rwyf wedi creu cod newydd anhygoel. mae ei enw yn gymraeg. actores enwog noeth ac garegaidd a gwmpesir yn graean poeth. chi clod ansensitif. yn sofietaidd rwsia, teledu gwylio chi!
So in practice, you say that what you *actually* did was the diplomatic...
classify my inaction as being due to lack of payment not deliberate - I stated that I did not have the resources to continue working on their project without pay, which has some truth to it.
(Which sounds more sensible).
This is hardly the same thing as the "openly hardball, screw-them-over" advice you gave...
Pretend to be on good terms with them [..] abruptly right when they need your work the most. Offer them an ultimatum - either pay up all the outstanding money or you are walking.
I feel your pain. Solution: Pretend to be on good terms with them. Get yourself involved in a critical new project, then halt abruptly right when they need your work the most. Offer them an ultimatum - either pay up all the outstanding money or you are walking. After a brief round of bluffing, you will be surprised at how fast your bill gets paid.
Is this suggestion- and the expected outcome- based on personal experience, or just something you thought up that sounds like it *ought* to work?
Because I'm pretty sure that if you weren't absolutely sure of what you were doing, and you tried holding them to ransom, the company could find one of a number of ways to attack you for breach of contract or similar.
I'd take them down with the backdoor I left in the code (behind a dozen proxies in a dozen different nations).
That sounds *exactly* like an Internet Tough Guy would-be-hacker wish-fulfilment fantasy. Meanwhile, back in the real world...
Even if you're competent with the use of your "dozen proxies in a dozen different nations"- and you set them up correctly, and you don't give away any obvious identity clues that make your twelve-layer proxy irrelevant... You think it's *not* going to be bleeding obvious who triggered the backdoor (assuming you'd been planning in advance and put one in there) based on the fact that you wrote the code and you have a clear grievance?
In any case, don't get advice from random people online, get advice from lawyers and debt collectors who know about this sort of thing.
Well, yeah. To be blunt, the only advice that should be taken on Slashdot for a question like this is from either people in a similar position who have actual experience of this having having happened to them and/or those few posters with an actual solid legal background. And the former's advice should be "this is how it went for me, blah blah, but you should get proper legal advice".
Too many Slashdotters will come up with "cute-on-paper" sounding ideas (e.g. the name-and-shame idea above) not based on practical experience without understanding the implications in the real world. I've said this many times before, but the problem with many Slashdotters is that they like to think they know how the legal system(s) work when they don't.
This is because they think the law can be deduced and works in a relatively logical manner, i.e. they (a) think they can deduce how a particular law might work logically because (b) they think that the way the law *should* work is the way that the law *does* work; i.e. that it's both fair and logical. But it's not always that way, and the only way to actually know how the law works is to have learned how the law works properly.
I've been attacked on more than one occasion for pointing this out, as if my drawing attention to the fact that this is how the (flawed) system works- like it or not- implies that I approve of it, i.e. shooting the messenger. But, yeah; any answers to this question should be taken as pointers from people who've encountered similar situations and what direction to be heading in, and certainly not taken as final legal advice or anything near it.
A while ago I built my new system using an el-cheapo 400W PSU I had laying around. The system was flaky under load, even though my components couldn't have drawn more than about 250W.
It's been well-known for years that cheapass power supplies can't reliably deliver anything near their claimed wattage, if they can deliver it at all. Wouldn't entirely surprise me if that one had trouble consistently supplying even 250W, assuming your guesstimate was correct.
One of my colleagues was building a system that included a power-hungry graphics card and needed a more powerful supply than normal. He originally fitted a no-name, bottom-of-the-range model that should- according to the spec- have easily been able to meet even this somewhat demanding need, but it wouldn't boot properly. On discussing this with my boss, his reaction was to blame the PSU- he didn't even *expect* it to deliver. It was replaced with a similarly-rated model from a much more reputable manufacturer. The problems disappeared.
The "name" power supply, however, cost around three or four times what the dirt-cheap one did. However, it quite clearly wasn't a "like with like" comparison. Some of the more powerful supplies can be eye-wateringly expensive, but if you're buying a dirt-cheap, no-name 1000W PSU, you're not getting a 1000W PSU. It's been said that an expensive model will push its components to 50% of their rated capacity at its rated output, whereas a cheap and nasty one will be running them at- and quite probably beyond- their spec.
