Also someone's idea of giving the cat other cables to play with is terrible. All that would do is teach the cat that cables are something to play with and s/he'd do it more often.
Believe it or not, and I assume most cat owners won't believe me, I've found that the best way to 'train' my cat against unwanted behaviour is to simply move her away from whatever she's doing. For example, I hate it when she goes outside and then comes back in and jumps up on top of the television -- wet paws! So every time she went near the television I would tease her until she ran away. Every time she got as far as jumping on to it, I picked her up and didn't let her go for a few minutes, which of course she hated. I don't think she's been on the TV in months. Hey my cat's a C-list celeb!
Exactly, there's no way that remote just happened by chance. The design process for most remotes seems to be "it's a box with buttons on it" and if it ends up looking nice then that's a bonus. But someone took their time over the Sky remote. I hope s/he has been suitably rewarded at the Remote Control Designers Awards Ceremony or something.
The remote control for Sky digital TV beats every other remote I've ever used. The button layout is designed perfectly and the weight and balance make the remote want to stay in your hand without effort. Looks good too.
Check my posting history to see how ANTI-piracy I am but...
Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental requirement of justice.
Any law that assumes guilt can play no part in the provision of justice to all. Justice is not solely about punishing the guilty, it is as much about NOT punishing the innocent.
I hate to say it but to take a pragmatic view of the issue, game developers and publishers are not to blame for poor quality games. The blame must lie with the consumers.
Three or four years ago I wrote for several gaming web sites and my pet subjects were false advertising and, more importantly, the EULAs that allow developers to rip-off consumers.
Time and again, developers and publishers made it clear (by their actions) that they didn't want consumers to have any rights, that they wanted to be able to release unfinished, bug-ridden products, and they didn't want to accept any responsibility for fixing their products.
And time and again, consumers said the same thing: That's fine with us!
I can't count the number of flames and hate messages I received in response to the articles I wrote. Thousands? Tens of thousands, more like. Not from developers but from game players. Comments sections of web sites were flooded with the most personal abuse. My inbox filled up with everything from unresearched "you're wrong because blah-blah company r0cks" messages to juvenile death threats. All because I had dared to suggest that consumers should be entitled to products that work as advertised.
Eventually I re-focussed my efforts and most of what I wrote from then on tried to make one point: If you keep telling developers and publishers that you'll forgive them for ripping you off then they'll keep on doing it, and eventually it will reach a stage that you *do* want the situation changed. But by then it will be too late.
I passionately believe in racial equality and the global community, yet by posting this comment I fear I will be branded a racist. That is part of the problem. Foreign out-sourcing of tech jobs is difficult to discuss because there is always the possibility of genuine, objective criticisms being met with claims of racial prejudice.
I don't work in the tech sector but I have often dealt with Indian technicians who do technical support for a company that I am involved with. I have found the quality of their work to be consistently poor. Specifically:
1. Basic computer knowledge is lacking.
Worst example: A simple hardware problem (insufficient air circulation due to a blocked fan) was twice diagnosed as a software failure and the computer owner was instructed to back-up 40+ Gb of data on to CDRs, format his hard drive and reinstall XP. Remember, this happened *twice*. When the first reinstallation didn't fix the problem, he was told to do exactly the same thing again. (Obviously without the back-ups.)
2. Poor communications skills.
Not just poor English but fundamental communication failings, such as not listening properly and not making any apparent attempt to understand.
I was in a situation last year when an Indian tech support person decided that to disgnose a faulty hard-drive I must follow his instructions for dismantling my own PC. He wanted every component unplugged, removed, and then re-assembled. I tried to follow his instructions but he used left/right and front/back interchangeably, as if there were no difference in meaning, and after half an hour of nervously removing components I was starting to feel a bit out of my depth. If we went much further I wasn't confident that I'd be able to put everything back together so I stopped there. I re-assembled the PC and decided to buy a new hard-drive even though the faulty one was still under warranty.
So my question to Indian tech workers would be:
In my experience, over several years and dealing with dozens of different tech support people, I have found that Indian staff are significantly less knowledgeable, less helpful and overall less good at their jobs. With the obvious exception of cheaper labour, is there one single reason why Indian workers should have these jobs?
Well as a license fee payer I don't consider "more readers" to be one of the BBC's goals. That's not what I'm paying for. I'm paying for quality, independent, objective journalism. Sensationalism and silliness, perhaps intended to infuriate people so much that they'll keep reading, should be left to the newspapers which I can, and do, choose not to buy.
