DC is in the middle of relaunching their entire line, all 52 titles. Pulling all those DC graphic novels at a time when new readers have an interest in DC titles and might be looking to dig into their back catalog is just throwing away potential sales. Especially now that Borders is gone, BN is the only major book retailer left in a lot of areas so BN would have gotten those sales by default.
From what I've heard, this relaunch is in part aimed more at a "first time" younger audience than the current stereotypical- and now ageing- adult comic collector. (This makes sense- it would be unwise to rely on the grown-ups for their long term future. They have to get fresh blood in, and after all, it was this younger market that was the primary one for comics in their heyday.)
But since this is a "first time" market, you have to get them interested first, and if they're not already interested they're not going to be reading diehard comics fans' sites, nor queuing up to buy.
I assume that, had this incident not happened, that B&N would probably have been happy to promote this relaunch in-store and possibly in their windows, giving it more mainstream attention. How much this kind of mainstream attention and publicity is worth nowadays- particularly with a younger audience- is unclear, but I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand.
And beta testing...God. You think you're getting paid to play games and it turns out you're getting paid to play *broken* games. And when something breaks you're not supposed to move on or work around it; your job is to break it again and again and again until you can document how, when, and maybe even why it breaks for the developers.
Of course they can, if they are set up and run in the appropriate manner.
Clearly, the abstract concept of an organisation cannot feel loyalty in the human sense, but there is nothing inherent in the *general* concept that stops them from rewarding and returning loyalty- if that is the aim of those in charge, and if they are run appropriately.
Of course, whether a large, profit-driven corporation (one particular type of organisation) will do so is far less likely- though one could argue they should treat loyalty as an asset, this rarely happens.
The discussion software on digg started out as being pretty bad, then went downhill with every pointless iteration. The operators of the site seemed to be at war with the users.
The discussion software was crap (no threading IIRC), but that wasn't the problem I was talking about. *That* problem (which I probably should have made clearer in the first place) was a consequence of the way the ranking algorithms, user interactions, friendships, popularity etc. (*) were set up.
In fact, it was basically Digg's "Web 2.0 meets wisdom-of-the-crowds" social features that differentiated it- and which were supposedly so great in theory- that made it suck in practice. They'd also be a horrible choice for Slashdot.
((*) I'm currently at work, so I don't have the archived article to hand and my memory is hazy on the details after 5 years).
Look at the results of the vote systems on Digg and Reddit. Formerly sites that had intelligent contribution that have been brought to the lowest common denominator and worse.
I don't know about Reddit, but Digg slid downhill *very* fast, very early on.
I first used Digg in early 2006, around a year after its launch, when it had already received masses of hype as the poster boy of the then-new Web 2.0. It was even being touted by some as a better version of Slashdot.
I can only assume if the hype was *ever* true, then it must have already started going downhill by the time I got there, because it was never that great for me. Given that it noticeably declined further to the point I got sick of it and left altogether within a year, this doesn't sound implausible.
In early 2007, shortly after I'd left, I came across a very good article that captured and summed up my negative feelings about Digg better than I had myself, as well as crystallising and spotting many other good points I hadn't consciously thought about. Unfortunately, it's since been removed from the net- though I found and saved an archive copy, I don't want to repost here as I assume the author *wanted* it removed and I don't wish to disrespect their wishes.
Bottom line though, that article was written in early 2007. That was just over 2 years after Digg launched, and it had *already* degenerated into an cesspool of attention-whoring, echo chamber opinion reinforcement, fanboys attacking any dissenting opinion en masse (you think *Slashdot* is bad for this?!), entrenched cabals of losers voting each others' stories up and generally contemptible incestuous self-obsessed worthless bullshit.
When I came back to Slashdot, the comments genuinely seemed in a different league in terms of intelligence and insight. Says it all.
Although my wife and I have talked about polygamy I think it would be just too much hassle.
Can you imagine two wives, both on the rag at the same time?
Wouldn't it be better to choose them such that they *weren't* both on the rag at the same time?
Though you'd have to keep them apart- apparently womens' cycles have a habit of gradually synchronising if they're living in close proximity for an extended period of time.
I didn't even know Napster was still around... or relevant for that matter.
They're not, and they're not.
Some other company bought the name when the "real" Napster went bankrupt a decade or so ago, and used it to rebrand a crappy early "legal" music service. That's about it.
This would have been big news... ten years ago. =P
Yes, if we'd been talking about the original- and long-defunct- original Napster (which was entering its death throes at this point a decade back).
Basically, Roxio bought the name after the original owners went bankrupt, and used it to rebrand their paid music service Pressplay. From then on, it's been "Napster" in name only. It's just another music service that we probably wouldn't be even discussing if it wasn't wearing the name of the otherwise unrelated famous original.