Why so surprised, Intels are selling "Pentiums" now that have nothing to do whatsoever with any Pentium architecture
By definition, if they're calling it "Pentium", it's "a" Pentium architecture. What you say might have had more weight if the original Pentium architectures were all the same. However, to the best of my knowledge, the original Pentium (P5) was an extension of the 486 architecture, whereas the Pentium Pro and Pentium II (P6) were sort-of-RISC non-x86 cores wrapped in a translation layer; that is, drastically different.
However, I do agree that bringing back the Pentium name after ditching it was a confusing and stupid idea, if only from the point of view of market positioning. They had the Celeron brand for entry-level processors, the new "Core" (*) brand for midrange machines and Xeon for the high-end stuff. What was the new "Pentium" branding supposed to convey? Apparently it's a sort-of-budget-but-not-as-cheap-as-Celeron line. This smacks of internal marketing politics- someone realises that the Pentium brand still had recognition, and seeks a contrived excuse to bring it back when its position has been filled with the new Core brand. Now that we have the clearly-delineated Core i7, i5 and i3 (and the Celeron remaining at the bottom), the "Pentium" brand is even more unnecessary.
(*) Since you mentioned the "new" Pentiums not having the "Pentium" architecture, it's worth remembering that the original "Core"-branded chips didn't have the "Core" architecture, which came out with the "Core 2" line(!!!)
I can understand Kodak owning some patents for digital imaging, but 1100? Are there really 1100 different ways of doing digital imaging, or just 1100 obvious ways of combining seven novel ideas?
Honestly? Without having looked into it, I'm willing to bet that quite a lot of those patents are legitimate old-style "proper" patents on real worthwhile things that Slashdotters would approve of. Bear in mind that Kodak did quite a lot of research into this, and probably came up with a lot of stuff, they just never commercialised it successfully.
Of course, these patents may be being bought and used for "bad" reasons, but that doesn't mean they were crappy patents in the first place.
Are there really 1100 different ways of doing digital imaging, or just 1100 obvious ways of combining seven novel ideas?
Do you genuinely believe that there are only seven truly patentable ideas in digital imaging?
We've pretty much given up completely on the once largest local employer. [..] She's not sinking, rather she's already resting on the bottom of the ocean flapping a bit.
Yes- unfortunately, Kodak is quite clearly doomed at this point. It's now far too late for them to reinvent themselves as Fujifilm did. They've already been selling off their assets (including patents) for a while, and continuing to do so will ensure their short-term survival for a bit longer. Of course, this basically dooms them in the long term.
But even if Kodak survives, the basic problem is that there's probably no real reason for a company to exist in Kodak's present form- I'm guessing it's going to be worth more split up and sold off, particularly minus the liabilities.
The film division might continue to exist, but if successful, it'll likely be as a far more niche manufacturer.
The name will (of course) survive, but that's all it'll really be. At best it'll be sold to a company in a superficially similar line of business to what Kodak was formerly best-known for (consumer imaging), possibly one that bought some of Kodak's old divisions. At worst it'll be a brand name to be whored around cheaply to distributors of random generic electronics from the Far East looking to gain some misplaced brand recognition.
That said, even the name is probably worth less in terms of consumer recognition than it would have been 15 years ago. It's a relic of the mass-market camera film era, and unfortunately people have moved on.
Will the new Xbox play [..] Nintendo first party titles (almost all I want)? No, so it isn't much of a substitute is it.
Well, let's see... I was talking about "gamers who *do* want "mature" content". Given that you just said that you're almost exclusively interested in "Nintendo first party titles" (i.e. the antithesis of the former), it should be pretty blooming obvious that I wasn't talking about people like you.
As others have commented, this is *your* first ever post- under this account anyway- *and* the first post in the thread.
I can't understand why you people defend Google on Slashdot.
As I've commented before, it was undeniably true that Slashdotters were very pro-Google and uncritical. The emphasis being on *was*, as this hasn't been the case for several years now. Not that they haven't got their uncritical fans, but it's no longer an obvious consensus. I'll note that you've actually been modded to +5 now.
And as others have said, your own motives are suspicious. It's ironic that I'd probably agree with a lot of what you said, but the fact that you said all that about Google yet completely omitted to mention Facebook, a company even more contemptious (*) of its users' privacy and openly cynical about it to anyone with half a brain.
(*) This doesn't excuse Google, the fact that Facebook are worse doesn't stop them from being bad.
