Re:This reminds me of an old game...
on
Iron Sky Trailer
·
· Score: 1
I have that game for the Commodore 64! Most annoying design, ever. You have to sit through ALL the cut scenes before you play the game. Then it's really a collection of mini-games that start with the oddest rhythm game in history. (Basically, tap the joystick to the beat of the character's run so that you have a running start when taking off with your jet pack.) On top of everything, you have to swap disks CONSTANTLY, which makes the game even slower than it already was. Oooh, I think I have that game for the Playstation! I've always wondered why they renamed it Final Fantasy VII, though.
The way I see it, this person obviously wanted to prove that candy striping doesn't help because they personally don't like it. Candy striping isn't supposed to be a miracle fix that no one can live without...if it were all books would come candy striped. What it helps with are applications where users what to scan for specific information fast, not ones where people are trying to read them as books.
The reason it works is more physical than it is psychological. It helps your eyes read in a straight, horizontal line. This is the same reason that some people will read with a notecard underneath the line of text. It's easier for your eyes to move horizontally when there's something above and/or below it to tell you "keep your eyes in the center, buddy."
My personal experience is that I can fly through message boards, ledgers, etc. that employ this tactic while I tend to give up with/not use message boards, ledgers, etc. that don't. It's frustrating.
The point is, the world is used to using Windows as flawed as it may be. Windows hasn't had to change/improve its interface much because it's the standard and everybody knows it.
GUI interface isn't a new thing and at this point we should honestly be a little better at creating interfaces that are dummy proof. New GUI's should be BETTER than Windows and should be to the easy enough to use that anyone that can read and know how to use a mouse can use them.
I agree, a better test would be to take a computer illiterate person and have them use both operating systems to see which is easier. That being said, until Ubuntu and other O/S's streamline browsing system directories, it isn't going to happen. In Windows and Mac OS, if you're a computer dummy you can find all of your files because the OS's default them to specific directories that are easy to find. There's no such handholding in the world of Linux, and I think that's it's biggest flaw at this point for mainstream users.
I don't have a problem with the difficulty of his writing (two of my favorite authors are William Faulkner and Tony Morrison), I just have a problem with his prose in general.
I've read "the trilogy" twice now. The first was a difficult read because I didn't know where he was going. The second was dissapointing, because I knew where he was going and felt about 1/3 of the book was pointless. Some of the details seemed pointless in the context of the book itself (although I realize many of them are expanded upon in the rest of his works). Basically, I wish that Tolkien had an editor.
Oh, I agree with what you say 100%. Tolkien is a better storyteller. His books have an epic feeling that few people can come close to. C.S. Lewis isn't a better storyteller; however, C.S. Lewis is a much better writer in the sense of someone who has a way with words and prose.
The only thing that upsets me with the career of C.S. Lewis is how he's been passed of as merely a Christian author.
This is highly debatable. I've always felt that Tolkien was a master story teller but a second rate writer. His writing style drives me up the wall and half way makes me wonder how these books became popular at all. The Hobbit is much more straightforward prose-wise (and story-wise) and is an immeasurably better read than most of his other work. It's also why I've always found his contemporary, C.S. Lewis, a much better author. C.S. Lewis can say more in a sentence than most people can in a paragraph.
So, your arguement is that narrow columns of text are easier to read than wider columns. I agree with this. Now think about how many more narrow columns of text you can fit on a widescreen than you can a standard monitor. It makes any kind of document compare or any situation where you rely on information from one window to edit / create content in another window much, much easier. Also, think about all those excel files with tons of columns. Helps out greatly with that as well.
On the other hand, I ALWAYS say "Damn, I wish I had widescreen monitors" at work as I like to compare documents side by side and work with long database files. Horizontal real estate is always more important for me than vertical just so I can fit more documents, windows on the screen at once. Basically, while a standard monitor gets wasted on one document the way I work, a widescreen enables me to have two open at once. More doucments = more productivity, so it's definitely made me a more valuable employee at my job.
Yeah, that one made no sense why it was on the list. But, honestly, some of the games on the list were great. Princess Tomato in the Salad Kingdom still remains one of my favorite NES games just because of the quirkiness of it all. And who doesn't like defeating a boss by playing Paper, Rock, Scissors?