It was phrased that way because it is the objective truth.
If you had merely stated that it was a "compromise", you would of course be correct, as we already agreed. However, describing it as a "kludge compromise" carries a negative implication, which is not merely an "objective truth" nor representative of a general consensus- it's your opinion.
You interpreted my pointing out the obvious technical problems with glass-front "smart phones" as a condemnation of all the users of the phones.
No, I didn't. The way that you said it I interpreted as either (a) you implying that many people held similar opinions or (b) that many people's usage patterns backed up your assertion, even if they didn't realise it.
Many will find that instead of usability gains they prefer for the thing to fit in their back jeans pocket. So I stated: "to each their own". Repeatedly.
This is somewhat disingenuous. You claim that you are posting your personal opinion, but you phrase such things as if they are representative of generally-accepted consensus and/or trend, or "objective" truth (see above).
No, what I am saying that for many people, myself included, the usage patterns of the phone/tablet are such that we no longer need the functionality of the "smart phone" because that part has been transferred to the tablet and what remains is the functionality of a wireless voice/data communication device.
Honestly, it sounds like you're putting forward your own personal opinion- which is quite valid in itself- as representative of a general trend in public opinion. (*)
(Either that or you're suggesting that in your opinion the way many smartphone users use their devices is such that they would be better off with a tablet, even if they themselves haven't expressed- nor even consciously realised- that...?)
At any rate, I don't agree with this. I believe that many people originally bought- and still buy- touch-screen smartphones because they wanted that sort of functionality in a *portable* "phone" sized device. I don't see any evidence that the majority- or even a significant minority- bought them primarily because they were mini tablets (**)... and I still don't see that the majority of smartphone owners would agree with you that a non-smart phone plus a non-portable tablet would meet the same need.
As I said before, your opinion is quite reasonable in itself. I just don't think it's representative of public opinion in general, nor a good case for explaining why smartphones have supposedly been rendered redundant by the arrival of the tablet.
(*) For similar reasons, I interpreted this line in your original post:-
This is because with the advent of tablets the concept of a "smart phone" has become quite exposed for a kludge-compromise that it is.
as intended to be representative of a consensus rather than personal opinion because of the way it was phrased.
(**) Even granting allowance for the fact that although most people would not have heard of a "tablet" when the iPhone first came out, nor were probably even aware of the concept, it could still (theoretically) have appealed to them on that level.
I'll take your word for it on the Java dates then, as the ones I had were vague. That obviously shifts the argument of the balance in favour of what you originally said, at least a bit. Also, it's amazing how I'd almost forgotten about the notorious ActiveX, despite it being so ubiquitous around the turn of the millennium.
The fact that MS considered it acceptable to use something that was such a major security hole in IE says a lot about them at the time.
This is also why many prefer the flip-phone format, despite the fashionistas trying to ram the glass-front brick down everyone's throats.
You seem (here and elsewhere) to use "flip phone" as synonymous with "solid, traditional, non-smart mobile phone". Which obviously misses out the "bar" format of phones like the once ubiquitous Nokia 3310.
IIRC the "bar" form factor was much more common than the flip-phone/clamshell around the turn of the millennium, and that seems nice and functional too. The clamshell form factor seemed to reach its peak of popularity here in the UK around the mid-noughties (*), but since then they seem to have gone out of fashion again and almost completely disappeared (**). Virtually all the non-smart phones seem to have gone back to the "bar" form factor, or perhaps it's that the people who once bought clamshells are now buying smartphones, and the people who just wanted simple functionality always preferred the "bar" phones.
(BTW, I always had a dislike for the clamshell form factor myself, but this was admittedly just personal taste).
This is because with the advent of tablets the concept of a "smart phone" has become quite exposed for a kludge-compromise that it is. A tablet is very good at web browsing, email, apps etc but a phone is a communication device and mostly sucks at those things due to its restrictive form factor.
Well, clearly a smartphone's usability will be a compromise due to its limited dimensions.
However- and I apologise for stating the blooming obvious here- they're generally that size so they fit in your pocket. A tablet won't.
Your argument is apparently(?) that now tablets are here smartphones are no longer needed as we can use a non-smart phone for the "phone" bit and a tablet for the "smart" bit. Missing the point that this isn't much good if you want the "smart" bit on the go and don't have iPad-sized pockets(!) (Or were you saying something else?)
You prefer a solid traditional phone? That's fine, I can understand that. But others might not, and a tablet certainly isn't a replacement for a smartphone. Personally, I have a smartphone, but little interest in tablets as they currently are- I'd rather just use my computer if I didn't want to use something that fitted in my pocket!
I agree entirely! I thought I'd already said the same thing, but realised I'd made a mistake so this wasn't clear. Here's what I'd *meant* to say.