Hell, at least with Microsoft and PAID software I know I'm not losing my privacy.
This is a bit too obvious and makes me wonder whether you're actually an incompetent PR guy/girl or if you're actually a somewhat sophisticated troll. I remember a while back, the "MyCleanPC" spam was constantly being reposted- which was mildly annoying in itself. But what was more annoying were the people cluttering up the thread with offtopic responses and schemes to attack the supposed spammer. Despite the fact that by that point many of the reposts were coming from accounts with obviously offensive names that any real spammer wouldn't have chosen. (The original might have been genuine spam, the reposts were obviously trolls).
Result? Clever troll ropes legions of halfwitted wannabe vigilantes into replying to him. This one isn't as obvious, but you have to wonder:-/
Certainly the latter seems like the best idea - if you don't like the platform, don't buy it.
From Xest's original post that was the great-grandparent to yours above:-
So it's lost them at least one sale here, and I suspect many more.
Hmm... sounds like that's *exactly* what he said he was doing anyway.
Really, your comment sounds like yet another rehash of the old chestnut that because someone isn't being forced to buy something they have no right to criticise it. Wrong.
If you're in bed by dinnertime because you're up at 6:30am, you may have some sleeping problems, though.
Maybe he will, maybe he won't. But you're obviously using it as an excuse to deflect criticism of a rather stupid idea Nintendo had, and turn the attack against Xest instead.
Personally, I'm quite happy for access to "mature" content to be restricted in some way, and for parents to be given the power to stop their children accessing it. But the way they're doing it here is quite stupid, and smacks of an agenda and/or attempt to project an image as opposed to actually being useful. It's the worst aspects of "Think of the Children" and its equivalent of Security Theatre rolled into one.
Time-based censorship was acceptable in the old "one way" TV days because there was no better way of doing it than restricting such material to times when children were (or should have been) in bed. Even then, (e.g.) video rental stores didn't restrict rental of adult-rated material to certain hours, they simply required proof of age. If this 30-years-out-of-date approach was genuinely the best parental content control that Nintendo could manage in this day and age, then they should sack the entire team that came up with the idea... but of course, it's not, it's a Family-Values-Theatre stunt.
OTOH, this could (and deservedly should) come back and bite them on the backside with gamers who *do* want "mature" content (like, er... adults). Such pseudo-Nannyish nonsense suggests that Nintendo are going to be playing silly b****rs and interfering with such material in an attempt to pander to their image. Given that the "next gen" Wii U is at best little better than the current-gen consoles and the new XBox will probably arrive in the next year and blow it out of the water, most such gamers will probaby not bother with it anyway...
They lasted a lot longer than I expected. £20,000 is a really small amount of money so for it to last over two years is impressive.
£20,000 isn't a "really" small amount of money. £20,000 is an absurdly small amount of money.:-O
I notice that the website describes it as "seed funding". Realistically, I'd have thought that £20,000 was very low even for that purpose. That would about cover the pay of a *single* person for *one* year at less than average UK wages. And that wouldn't leave anything over for expenses.
At any rate, I was going to comment something along the lines of...
April 2010 - Labour gives government support to new body 6uk.
May 2010 - Labour kicked out of power, David Cameron and his Etonian chums, er... the Conservatives come in to power. Somewhat indifferent to Labour-supported project. Hmm.
If that logic were true, then it would never be worth making and selling any kind of manufacturing equipment ever, because if you make it you'd be better off using the equipment you'd made to make money.
Manufacturing generally requires access to and/or ownership of significant additional infrastructure and resources, which you may not wish to buy, or which others may have access to on more favourable terms. "Mining" Bitcoins, OTOH, generally doesn't beyond the basic equipment and net access.
I'm referring to the "citation needed" idiot that came later - as should have been obvious.
That wasn't as obvious as it should have been, but now that you've made it clear, I accept your point. However...
Considering that it's a reply to an unbacked up and frankly obviously false assertion of only 13 people buying the thing I think the "citation needed" comment does deserve contempt.
I still think attacking the literal joke instead of the underlying implication is rather missing the point. Of course the figure of 13 is "obviously false", it's an exaggerated *joke*, so that in itself proves nothing. It would make more sense to have attacked the underlying point that was being made humorously (that the original Transformer supposedly sold poorly), but... whatever.
Not at all. Someone made an obviously-exaggerated joke ("all 13 geeks who bought them love them!") that almost (*) no-one would actually believe was meant literally.