I would like to add that that $2.40 per album marketing can be figured something like this:
Record label sends out 5k-10k copies of this cd to every radiostation, music store, and website under the sun to try and get exposure. The MSRP of the cd is $18.99 which, in the label's eye means they just spent $94.95k-$189.9k on marketing. Do the math. If they send out 5k discs, that means that a cd that sells around 250k copies would have had around $2.50 in "marketing" spent on it. There is actually no marketing involved on most of these releases except for the major mainstream ones. This is one of the reasons you constantly hear these horror stories of bands putting out albums and not making a red cent off of them. The contracts are padded with so much absurdity like this it's asinine.
There's a little bit of truth in that, but the big trick was to shoot down the satellite with established technology that everyone knows we already have. Of course they're not going to use technology that isn't public knowledge. In that way, I'm sure they would want to make sure that the conditions are perfect so it works and they don't have to use anything that might give away some of the US Navy's capabilities. This is pretty common tactics...use the lowest end technology to get the job done to a) save money and b) protect knowledge of capabilities.
I'll touch on the "curse of being free" in a moment, but to preface this I'd like to make a statement about what you get when you buy Windows, because it's a little more subjective than stating "you get a glitchy OS that's bloated and suseptable to viruses."
When you purchase Windows, you purchase:
* - Customer support * - Virtually guaranteed support for all hardware and software you buy * - Something you're familiar with * - Something (and this is a subjective) that looks aesthetically pleasing * - The ability to call your best friends son "who's just a wiz with computers!" for advice, how to do things in Office, etc etc. * - The ability to configure most of the settings on your computer without feeling like you're pulling teeth.
Linux still has a bad image to it. It's seen as that "dorky, computer nerd" OS for programmers and hackers. I've been saying this for years, it most certainly is the "curse of being free." It's a bad perception in society, but things that are free or cheap usually have a built in stigma that there's a reason that it's free. And, in Linux's case, I kinda believe there is. No one's really taken it under their wings, invested time and money into it, and tried to turn it into an OS that they could attempt to box, put it on a shelf, and expect anyone to buy. Red Hat did it and withdrew more or less. Ubuntu could do this, but it looks like they're not going to. Free is great, but when it's something as technical as using a new OS, people would much rather pay, oh, $100, get a "free OS" with free future updates, and have phone tech support, know what vendors their software are coming from, etc. To many people, the ability to get tech support from the vendor versus communities on the internet is a make or break situation.
People don't like uncertainty...and a free, open source OS is just that. Uncertainty. While it's more complex than this, think of it this way. If I offered you two jobs, the first job salaried at $75k a year with a certain future doing things you know how to do (or can easily learn how to do) or a job at $100k with an uncertain future doing things that you've never done before that are intimidating, which one would you pick? The majority will pick $75k which is probably much more than they're already making to begin with while some will take a chance with the higher salaried job. Sure, it's a risk, but a risk with clear advantages if it works out.
I stopped reading the article at the "banal" segment because I didn't feel like being patronized and/or being served any more false information. Also, I thought it was fairly absurd that the author felt the need to spend so much time teaching us vocabulary when his grasp of grammar and comma usage was so lacking.
People also don't like crappy UI's, programs with really absurd/dorky names that make no sense to anyone but nerds who get the inside joke (if there even is one), and O/S's that don't support their favorite software. Honestly, I'd say it's about 100x's more likely that OSX gains significant ground to the point where it makes sense for apple to source out OSX to third party system builders than it would that Linux gains any significant headground. You know, unless the Linux community understands and finally makes strides to make Linux a) look like a program you would actually go out and spend your hard earned money on and b) make the UI and naming convention on the included software logical.
