested interest in security technologies and heavy-handed legislation. When it comes to this stuff the government just seems to lack any interest in what will make it easy or fair on the average person and instead looks for what will make it easy for law enforcement agencies to back up complaints from companies.
they do for Windows gurus
WTF is a windows guru?
Mod this up so us whiny bastards can put slashdot out of business.
So, we think the issue to ponder is: who's right, the hawks or the doves? Nobody in the US press could ever even float the following idea: "Maybe Iran has a right to defend its people with modern weapons, just like we do." Or how about "Since Iran is obviously making the transition to military modernization, we should see to it that they end up our allies."
n tellectual-one" attitude of "alternative" media in America. If the people in Iran turn to alternative media (which is, as was stated, outlawed) it means they're fed-up with the state sponsored media that they're given. From the little I know about Iran, I can say with confidence this isn't the only part of their culture which not only goes against U.S., but is undesirable for the people living there. Even worse, the attitude of the government could potentially threaten the country's immediate neighbors, allies of the US further away, and the US itself. It amazes me that people are foolish enough to even argue that something doesn't needed to be done.
Sorry if this sounds hostile, but how can you expect major news networks to carry viewpoints that are insane? Normally I would say here, "Maybe I'm just close-minded, but.." but not in this case, because I know I'm right. Before I go on I should probably say that I understand your point, but it's a flawed one and your example is especially flawed.
First of all, "right-wing" and "left-wing" does describe the opinion of the majority of the American populace. If that weren't the case the kind of media you want people to pay attention to wouldn't be considered alternative. My biggest problem with those who subscribe to viewpoints that don't fit with these larger groups is that they just assume that since the average American doesn't agree with them the average American must a) not understand them or b) be too stupid to understand them.
In the case of what National Iranian Television is doing there's a purpose to it. The government in Iran is preventing the broadcast of independent television and so they're serving a useful purpose. The majority of people in Iran can realize the state-sponsored stuff they're being fed isn't all that exists (and, more importantly, they don't agree with it) so they're willing to turn to other forms of entertainment and information. This is far from the case in the United States, where the majority of people do (and yes, I find it strange too) enjoy what's being broadcast to them. Those who don't turn to other outlets. It's that simple.
As for your example (which is what prompted me to respond, even though this posted ended up being much lengthier than I intended) it just proves the misguided, "if-it's-not-the-popular-opinion-it-must-be-the-i
And, once again, this is the problem with American alternative media. It often consists of stubborn people presenting views that are outspoken for a reason. Obviously there's nothing wrong with this, but it bothers me that these people consistently take on the "how can I possibly be wrong?" mentality.
Oh, well.
So, real printers are supported. Terrible printers aren't.
This is why Linux is never, ever going to reach the level of popularity it deserves. As long as the Linux community and its developers continue to shrug and say, "Hey.. it's not the kind of [hardware goes here] that I like, so it deserves to not be supported" it's never going to get anywhere. How is Linux supposed to advance when the attitude is "Well, it was designed for Windows so we give up"? Newsflash: If you want to get anywhere with the Windows crowd you need to support their hardware, whether it's bad or not. If people wanted to go out and buy a whole new computer so they could use a different operating system they might as well buy an (egh) Mac.
It's hard for me to say anything on this topic. First of all, I love Abandonware. There are so many old programs that I've lost over the years and would kill to play again. Sites like The Underdogs have helped me get a hold of these games and yes, a few others that I never got a chance to play (probably because my hardware couldn't handle it back then). Until I bought my new laptop these were the only games I could really play on it happily and I probably would have bought them if they were available somewhere.
Then again, I'm a hypocrite. I do think that companies have the right to not want their software distributed (this is a big reason I only download from Underdogs - they're big enough that they can't keep up games that they're asked to take down and hope not to have their whole site shut down), but I don't really understand it. Even though a few other people and myself might buy these older games for nostalgia the vast majority of people won't. So not only are they not losing money, they're not even potentially losing money. Unless a company released every single "abandoned" game on a single CD the odds are they won't ever be able to make money from reviving these old, dead games. So what's holding them back? Spite?