You took it literally in a spectacularly lame attempt at point scoring.. Er.... that's it. The only "weird" bit is figuring out who you were trying to fool with this nonsense.:-)
(*) Which brings us on to...
some guy posted a blatant lie, joke or not now Dogtanian is calling me autistic for suggesting no citation is needed
Not really. What I said was that it was so obvious a joke that only someone with an autism-related disorder could (in good faith) claim to have taken it literally.
In your case, it's far more plausible that you were just bulls******g.
Considering that it's a reply to an unbacked up and frankly obviously false assertion of only 13 people buying the thing
Good grief. Unless you are badly autistic (and I mean that as a statement of fact, not abuse), it should be quite clear that its transparent "falseness" was because it was intended as a joke, quite clearly not expected to be taken literally and quite deliberately exaggerated for the sake of poking some fun at an underlying but less extreme truth.
One might reasonably disagree with (and attack) the underlying "serious" point that the Transformer sold poorly. However, deliberately treating what I assume you knew was an obvious joke as if it were ever meant to be taken seriously is the kind of stupid and inane point-scoring pseudo-argumentative silliness that gives Slashdotters a bad name.
I'm wondering if the model A will really have much of a market.
The irony would be that the "Model A" and "Model B" naming was a homage to the BBC Micro, which originally came out in Model A and Model B versions. The more powerful "BBC B" (32KB instead of 16KB and more ports) turned out to be far more popular- it overshadowed the cheaper Model A and became the "canonical" version to the extent that most games and software required the BBC B and didn't bother with versions that would run on the Model A.
Slashdot Mirror
atyeu ushtr tasga poend stsgd yyenb shjdm plkag
rwyf wedi creu cod newydd anhygoel. mae ei enw yn gymraeg. actores enwog noeth ac garegaidd a gwmpesir yn graean poeth. chi clod ansensitif. yn sofietaidd rwsia, teledu gwylio chi!
classify my inaction as being due to lack of payment not deliberate - I stated that I did not have the resources to continue working on their project without pay, which has some truth to it.
(Which sounds more sensible).
This is hardly the same thing as the "openly hardball, screw-them-over" advice you gave...
Pretend to be on good terms with them [..] abruptly right when they need your work the most. Offer them an ultimatum - either pay up all the outstanding money or you are walking.
I feel your pain. Solution: Pretend to be on good terms with them. Get yourself involved in a critical new project, then halt abruptly right when they need your work the most. Offer them an ultimatum - either pay up all the outstanding money or you are walking. After a brief round of bluffing, you will be surprised at how fast your bill gets paid.
Is this suggestion- and the expected outcome- based on personal experience, or just something you thought up that sounds like it *ought* to work?
Because I'm pretty sure that if you weren't absolutely sure of what you were doing, and you tried holding them to ransom, the company could find one of a number of ways to attack you for breach of contract or similar.
No; IANAL- but of more significance is that you probably aren't either, but are still offering this advice.
I'd take them down with the backdoor I left in the code (behind a dozen proxies in a dozen different nations).
That sounds *exactly* like an Internet Tough Guy would-be-hacker wish-fulfilment fantasy. Meanwhile, back in the real world...
Even if you're competent with the use of your "dozen proxies in a dozen different nations"- and you set them up correctly, and you don't give away any obvious identity clues that make your twelve-layer proxy irrelevant... You think it's *not* going to be bleeding obvious who triggered the backdoor (assuming you'd been planning in advance and put one in there) based on the fact that you wrote the code and you have a clear grievance?
In any case, don't get advice from random people online, get advice from lawyers and debt collectors who know about this sort of thing.
Well, yeah. To be blunt, the only advice that should be taken on Slashdot for a question like this is from either people in a similar position who have actual experience of this having having happened to them and/or those few posters with an actual solid legal background. And the former's advice should be "this is how it went for me, blah blah, but you should get proper legal advice".
Too many Slashdotters will come up with "cute-on-paper" sounding ideas (e.g. the name-and-shame idea above) not based on practical experience without understanding the implications in the real world. I've said this many times before, but the problem with many Slashdotters is that they like to think they know how the legal system(s) work when they don't.
This is because they think the law can be deduced and works in a relatively logical manner, i.e. they (a) think they can deduce how a particular law might work logically because (b) they think that the way the law *should* work is the way that the law *does* work; i.e. that it's both fair and logical. But it's not always that way, and the only way to actually know how the law works is to have learned how the law works properly.