I've used Yahoo Music Unlimited since the beginning of it's beta days and, even though the software has always been less than stellar, the software wasn't what drew me to the service. The great music selection and my ability to listen to it whenever I wanted to for $7 a month was a tremendous value for me. I'm going to weep the day it goes away and, unhappily, probably switch over to Rhapsody and pay twice as much a month for a selection of music that's not as good. I can't say I'm a happy camper. Yahoo would have had a winning service on their hands had they allowed MusicMatch engineers time to do the YMJ software the RIGHT way (I've spoken to disgruntled MusicMatch employees and none of them spoke very highly of Yahoo...) and if they would have actually marketed the service. No one's ever heard of it, even though it's by far the best service of its kind around. Kinda sad if you ask me.
What this means is really in the eye of the beholder. Could Yahoo! want to ensure that Microsoft doesn't get a firm foot in the downloadable/streaming music business? Do they want to see Rhapsody succeed? Maybe this is just part of the company that MS isn't interested in, so they're trying to sell it off seperately? Or, most likely, they're trying to sell off a sinking ship...which, IMO, is really sad. Sure, the service was limited to Windows and the software sucked horribly, but it was a tremendous product for the price. I listen to it ever day and I'm saddened that I'll have to pay twice as much for Rhapsody now...
* - (most affordable) DVD recorders don't record HDTV * - (most affordable) DVD recorders don't record or tune digital cable * - (most affordable) DVD recorders have really really crappy image quality, due partially to the fact that they don't tune the digital signal and also due to the fact that they just suck * - (most affordable) DVD recorders do not have an in-depth recording menu like DVR's do. There's none of that searching for programs, record every instance of a program, "only record first run" options, etc. * - (most) People don't like a bunch of discs laying around when it can be held in the device and, as an ancillary, most people don't want to have to remember to "load up the dvd recorder" before they go to work * - (many) People just download tv programs off the internet if they want to keep a copy of the show * - US major broadcasting stations have really, really good online sites that let you watch the shows (many times in HD) on your computer * - DVD's just don't hold much data, whereas I have stuff on my DVR dated back to October at this point * - Many DVR's from cable companies are easy to hook portable hard drives up to... * - Many American's have the mentality that paying a little each month (to rent a dvr) is better than paying one lump sum up front (for a dvd recorder), especially when the DVR gives you the benefits previously mentioned.
Of course, I'm sure that DVD recorder technology in the US is severely lagging behind the rest of the world because DVR is preferred here (and, on the same note, I'm sure our DVR's blow the rest of the worlds out of the water), but until we see Blue Ray DVD Recorders that record HD programs and can store massive amounts of data AND until we see Blue Ray discs get cheap enough to make this a viable option, DVR's really the only solution for me.
Anyone who wants, feel free to add to the list. This was just off the top of my head...
2) Blue Ray players are a royal pain to program for, where HD-DVD's devopment tools are quite robust and relatively easy to use. This is a loss for DVD collectors such as myself who often buy DVD's just for the bonus features.
3) Discs will be more expensive to print because BR is not an open standard and royalties will have to be paid to Sony.
4) DRM, blah blah. Good luck ever being able to rip those movies onto a media server.
The only positive I see is that BR winning over HD-DVD is that it might allow Sony to drop the price of the PS3 sooner.
More like Mike Gravel with his National Initiative plan...which is a true shame that no one has actually ever heard of seeing that corporate press keeps bumping him out of debates and he's portrayed in popular media and a crackity old coot, but I digress. Anyway, point taken.
Playing games, my 360 sounds like a bat out of hell. Playing DVD's, it's near silent because all the CPU/GPU fans aren't going into overdrive. I have no idea what kinda toll the HD-DVD drive takes on the system, but I hope you are in the minority on this one.
I don't know if anyone else has delved into Microsoft's new Natual Keyboard line, but these are some of the most comfortable split/ergo keyboards I've ever used. And kudo's to MS for bringing back the front kickstand so we can actually type in an ergonomic position. I never understood why companies decided to just offer back kickstands for keyboards. This just leads to wrist aches.
Other than that, I'm sure that media center and xbox live add a ton of patents to their portfolio. We can sit back and bash MS all we want, but they do a lot of things right (even if writing an O/S doesn't seem to be one of them these days), especially in the HID market. Their mice and keyboards are A+ gear.