Disclaimer: This isn't a troll or anything like that, it's just how I feel. ---- When is Apple going to give me a reason to switch? I'm being 100% honest when I say that I truly cannot understand what's so great about Macs. My job almost exclusively involves content creation, mostly in the form of graphics-for-the-web design and a bit of back-end programming. I use a windows machine for graphic work and a linux box for programming. The people I work with think I'm insane, yet my work comes out as good (if not better) as theres. I've yet to experience one reason that I should switch to a Mac, yet I'm constantly told that Macs are best for contention creation. What's the point? Despite having bunches of computers at my house (and I'm proud to say not one is a Mac) there are only two I use regularly: One is a Linux "server" that I use to test things and my "desktop" boots between Win2k, WinXP, and Linux. I've never once seen an application on a Mac that I wanted that wasn't either ported from the PC (and therefor is available to me) or that was ported to the PC (and is also available to me). So what'st he point? To make things worse I can't stand the thought of not being able to build my own computer. I'm spoiled - I like being able to choose my own processor and motherboard and then the case I want to put it in. And while this post is probably going to get modded down for being off-topic, it's simply a response to the above post. Again - what's the point?
P.s. - why is this story even slashdot worthy?
I won't bother whining and bitching about the loss of the desktop, because I do realize it's going to be inevitable sooner or later (but I'll never get rid of my desktop computer! NEVER! NEEEEEEEEEVER! Ahem...), but as for Linux... Maybe "Linux" won't reach a desktop audience as it exists right now, but I think Linux (or even something based on Unix) has a much better chance of dethroning M$ than a completely new operating system. In terms of development Linux has already surpassed Microsoft and that's with a smaller userbase and much smaller official development team. There just has to be a company out there, somewhere, that is willing to put the time and energy into developing something that can compete with Microsoft. I stand by the argument that Linux hasn't failed to compete with Microsoft, it just hasn't started trying yet.
What Linux needs in general is a robust set of applications that consumers can use transparently with Microsoft products. If attractively priced, this could conceivably pull users to the OS, especially in light of Microsofts new licensing trends. It's funny. A few weeks ago I might have said that Microsoft's new licensing is really only hurting big businesses, who normally follow the software license anyway. But lately I've been noticing that a lot of people I know (some of them even being computer illiterate types) are complaining because they can't install Windows XP on their computer and their kids computer as well. I know a lot of people are saying that the licensing scheme isn't a particularly big deal, but I stand by the argument that M$ is really alienating a lot of their customers...
It has to be said: who can prove aliens have the attention span to spend 3 billion years colonizing? There seem to be two assumptions that almost everyone makes that really bug me:
1) Assuming we don't blow ourselves apart (a less likely scenario than most think, I'd say) we'll eventually spend three billion years colonizing the universe. Think about it! If humanity is still in a technological state where we even want to bother colonizing the universe three billion years from now (or even a million years from now) it'd be unbelievably pathetic. Go ahead and think this is trollish, but at least consider what I'm saying first. Technology is increasing exponentially. There was a time when technological gains couldn't be perceived over three lifetimes. And yet, in the last one hundred years, we've seen completely revolutions in warfare, travel, communications, mathematics, physics - you name it, we've done it. My parents saw these changes and they completely altered the way life is lived. In my relatively short life time I've seen life totally altered by personal computers and the internet. I expect to see medical breakthroughs before long. Just one million years is roughly 10,000 lifetimes. How can you even hope to imagine what our goals will be 100 lifetimes from now, or even 10? I'm willing to bet even a mere 10,000 years from now things like "colonizing the stars" will seem completely alien to us.
2) That intelligent aliens are similiar enough to us that they have any reason to move to the stars. Maybe they're so physically tiny that it would take them millions of years just to fully explore their own world, and the rest of the universe is too large for them to ever consider. Or maybe they are like us. Who's to say that in our TINY amount of recorded history we'd just happen to be lucky enough to see them. If it really is impossible to move at the speed of light then how do you know they didn't eventually give up? What makes you think that they're going to spend 3 billion years colonizing? Maybe what we consider to be habitable is totally inhospitable to 99.99999% of the life in the universe, so our system holds absolutely no value to them. There are a million reasons why they wouldn't be here, why they'll never be here, and why we'll probably never be there.
(Heh, this turned out to be a pretty logical post. Too bad I posted too late for anyone to see it)
Hmm. I hope there aren't any schizophrenic (sp?) air force pilots. "I think I'll turn right. Or left. No, right! Up! Down! AHHHH!" *crash*
This probably won't matter to a lot of people, but I've been working to build computers (and LCD screens, of course) into my car for a while now. I was also vaguely planning to get a PS2 in there sooner or later. I could kill two birds with one stone this way. And, to be honest, $300 for another PS2 + $200 for the kit would cost about the same as the regular computer hardware and it would be more compact. Hmm...