I've been attacked on more than one occasion for pointing this out, as if my drawing attention to the fact that this is how the (flawed) system works- like it or not- implies that I approve of it, i.e. shooting the messenger. But, yeah; any answers to this question should be taken as pointers from people who've encountered similar situations and what direction to be heading in, and certainly not taken as final legal advice or anything near it.
Glutamate is a quite common flavour enhancer in processed food. Does that mean processed food can make you suicidal?
No, but it does explain why brains are so tasty.
These ought to be delicious, then! (Er, but you can try them first, though...)
Warning; link NSFL ("Not Safe For Lunchtime").
A while ago I built my new system using an el-cheapo 400W PSU I had laying around. The system was flaky under load, even though my components couldn't have drawn more than about 250W.
It's been well-known for years that cheapass power supplies can't reliably deliver anything near their claimed wattage, if they can deliver it at all. Wouldn't entirely surprise me if that one had trouble consistently supplying even 250W, assuming your guesstimate was correct.
One of my colleagues was building a system that included a power-hungry graphics card and needed a more powerful supply than normal. He originally fitted a no-name, bottom-of-the-range model that should- according to the spec- have easily been able to meet even this somewhat demanding need, but it wouldn't boot properly. On discussing this with my boss, his reaction was to blame the PSU- he didn't even *expect* it to deliver. It was replaced with a similarly-rated model from a much more reputable manufacturer. The problems disappeared.
The "name" power supply, however, cost around three or four times what the dirt-cheap one did. However, it quite clearly wasn't a "like with like" comparison. Some of the more powerful supplies can be eye-wateringly expensive, but if you're buying a dirt-cheap, no-name 1000W PSU, you're not getting a 1000W PSU. It's been said that an expensive model will push its components to 50% of their rated capacity at its rated output, whereas a cheap and nasty one will be running them at- and quite probably beyond- their spec.
Why so surprised, Intels are selling "Pentiums" now that have nothing to do whatsoever with any Pentium architecture
By definition, if they're calling it "Pentium", it's "a" Pentium architecture. What you say might have had more weight if the original Pentium architectures were all the same. However, to the best of my knowledge, the original Pentium (P5) was an extension of the 486 architecture, whereas the Pentium Pro and Pentium II (P6) were sort-of-RISC non-x86 cores wrapped in a translation layer; that is, drastically different.
However, I do agree that bringing back the Pentium name after ditching it was a confusing and stupid idea, if only from the point of view of market positioning. They had the Celeron brand for entry-level processors, the new "Core" (*) brand for midrange machines and Xeon for the high-end stuff. What was the new "Pentium" branding supposed to convey? Apparently it's a sort-of-budget-but-not-as-cheap-as-Celeron line. This smacks of internal marketing politics- someone realises that the Pentium brand still had recognition, and seeks a contrived excuse to bring it back when its position has been filled with the new Core brand. Now that we have the clearly-delineated Core i7, i5 and i3 (and the Celeron remaining at the bottom), the "Pentium" brand is even more unnecessary.
(*) Since you mentioned the "new" Pentiums not having the "Pentium" architecture, it's worth remembering that the original "Core"-branded chips didn't have the "Core" architecture, which came out with the "Core 2" line(!!!)
Does Python taste good?
It generally tastes much better if you add a lot of mint leaves while cooking it.
Hence the name, "Minty Python".
I can understand Kodak owning some patents for digital imaging, but 1100? Are there really 1100 different ways of doing digital imaging, or just 1100 obvious ways of combining seven novel ideas?
Honestly? Without having looked into it, I'm willing to bet that quite a lot of those patents are legitimate old-style "proper" patents on real worthwhile things that Slashdotters would approve of. Bear in mind that Kodak did quite a lot of research into this, and probably came up with a lot of stuff, they just never commercialised it successfully.
Of course, these patents may be being bought and used for "bad" reasons, but that doesn't mean they were crappy patents in the first place.
Are there really 1100 different ways of doing digital imaging, or just 1100 obvious ways of combining seven novel ideas?
Do you genuinely believe that there are only seven truly patentable ideas in digital imaging?
We've pretty much given up completely on the once largest local employer. [..] She's not sinking, rather she's already resting on the bottom of the ocean flapping a bit.