Slashdot Mirror
The way I see it, this person obviously wanted to prove that candy striping doesn't help because they personally don't like it. Candy striping isn't supposed to be a miracle fix that no one can live without...if it were all books would come candy striped. What it helps with are applications where users what to scan for specific information fast, not ones where people are trying to read them as books.
The reason it works is more physical than it is psychological. It helps your eyes read in a straight, horizontal line. This is the same reason that some people will read with a notecard underneath the line of text. It's easier for your eyes to move horizontally when there's something above and/or below it to tell you "keep your eyes in the center, buddy."
My personal experience is that I can fly through message boards, ledgers, etc. that employ this tactic while I tend to give up with/not use message boards, ledgers, etc. that don't. It's frustrating.
The point is, the world is used to using Windows as flawed as it may be. Windows hasn't had to change/improve its interface much because it's the standard and everybody knows it.
GUI interface isn't a new thing and at this point we should honestly be a little better at creating interfaces that are dummy proof. New GUI's should be BETTER than Windows and should be to the easy enough to use that anyone that can read and know how to use a mouse can use them.
I agree, a better test would be to take a computer illiterate person and have them use both operating systems to see which is easier. That being said, until Ubuntu and other O/S's streamline browsing system directories, it isn't going to happen. In Windows and Mac OS, if you're a computer dummy you can find all of your files because the OS's default them to specific directories that are easy to find. There's no such handholding in the world of Linux, and I think that's it's biggest flaw at this point for mainstream users.
I don't have a problem with the difficulty of his writing (two of my favorite authors are William Faulkner and Tony Morrison), I just have a problem with his prose in general.
I've read "the trilogy" twice now. The first was a difficult read because I didn't know where he was going. The second was dissapointing, because I knew where he was going and felt about 1/3 of the book was pointless. Some of the details seemed pointless in the context of the book itself (although I realize many of them are expanded upon in the rest of his works). Basically, I wish that Tolkien had an editor.
Oh, I agree with what you say 100%. Tolkien is a better storyteller. His books have an epic feeling that few people can come close to. C.S. Lewis isn't a better storyteller; however, C.S. Lewis is a much better writer in the sense of someone who has a way with words and prose.
The only thing that upsets me with the career of C.S. Lewis is how he's been passed of as merely a Christian author.
This is highly debatable. I've always felt that Tolkien was a master story teller but a second rate writer. His writing style drives me up the wall and half way makes me wonder how these books became popular at all. The Hobbit is much more straightforward prose-wise (and story-wise) and is an immeasurably better read than most of his other work. It's also why I've always found his contemporary, C.S. Lewis, a much better author. C.S. Lewis can say more in a sentence than most people can in a paragraph.
So, your arguement is that narrow columns of text are easier to read than wider columns. I agree with this. Now think about how many more narrow columns of text you can fit on a widescreen than you can a standard monitor. It makes any kind of document compare or any situation where you rely on information from one window to edit / create content in another window much, much easier. Also, think about all those excel files with tons of columns. Helps out greatly with that as well.
On the other hand, I ALWAYS say "Damn, I wish I had widescreen monitors" at work as I like to compare documents side by side and work with long database files. Horizontal real estate is always more important for me than vertical just so I can fit more documents, windows on the screen at once. Basically, while a standard monitor gets wasted on one document the way I work, a widescreen enables me to have two open at once. More doucments = more productivity, so it's definitely made me a more valuable employee at my job.
Yeah, that one made no sense why it was on the list. But, honestly, some of the games on the list were great. Princess Tomato in the Salad Kingdom still remains one of my favorite NES games just because of the quirkiness of it all. And who doesn't like defeating a boss by playing Paper, Rock, Scissors?
I would like to add that that $2.40 per album marketing can be figured something like this:
Record label sends out 5k-10k copies of this cd to every radiostation, music store, and website under the sun to try and get exposure. The MSRP of the cd is $18.99 which, in the label's eye means they just spent $94.95k-$189.9k on marketing. Do the math. If they send out 5k discs, that means that a cd that sells around 250k copies would have had around $2.50 in "marketing" spent on it. There is actually no marketing involved on most of these releases except for the major mainstream ones. This is one of the reasons you constantly hear these horror stories of bands putting out albums and not making a red cent off of them. The contracts are padded with so much absurdity like this it's asinine.