4. Intelligent routing to prevent the gnutella users from sucking up all the bandwidth. You can do this without entirely blocking the ports, thus letting it happen but preserving the bulk of the bandwidth for other (presumably more legitimate) uses. Before anyone bites my head off - I really don't do much file-sharing and I live off campus. These really are just my opinions. So here goes:
For those living on campus the school's network is the only way to get broadband access. I can't say for sure, but I'm guessing most schools don't allow students to have DSL or cable installed in their dorm rooms. On top of that, don't schools with network running to each room figure that into the cost of living there? It seems generally unfair to penalize students who live on campus by restricting their internet access in anyway. Even more unfair at schools that require students to live on campus freshman year.
I agree. Slapstick comedy, when it's alone, no matter how well executed... has no hidden intellectual quality. A guy falling down on his ass, no matter how funny it may be to some is still just a guy falling down on his ass. The difference is when the idiocy of the plot is used to convey some message that is worth talking about. When that message is "Most Kung Foo movies are really bad!" then there's nothing deeper. That should have been obvious from the trailers and from the press around the movie.
I'd say The Simpsons is a whole different monster, though. The Simpsons is satire wrapped in (mostly) funny, over the top comedy. It's not worth teaching a philosophy class over, but for people who can understand the messages behind the shows they are there.
A few things...
First of all, PocketPCs aren't useful for any of the features you mentioned. Do you really want to type out a full word doc on a PocketPC? And if not, then why can't you use the memopad on a Palmpilot? Same goes for Excel. Another thing.. Palmpilot's can integrate seamlessly with outlook in the same way PocketPC's can (yes, right out of the box). The PalmOS also has a larger base of software and while the processor speed may seem slow it's blazingly fast for almost every application available for it.
Yes, even games on the PalmOS are significantly more advanced than on the PocketPC. And mp3 playback? Puh-lease. I'm really not that interested in storing two mp3s on my PocketPC and then being completely unable to put any programs on it.
So am I saying Palm is better than WinCE? No, not really. I have devices running both operating systems, but there are a lot of things about PocketPCs that bother me. The amount of programs available is small and generally limited to commercial apps. Most of those are pretty task-specific and will only be of use to certain people. The rest are very general purpose and are available for any platform on Earth (PDA or otherwise).
On the other hand, the WinCE interface is "prettier" and more "familiar". It's easy to understand how to use one for basic functions if you know how to use windows. What's that mean? Well, it means that the learning curve is about five minutes shorter than on a PalmOS based device. More advanced functions, like file management, still require learning, reading, and frustration.
As flame-like as this might seem... it's just my opinion. Handhelds running Linux are geeky and fun (argh! damn it all! I want one that I can install Linux on!), handhelds running PalmOS are practical and fun (like I said - mucho games, many good), and handhelds running WinCE are pretty. Organizational tasks are possible on any of them, but in the end I still think the PalmOS has 'em all beat for its practicality and usability.
I mean, sure, history says that games based on franchises aren't doing well. But sitting here bashing a games playability or fun factor without ever playing it is kinda a little over the top, right? Or is there some part of the logic I'm missing? (Let me know if there is!)
Until a game comes out all there is to do is speculate about how much fun it's going to be. And all you've got to speculate on is what you know about the game itself and other games like it. As long as the discussion's intelligent, what's the problem?
(yes, it is off-topic and so was my reply - sorry.. still gonna reply :) )
So they've officially declared war now? I mean real war, as an act of Govt (congress?), not some idealistic crap like 'war on terrorism'
When talking about what's going on in Afghanistan? Yes. The previous government of Afghanistan declared War on the U.S. It's not possible to have a one-sided war. So, with or without an act of congress, we are at war. Whether Congress declares War or through an executive order troops attack another country (or bomb or whatever) that other country is going to defend itself. Then it's a war. Simple.
Well, this game sure as hell has a lot going against it. First, it's based on a license. We all know how great licenses in gaming are. Then it's being put out by Simon and Schuster - a company with a particularly bad record when it comes to licensed games and games in general. And on top of that, it's being billed as an "action/adventure" - a genre which has very few gems. And the comparisons to Diablo frighten me.
Farscape is an alright show. It doesn't interest me too much, but regardless - I don't see this game as doing anything but tarnishing the franchise. Then again, I'm not too fond of firingsquad either... so here's to hoping their information is wrong.