Actually I think games are fairly priced. Here in the UK a newly released game is usually available for 30 or 35 at the most. I don't have a problem paying 35 for a game I want to play that 20+ people spent 2+ years developing.
Believe me, I'll be the first to complain very loudly about the price/value disparity of many consumer products, but the price of games is not unreasonable. Remember that the RRP of games is often *double* what they sell for at retail, especially if you buy online.
Note: This post was written with pound signs but Slashdot removes them. Dollar signs are allowed, pound signs aren't. Ah, that warm, fuzzy, global community attitude... another reason why we all love America!:-)
I'd just like to say a hearty F**K YOU to the pirates who are causing more and more of the software I buy to require increasingly awkward and intrusive copy-protection systems.
I have absolutely no ill-feeling towards the developers and publishers who seek to protect their livelihood, but I would very much like to be driving the car that leaves tyre marks on the pirate's flattened corpse.
Bill Thompson's BBC articles epitomise what is wrong with the BBC's current attitude to journalism.
For months they were running one of his articles every week or so, and most times the feedback section would fill up with comments from people disagreeing with him, pointing out the flaws in his arguments, explaining how/what he had misunderstood, detailing factual errors, etc. In my mind, and I'm sure in the minds of others, his articles were becoming a joke and must have been causing some embarrassment at the BBC.
So how did the BBC react?
Did they insist on him doing better research and presenting more sensible arguments? Did they cut back on the number of ill-conceived, subjective crusades he was allowed to go on? Did they decide to drop him entirely?
it is trite and irresponsible of ill-informed commentators to claim that games like Grand Theft Auto are central to terrible crime
Isn't it equally trite and irresponsible for ill-informed commentators to claim that violent games do NOT provoke violence in the people that play them obsessively? So where's that article?
If you're worried about their mental health, don't be.
Good to see such a well-reasoned argument! You've obviously researched the subject thoroughly and your in-depth answer will go a long way to assuage people's concerns.
Banning violent video game sales to minors imposes on a parent's right to choose what's best for their kids. Kids mature at different rates, therefore it should be up to the parent to decide what is best for them.
So why can't the parents just buy the games for the kids? Believe it or not, and I know it's shocking but trust me on this, kids don't always obey the law, obey their parents, do what's best for themselves, etc. Ban the sale of violent games to kids and parents can still choose to buy those games for their kids. I, uh, think that's the point...
1. Black trousers, good fit or one size too large + belt (black). 2. Black jumper/pullover or, if feeling adventurous, dark-coloured checked shirt. 3. Black socks and black shoes/boots. 4. Underwear, colour not important. (Black?)
This has successfully kept me clothed, warm and unlaid for years. IT CAN WORK FOR YOU!!
"Those who would give up essential freedoms for security, deserve neither freedom nor security." - Ben Franklin
I do wish people would pay attention to the key word in that quote -- essential freedoms. Is it essential to your freedom that you are allowed to assist foreign terrorists? No? Then why do you object to a law that forbids you from doing so?
You ought to see one called Grand Theft Auto. The player is rewarded for attacking a woman, pushing her to the ground, kicking her repeatedly and then ultimately killing her, shooting her over and over again.
I won't comment on the violent games issue itself, but on a purely factual, objective level, couldn't this sort of quote be seen as libellous?
While the comment itself is true, in context it is being presented as a synopsis of the entire game, ie: this is what the game's about, isn't it horrible? That harms the reputation of the game, the developer, the publisher, and to some extent the millions of perfectly well-balanced people who play the game.
... physically sick to see Shawn Fanning referred to as a hero.
There are many cold, calculating and ruthless people in the music business. Shawn Fanning is one of them. Please don't ever think for one single second that he was "one of us".
But ultimately, Mr Gates predicted, spam would be killed through the electronic equivalent of a stamp, also known as "payment at risk".
This would force the sender of an e-mail to pay up when an e-mail was rejected as spam, but would not deter senders of real e-mail because they could be confident that their mail would be accepted.
I applaud any efforts to combat spam but there seems to be a problem with these payments.
Aren't most spammers criminals? In future, if legislation continues as it has recently, won't all spammers be criminals? Therefore, doesn't it make sense that these criminals will find a way to avoid paying the fines?