Yes- unfortunately, Kodak is quite clearly doomed at this point. It's now far too late for them to reinvent themselves as Fujifilm did. They've already been selling off their assets (including patents) for a while, and continuing to do so will ensure their short-term survival for a bit longer. Of course, this basically dooms them in the long term.
But even if Kodak survives, the basic problem is that there's probably no real reason for a company to exist in Kodak's present form- I'm guessing it's going to be worth more split up and sold off, particularly minus the liabilities.
The film division might continue to exist, but if successful, it'll likely be as a far more niche manufacturer.
The name will (of course) survive, but that's all it'll really be. At best it'll be sold to a company in a superficially similar line of business to what Kodak was formerly best-known for (consumer imaging), possibly one that bought some of Kodak's old divisions. At worst it'll be a brand name to be whored around cheaply to distributors of random generic electronics from the Far East looking to gain some misplaced brand recognition.
That said, even the name is probably worth less in terms of consumer recognition than it would have been 15 years ago. It's a relic of the mass-market camera film era, and unfortunately people have moved on.
Will the new Xbox play [..] Nintendo first party titles (almost all I want)? No, so it isn't much of a substitute is it.
Well, let's see... I was talking about "gamers who *do* want "mature" content". Given that you just said that you're almost exclusively interested in "Nintendo first party titles" (i.e. the antithesis of the former), it should be pretty blooming obvious that I wasn't talking about people like you.
I can't understand why you people defend Google on Slashdot.
As I've commented before, it was undeniably true that Slashdotters were very pro-Google and uncritical. The emphasis being on *was*, as this hasn't been the case for several years now. Not that they haven't got their uncritical fans, but it's no longer an obvious consensus. I'll note that you've actually been modded to +5 now.
And as others have said, your own motives are suspicious. It's ironic that I'd probably agree with a lot of what you said, but the fact that you said all that about Google yet completely omitted to mention Facebook, a company even more contemptious (*) of its users' privacy and openly cynical about it to anyone with half a brain.
(*) This doesn't excuse Google, the fact that Facebook are worse doesn't stop them from being bad.
Hell, at least with Microsoft and PAID software I know I'm not losing my privacy.
This is a bit too obvious and makes me wonder whether you're actually an incompetent PR guy/girl or if you're actually a somewhat sophisticated troll. I remember a while back, the "MyCleanPC" spam was constantly being reposted- which was mildly annoying in itself. But what was more annoying were the people cluttering up the thread with offtopic responses and schemes to attack the supposed spammer. Despite the fact that by that point many of the reposts were coming from accounts with obviously offensive names that any real spammer wouldn't have chosen. (The original might have been genuine spam, the reposts were obviously trolls).
:-/
Result? Clever troll ropes legions of halfwitted wannabe vigilantes into replying to him. This one isn't as obvious, but you have to wonder
Certainly the latter seems like the best idea - if you don't like the platform, don't buy it.
From Xest's original post that was the great-grandparent to yours above:-
So it's lost them at least one sale here, and I suspect many more.
Hmm... sounds like that's *exactly* what he said he was doing anyway.
Really, your comment sounds like yet another rehash of the old chestnut that because someone isn't being forced to buy something they have no right to criticise it. Wrong.
If you're in bed by dinnertime because you're up at 6:30am, you may have some sleeping problems, though.
Maybe he will, maybe he won't. But you're obviously using it as an excuse to deflect criticism of a rather stupid idea Nintendo had, and turn the attack against Xest instead.
Personally, I'm quite happy for access to "mature" content to be restricted in some way, and for parents to be given the power to stop their children accessing it. But the way they're doing it here is quite stupid, and smacks of an agenda and/or attempt to project an image as opposed to actually being useful. It's the worst aspects of "Think of the Children" and its equivalent of Security Theatre rolled into one.
Time-based censorship was acceptable in the old "one way" TV days because there was no better way of doing it than restricting such material to times when children were (or should have been) in bed. Even then, (e.g.) video rental stores didn't restrict rental of adult-rated material to certain hours, they simply required proof of age. If this 30-years-out-of-date approach was genuinely the best parental content control that Nintendo could manage in this day and age, then they should sack the entire team that came up with the idea... but of course, it's not, it's a Family-Values-Theatre stunt.