Sounds like this one will kill two birds with one stone. Where do I sign up to get a pee tube installed in my car?
There's a little bit of truth in that, but the big trick was to shoot down the satellite with established technology that everyone knows we already have. Of course they're not going to use technology that isn't public knowledge. In that way, I'm sure they would want to make sure that the conditions are perfect so it works and they don't have to use anything that might give away some of the US Navy's capabilities. This is pretty common tactics...use the lowest end technology to get the job done to a) save money and b) protect knowledge of capabilities.
I'll touch on the "curse of being free" in a moment, but to preface this I'd like to make a statement about what you get when you buy Windows, because it's a little more subjective than stating "you get a glitchy OS that's bloated and suseptable to viruses."
When you purchase Windows, you purchase:
* - Customer support
* - Virtually guaranteed support for all hardware and software you buy
* - Something you're familiar with
* - Something (and this is a subjective) that looks aesthetically pleasing
* - The ability to call your best friends son "who's just a wiz with computers!" for advice, how to do things in Office, etc etc.
* - The ability to configure most of the settings on your computer without feeling like you're pulling teeth.
Linux still has a bad image to it. It's seen as that "dorky, computer nerd" OS for programmers and hackers. I've been saying this for years, it most certainly is the "curse of being free." It's a bad perception in society, but things that are free or cheap usually have a built in stigma that there's a reason that it's free. And, in Linux's case, I kinda believe there is. No one's really taken it under their wings, invested time and money into it, and tried to turn it into an OS that they could attempt to box, put it on a shelf, and expect anyone to buy. Red Hat did it and withdrew more or less. Ubuntu could do this, but it looks like they're not going to. Free is great, but when it's something as technical as using a new OS, people would much rather pay, oh, $100, get a "free OS" with free future updates, and have phone tech support, know what vendors their software are coming from, etc. To many people, the ability to get tech support from the vendor versus communities on the internet is a make or break situation.
People don't like uncertainty...and a free, open source OS is just that. Uncertainty. While it's more complex than this, think of it this way. If I offered you two jobs, the first job salaried at $75k a year with a certain future doing things you know how to do (or can easily learn how to do) or a job at $100k with an uncertain future doing things that you've never done before that are intimidating, which one would you pick? The majority will pick $75k which is probably much more than they're already making to begin with while some will take a chance with the higher salaried job. Sure, it's a risk, but a risk with clear advantages if it works out.
I stopped reading the article at the "banal" segment because I didn't feel like being patronized and/or being served any more false information. Also, I thought it was fairly absurd that the author felt the need to spend so much time teaching us vocabulary when his grasp of grammar and comma usage was so lacking.
People also don't like crappy UI's, programs with really absurd/dorky names that make no sense to anyone but nerds who get the inside joke (if there even is one), and O/S's that don't support their favorite software. Honestly, I'd say it's about 100x's more likely that OSX gains significant ground to the point where it makes sense for apple to source out OSX to third party system builders than it would that Linux gains any significant headground. You know, unless the Linux community understands and finally makes strides to make Linux a) look like a program you would actually go out and spend your hard earned money on and b) make the UI and naming convention on the included software logical.
And anyone with the common sense to wash their hands after eating Cheetos never had this issue...
I've used Yahoo Music Unlimited since the beginning of it's beta days and, even though the software has always been less than stellar, the software wasn't what drew me to the service. The great music selection and my ability to listen to it whenever I wanted to for $7 a month was a tremendous value for me. I'm going to weep the day it goes away and, unhappily, probably switch over to Rhapsody and pay twice as much a month for a selection of music that's not as good. I can't say I'm a happy camper. Yahoo would have had a winning service on their hands had they allowed MusicMatch engineers time to do the YMJ software the RIGHT way (I've spoken to disgruntled MusicMatch employees and none of them spoke very highly of Yahoo...) and if they would have actually marketed the service. No one's ever heard of it, even though it's by far the best service of its kind around. Kinda sad if you ask me.