On the other hand, with an up-front payment scheme, costing say a tenth of one pence per e-mail, that at least removes the option for criminal spammers to simply not pay. Of course they may pay using stolen credit cards or some other form of fraud, but that exposes them to an even greater wrath of the law and may lead to them being stopped a lot sooner than if all they had done was refuse to pay an ISP's e-mail fine.
Look, spam is a big problem for some people and at least Microsoft is making a commitment to doing something useful. Practically *any* solution can have a "what if?" so maybe we should all just sit back and let our mail boxes fill up and die? Would that be a good solution?
Sometimes the answer to "what if?" is simply "well don't!". If you do make a mistake then you'll have to pay the (small) penalty, as with most things in life.
It's a real yawn that DNF has been given this award again.
To me, vaporware is a product which is being actively promoted by a company, with all sorts of whizz-bang features that may or may not actually exist, and therefore it's vaporware because it's something that we're being told does exist but we can't see it for ourselves.
DNF isn't being promoted. 3DR don't talk about it. It's just a game that we've been told in the past is in development, and now they're working on it at their own pace, and that pace is slower than some people would prefer.
To give a product like DNF a 'vaporware' award is like throwing a tantrum. "We want it now! We want it now! Mwaaaah! Mwaaaah!"
They'll put their game out if/when it's ready. Quit whining!
I can't claim to be an expert on consumer psychology but it seems to me that pop-ups and other forms of spam are the sledgehammer approach to advertising.
Yes, I'm sure the mentality of spamvertisers is that they'll annoy 9,999 people but 1 will look at their product, and out of every 100 that look at the product, 1 will buy it. Annoying the million people who don't buy the product is irrelevant because why should the advertiser care about the feelings of a million non-customers?
But the age-old and more effective approach to advertising is to reinforce your brand in their mind by subtly reminding them of it with ads on TV and radio, in magazines, on billboards, etc. Such ads are never intended to provoke an instant reaction, and certainly not an instant purchase, but simply to say "we're here when you're ready for us". For some reason, most companies which advertise on the Internet have never understood this.
But anyway, any discussion on this subject is pointless. Spammers will never stop until someone stops them and that's why we need either vigilantes or proper legislation. I know which option I'd prefer, and maybe by the time we've tried that way the legislation will be ready...:-)
1. I decide I don't like pop-ups. 2. I install a pop-up blocker. 3. You use pop-ups to advertise your product. 4. Your pop-up manages to avoid my blocker. 5. I see your ad and I think "Oh it's *that* product! Oh well that's okay then, I don't mind at all that *that* product is being pushed at me. I will buy that product immediately!"
Do you honestly think that's how it will happen?
If a company's first form of contact with me is showing me a form of intrusive, annoying advert that I have specifically decided to avoid then I will simply *not* buy that company's product! No ifs, no buts, no exceptions to the rule. Annoy me in such a selfish, arrogant way and you lose a potential customer.
But hey, I'm the only person who thinks that way, aren't I?
Slashdot Mirror
No really, it's fun and it works.
Also someone's idea of giving the cat other cables to play with is terrible. All that would do is teach the cat that cables are something to play with and s/he'd do it more often.
Believe it or not, and I assume most cat owners won't believe me, I've found that the best way to 'train' my cat against unwanted behaviour is to simply move her away from whatever she's doing. For example, I hate it when she goes outside and then comes back in and jumps up on top of the television -- wet paws! So every time she went near the television I would tease her until she ran away. Every time she got as far as jumping on to it, I picked her up and didn't let her go for a few minutes, which of course she hated. I don't think she's been on the TV in months. Hey my cat's a C-list celeb!
Exactly, there's no way that remote just happened by chance. The design process for most remotes seems to be "it's a box with buttons on it" and if it ends up looking nice then that's a bonus. But someone took their time over the Sky remote. I hope s/he has been suitably rewarded at the Remote Control Designers Awards Ceremony or something.
The remote control for Sky digital TV beats every other remote I've ever used. The button layout is designed perfectly and the weight and balance make the remote want to stay in your hand without effort. Looks good too.
g if
Colours are a bit off in this picture but...
http://skybuy.sky.com/img_live/HTML-SA0015_large.
The remote for Sky+ (a PVR) has a few extra buttons on it for record and playback. Has more of a silver finish to it and looks even nicer.
Check my posting history to see how ANTI-piracy I am but...
Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental requirement of justice.
Any law that assumes guilt can play no part in the provision of justice to all. Justice is not solely about punishing the guilty, it is as much about NOT punishing the innocent.
I hate to say it but to take a pragmatic view of the issue, game developers and publishers are not to blame for poor quality games. The blame must lie with the consumers.