OTOH, this could (and deservedly should) come back and bite them on the backside with gamers who *do* want "mature" content (like, er... adults). Such pseudo-Nannyish nonsense suggests that Nintendo are going to be playing silly b****rs and interfering with such material in an attempt to pander to their image. Given that the "next gen" Wii U is at best little better than the current-gen consoles and the new XBox will probably arrive in the next year and blow it out of the water, most such gamers will probaby not bother with it anyway...
Additional; for non-UK readers, at today's exchange rates £20,000 = US $32,078.
They lasted a lot longer than I expected. £20,000 is a really small amount of money so for it to last over two years is impressive.
£20,000 isn't a "really" small amount of money. £20,000 is an absurdly small amount of money. :-O
I notice that the website describes it as "seed funding". Realistically, I'd have thought that £20,000 was very low even for that purpose. That would about cover the pay of a *single* person for *one* year at less than average UK wages. And that wouldn't leave anything over for expenses.
At any rate, I was going to comment something along the lines of...
April 2010 - Labour gives government support to new body 6uk.
May 2010 - Labour kicked out of power, David Cameron and his Etonian chums, er... the Conservatives come in to power. Somewhat indifferent to Labour-supported project. Hmm.
If that logic were true, then it would never be worth making and selling any kind of manufacturing equipment ever, because if you make it you'd be better off using the equipment you'd made to make money.
Manufacturing generally requires access to and/or ownership of significant additional infrastructure and resources, which you may not wish to buy, or which others may have access to on more favourable terms. "Mining" Bitcoins, OTOH, generally doesn't beyond the basic equipment and net access.
I'm referring to the "citation needed" idiot that came later - as should have been obvious.
That wasn't as obvious as it should have been, but now that you've made it clear, I accept your point. However...
Considering that it's a reply to an unbacked up and frankly obviously false assertion of only 13 people buying the thing I think the "citation needed" comment does deserve contempt.
I still think attacking the literal joke instead of the underlying implication is rather missing the point. Of course the figure of 13 is "obviously false", it's an exaggerated *joke*, so that in itself proves nothing. It would make more sense to have attacked the underlying point that was being made humorously (that the original Transformer supposedly sold poorly), but... whatever.
We're getting way into weird territory here
Not at all. Someone made an obviously-exaggerated joke ("all 13 geeks who bought them love them!") that almost (*) no-one would actually believe was meant literally.
:-)
You took it literally in a spectacularly lame attempt at point scoring.. Er.... that's it. The only "weird" bit is figuring out who you were trying to fool with this nonsense.
(*) Which brings us on to...
some guy posted a blatant lie, joke or not now Dogtanian is calling me autistic for suggesting no citation is needed
Not really. What I said was that it was so obvious a joke that only someone with an autism-related disorder could (in good faith) claim to have taken it literally.
In your case, it's far more plausible that you were just bulls******g.
I heard that 'kidney for iPad, liver for Galaxy' ring got busted in China.
I heard that if you want a Microsoft Surface, you have to get your brain removed...
Considering that it's a reply to an unbacked up and frankly obviously false assertion of only 13 people buying the thing
Good grief. Unless you are badly autistic (and I mean that as a statement of fact, not abuse), it should be quite clear that its transparent "falseness" was because it was intended as a joke, quite clearly not expected to be taken literally and quite deliberately exaggerated for the sake of poking some fun at an underlying but less extreme truth.
One might reasonably disagree with (and attack) the underlying "serious" point that the Transformer sold poorly. However, deliberately treating what I assume you knew was an obvious joke as if it were ever meant to be taken seriously is the kind of stupid and inane point-scoring pseudo-argumentative silliness that gives Slashdotters a bad name.
Oregon is probably a bit far for people in the UK though. They could have held in in Boring's twin city^w town^w village of Dull in Scotland, however.
I'm wondering if the model A will really have much of a market.
The irony would be that the "Model A" and "Model B" naming was a homage to the BBC Micro, which originally came out in Model A and Model B versions. The more powerful "BBC B" (32KB instead of 16KB and more ports) turned out to be far more popular- it overshadowed the cheaper Model A and became the "canonical" version to the extent that most games and software required the BBC B and didn't bother with versions that would run on the Model A.
History repeating itself?
Nuclear explosions? On the moon?
Were they hoping to blast it out of the earth's orbit and travel across space on it, meeting a new alien civilisation every week?
If it's from hairspray, they can't be all *that* intelligent.
Judge for yourself- here are some pictures of aliens we've discovered using the hairspray detection technique.
Their communications technology is still remarkably primitive though.