It seems that things are rumbling pretty fierce over at Yahoo! now. It definitely seems like they're ready to sell at least parts of their organization off. It was announced that Yahoo! is selling off their Yahoo! Music Unlimited service to Rhapsody: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/services/2008-02-04-yahoo-music-rhapsody_N.htm/
What this means is really in the eye of the beholder. Could Yahoo! want to ensure that Microsoft doesn't get a firm foot in the downloadable/streaming music business? Do they want to see Rhapsody succeed? Maybe this is just part of the company that MS isn't interested in, so they're trying to sell it off seperately? Or, most likely, they're trying to sell off a sinking ship...which, IMO, is really sad. Sure, the service was limited to Windows and the software sucked horribly, but it was a tremendous product for the price. I listen to it ever day and I'm saddened that I'll have to pay twice as much for Rhapsody now...
That's okay, Mike Gravel was on my ballot and I voted for him. However, I live in Florida which means my democratic vote doesn't count anyway. ugh...
* - (most affordable) DVD recorders don't record HDTV
* - (most affordable) DVD recorders don't record or tune digital cable
* - (most affordable) DVD recorders have really really crappy image quality, due partially to the fact that they don't tune the digital signal and also due to the fact that they just suck
* - (most affordable) DVD recorders do not have an in-depth recording menu like DVR's do. There's none of that searching for programs, record every instance of a program, "only record first run" options, etc.
* - (most) People don't like a bunch of discs laying around when it can be held in the device and, as an ancillary, most people don't want to have to remember to "load up the dvd recorder" before they go to work
* - (many) People just download tv programs off the internet if they want to keep a copy of the show
* - US major broadcasting stations have really, really good online sites that let you watch the shows (many times in HD) on your computer
* - DVD's just don't hold much data, whereas I have stuff on my DVR dated back to October at this point
* - Many DVR's from cable companies are easy to hook portable hard drives up to...
* - Many American's have the mentality that paying a little each month (to rent a dvr) is better than paying one lump sum up front (for a dvd recorder), especially when the DVR gives you the benefits previously mentioned.
Of course, I'm sure that DVD recorder technology in the US is severely lagging behind the rest of the world because DVR is preferred here (and, on the same note, I'm sure our DVR's blow the rest of the worlds out of the water), but until we see Blue Ray DVD Recorders that record HD programs and can store massive amounts of data AND until we see Blue Ray discs get cheap enough to make this a viable option, DVR's really the only solution for me.
Anyone who wants, feel free to add to the list. This was just off the top of my head...
Your mom
To me this is a major loss for consumers.
1) Sony likes to fix market prices.
2) Blue Ray players are a royal pain to program for, where HD-DVD's devopment tools are quite robust and relatively easy to use. This is a loss for DVD collectors such as myself who often buy DVD's just for the bonus features.
3) Discs will be more expensive to print because BR is not an open standard and royalties will have to be paid to Sony.
4) DRM, blah blah. Good luck ever being able to rip those movies onto a media server.
The only positive I see is that BR winning over HD-DVD is that it might allow Sony to drop the price of the PS3 sooner.
More like Mike Gravel with his National Initiative plan...which is a true shame that no one has actually ever heard of seeing that corporate press keeps bumping him out of debates and he's portrayed in popular media and a crackity old coot, but I digress. Anyway, point taken.
Playing games, my 360 sounds like a bat out of hell. Playing DVD's, it's near silent because all the CPU/GPU fans aren't going into overdrive. I have no idea what kinda toll the HD-DVD drive takes on the system, but I hope you are in the minority on this one.
I don't know if anyone else has delved into Microsoft's new Natual Keyboard line, but these are some of the most comfortable split/ergo keyboards I've ever used. And kudo's to MS for bringing back the front kickstand so we can actually type in an ergonomic position. I never understood why companies decided to just offer back kickstands for keyboards. This just leads to wrist aches.
Other than that, I'm sure that media center and xbox live add a ton of patents to their portfolio. We can sit back and bash MS all we want, but they do a lot of things right (even if writing an O/S doesn't seem to be one of them these days), especially in the HID market. Their mice and keyboards are A+ gear.