Three or four years ago I wrote for several gaming web sites and my pet subjects were false advertising and, more importantly, the EULAs that allow developers to rip-off consumers.
Time and again, developers and publishers made it clear (by their actions) that they didn't want consumers to have any rights, that they wanted to be able to release unfinished, bug-ridden products, and they didn't want to accept any responsibility for fixing their products.
And time and again, consumers said the same thing: That's fine with us!
I can't count the number of flames and hate messages I received in response to the articles I wrote. Thousands? Tens of thousands, more like. Not from developers but from game players. Comments sections of web sites were flooded with the most personal abuse. My inbox filled up with everything from unresearched "you're wrong because blah-blah company r0cks" messages to juvenile death threats. All because I had dared to suggest that consumers should be entitled to products that work as advertised.
Eventually I re-focussed my efforts and most of what I wrote from then on tried to make one point: If you keep telling developers and publishers that you'll forgive them for ripping you off then they'll keep on doing it, and eventually it will reach a stage that you *do* want the situation changed. But by then it will be too late.
Maybe it's too late now?
I passionately believe in racial equality and the global community, yet by posting this comment I fear I will be branded a racist. That is part of the problem. Foreign out-sourcing of tech jobs is difficult to discuss because there is always the possibility of genuine, objective criticisms being met with claims of racial prejudice.
I don't work in the tech sector but I have often dealt with Indian technicians who do technical support for a company that I am involved with. I have found the quality of their work to be consistently poor. Specifically:
1. Basic computer knowledge is lacking.
Worst example: A simple hardware problem (insufficient air circulation due to a blocked fan) was twice diagnosed as a software failure and the computer owner was instructed to back-up 40+ Gb of data on to CDRs, format his hard drive and reinstall XP. Remember, this happened *twice*. When the first reinstallation didn't fix the problem, he was told to do exactly the same thing again. (Obviously without the back-ups.)
2. Poor communications skills.
Not just poor English but fundamental communication failings, such as not listening properly and not making any apparent attempt to understand.
I was in a situation last year when an Indian tech support person decided that to disgnose a faulty hard-drive I must follow his instructions for dismantling my own PC. He wanted every component unplugged, removed, and then re-assembled. I tried to follow his instructions but he used left/right and front/back interchangeably, as if there were no difference in meaning, and after half an hour of nervously removing components I was starting to feel a bit out of my depth. If we went much further I wasn't confident that I'd be able to put everything back together so I stopped there. I re-assembled the PC and decided to buy a new hard-drive even though the faulty one was still under warranty.
So my question to Indian tech workers would be:
In my experience, over several years and dealing with dozens of different tech support people, I have found that Indian staff are significantly less knowledgeable, less helpful and overall less good at their jobs. With the obvious exception of cheaper labour, is there one single reason why Indian workers should have these jobs?
Well as a license fee payer I don't consider "more readers" to be one of the BBC's goals. That's not what I'm paying for. I'm paying for quality, independent, objective journalism. Sensationalism and silliness, perhaps intended to infuriate people so much that they'll keep reading, should be left to the newspapers which I can, and do, choose not to buy.
Actually I think games are fairly priced. Here in the UK a newly released game is usually available for 30 or 35 at the most. I don't have a problem paying 35 for a game I want to play that 20+ people spent 2+ years developing.
:-)
Believe me, I'll be the first to complain very loudly about the price/value disparity of many consumer products, but the price of games is not unreasonable. Remember that the RRP of games is often *double* what they sell for at retail, especially if you buy online.
Note: This post was written with pound signs but Slashdot removes them. Dollar signs are allowed, pound signs aren't. Ah, that warm, fuzzy, global community attitude... another reason why we all love America!
I'd just like to say a hearty F**K YOU to the pirates who are causing more and more of the software I buy to require increasingly awkward and intrusive copy-protection systems.
I have absolutely no ill-feeling towards the developers and publishers who seek to protect their livelihood, but I would very much like to be driving the car that leaves tyre marks on the pirate's flattened corpse.
That is all.
Oh come on! Vain? There are only *two* pictures of him in each article now! There used to be three.
Bill Thompson's BBC articles epitomise what is wrong with the BBC's current attitude to journalism.
For months they were running one of his articles every week or so, and most times the feedback section would fill up with comments from people disagreeing with him, pointing out the flaws in his arguments, explaining how/what he had misunderstood, detailing factual errors, etc. In my mind, and I'm sure in the minds of others, his articles were becoming a joke and must have been causing some embarrassment at the BBC.
So how did the BBC react?
Did they insist on him doing better research and presenting more sensible arguments? Did they cut back on the number of ill-conceived, subjective crusades he was allowed to go on? Did they decide to drop him entirely?
No.
They dropped the comments section.
1. Black trousers, good fit or one size too large + belt (black).
2. Black jumper/pullover or, if feeling adventurous, dark-coloured checked shirt.
3. Black socks and black shoes/boots.
4. Underwear, colour not important. (Black?)
This has successfully kept me clothed, warm and unlaid for years. IT CAN WORK FOR YOU!!
While the comment itself is true, in context it is being presented as a synopsis of the entire game, ie: this is what the game's about, isn't it horrible? That harms the reputation of the game, the developer, the publisher, and to some extent the millions of perfectly well-balanced people who play the game.
Someone convince me that this isn't libel.
Libel with malice too, it seems.
At first I read both your subject and comment as "Alice Cooper". Had me baffled for a minute!
[Narrator] William Shatner.
... physically sick to see Shawn Fanning referred to as a hero.
There are many cold, calculating and ruthless people in the music business. Shawn Fanning is one of them. Please don't ever think for one single second that he was "one of us".
Aren't most spammers criminals? In future, if legislation continues as it has recently, won't all spammers be criminals? Therefore, doesn't it make sense that these criminals will find a way to avoid paying the fines?
On the other hand, with an up-front payment scheme, costing say a tenth of one pence per e-mail, that at least removes the option for criminal spammers to simply not pay. Of course they may pay using stolen credit cards or some other form of fraud, but that exposes them to an even greater wrath of the law and may lead to them being stopped a lot sooner than if all they had done was refuse to pay an ISP's e-mail fine.
Look, spam is a big problem for some people and at least Microsoft is making a commitment to doing something useful. Practically *any* solution can have a "what if?" so maybe we should all just sit back and let our mail boxes fill up and die? Would that be a good solution?
Sometimes the answer to "what if?" is simply "well don't!". If you do make a mistake then you'll have to pay the (small) penalty, as with most things in life.
It's a real yawn that DNF has been given this award again.
To me, vaporware is a product which is being actively promoted by a company, with all sorts of whizz-bang features that may or may not actually exist, and therefore it's vaporware because it's something that we're being told does exist but we can't see it for ourselves.
DNF isn't being promoted. 3DR don't talk about it. It's just a game that we've been told in the past is in development, and now they're working on it at their own pace, and that pace is slower than some people would prefer.
To give a product like DNF a 'vaporware' award is like throwing a tantrum. "We want it now! We want it now! Mwaaaah! Mwaaaah!"
They'll put their game out if/when it's ready. Quit whining!
I can't claim to be an expert on consumer psychology but it seems to me that pop-ups and other forms of spam are the sledgehammer approach to advertising.
:-)
Yes, I'm sure the mentality of spamvertisers is that they'll annoy 9,999 people but 1 will look at their product, and out of every 100 that look at the product, 1 will buy it. Annoying the million people who don't buy the product is irrelevant because why should the advertiser care about the feelings of a million non-customers?
But the age-old and more effective approach to advertising is to reinforce your brand in their mind by subtly reminding them of it with ads on TV and radio, in magazines, on billboards, etc. Such ads are never intended to provoke an instant reaction, and certainly not an instant purchase, but simply to say "we're here when you're ready for us". For some reason, most companies which advertise on the Internet have never understood this.
But anyway, any discussion on this subject is pointless. Spammers will never stop until someone stops them and that's why we need either vigilantes or proper legislation. I know which option I'd prefer, and maybe by the time we've tried that way the legislation will be ready...
1. I decide I don't like pop-ups.
2. I install a pop-up blocker.
3. You use pop-ups to advertise your product.
4. Your pop-up manages to avoid my blocker.
5. I see your ad and I think "Oh it's *that* product! Oh well that's okay then, I don't mind at all that *that* product is being pushed at me. I will buy that product immediately!"
Do you honestly think that's how it will happen?
If a company's first form of contact with me is showing me a form of intrusive, annoying advert that I have specifically decided to avoid then I will simply *not* buy that company's product! No ifs, no buts, no exceptions to the rule. Annoy me in such a selfish, arrogant way and you lose a potential customer.
But hey, I'm the only person who thinks that way, aren't I?