"I wouldn't say that Flash killed Applets though- by the time the former [not "latter"] had started to evolve beyond being a simple multimedia tool, the latter had already been out for years and clearly failed to have taken off *without* any major competition."
I was under the impression that it was the very slow startup time (which seems sluggish even today on the rare occasion you see a Java Applet) and general lack of speed that killed Applets. But you could be right that it was the MS factor as well.
Flash had lower ambitions that didn't threaten Microsoft
Yes, this sounds plausible. I don't know if this was by design (i.e. Adobe intentionally flying under MS's radar) or whether it was an unintentional consequence of Flash simply growing more powerful over the years that it ended up being and doing what Applets had originally been positioned to be and do.
2) I think applets were a major success. They broke the hold of HTML/CGI. Prior to applets there was no way to even having something like a variable menu. The web was static information + forms + response. It simply didn't offer anything like interactivity. Think about something like.pdfs today.
I disagree. It's true that until then the web was basically static pages and server-side CGI (and this was partly why Applets seemed such a big deal at the time). However, you miss the fact that JavaScript (as LiveScript) launched around the same time (*)- certainly the launch dates of the two were too close together for it to be likely that LiveScript was noticeably influenced by Java. So we'd have still had LiveScript (albeit without the pointless renaming), and that gave us some- admittedly basic- client-side scripting.
IMHO Applets weren't influential, simply because they weren't used that much!
Also, my dismissal of Applets as a failure was relative to their initial hype in the mid-90s. Put simply, they never took off to the extent promised- Java created (and Sun hyped) a role for itself, but it was already clear by the turn of the millennium that it couldn't (and wouldn't) meet this.
(*) Javascript (as Livescript) came out in autumn 1995 and AFAICT Java came out in 1995 or early 1996 (release date of 1.0 JDK is January 1996).
The other technologies that followed the initial JavaScript attempt have been shitty, too. Java applets
Java came out at almost the exact same time as JavaScript (1995). Remember JavaScript was originally called "ActionScript", and Netscape licensed the name from Sun in (what I assume was) an attempt to capitalise on the hype bandwagon that surrounded Java- or more specifically, client-side Java Applets- at its mid-90s launch.
(They must have paid Sun a lot of money; I can't see any other reason why Sun would have let someone dilute and confuse the Java trademark with something that really had nothing to do with it).
FWIW, Java Applets may have been crap, but they were never a major success- in fact they were a major failure if you judge their actual success vs. the hype and publicity they got in their early years. They were never a major factor.
I also find it odd that few people notice that Flash essentially ended up fulfilling almost the exact same role that Java Applets were originally meant to meet- plugin-based apps running on the client via the Internet. I wouldn't say that Flash killed Applets though- by the time the latter had started to evolve beyond being a simple multimedia tool, the latter had already been out for years and clearly failed to have taken off *without* any major competition.
I want a recent-generation video card which works well with classic 8-bit ISA bus. I have at least one IBM XT-class machine I want to run Starcraft II on.
Bah... you kids with your newfangled PCs and all that nonsense! I want a card that fits in my Altair's S100 bus, you insensitive clods!
I too would like to give Starcraft II a go once I get that card working, but I understand the game has high-end requirements that may require other upgrades to my Altair, such as a keyboard, a mouse and some form of display more sophisticated than the LEDs on the front panel.
You come as normal user to a site, create an account, check you have accepted the TOS without even reading them.
What's your point? If you sign a paper contract without having read it- and with no mitigating circumstances to explain that (*)- then you're likely bound by the contract.
The only signs for them agreeing is, that they designed the TOS and they created the account.
That may well be the way that a court would see it.
You changed the text, then you clicked agree, if they designed their site in a way they do not even receive the text which is finally agreed on, its a bug of their site and their fault.
Do you *seriously* think such a dubious argument would hold up in court?
As I said originally, this is just one of those stupid pseudo-logical, pseudo-legal geek "arguments" that appear on Slashdot that have no bearing on how the real world works.
For a lawyer the technical details are unimportant.
No, for a lawyer a detail can be deemed "important" if it benefits his case and "unimportant" if it damages it!
But legally, I suspect that such details *are* important insofar as they affect the case, e.g. if I notify you of something via a recorded-delivery letter, I'd be in a strong position to argue that you knew about it. If I trained a pigeon to tap out the same message in morse code on the recipient's front lawn, I don't think I could say the same. (Silly illustration, but it makes the point.)
But to be honest, I think I'm dignifying your idea too much by discussing it at this level, or even assuming that you intended it to be taken seriously in court. Regardless of the legality of click-through acceptance, your stupid idea of "amending" what you agree to (and thinking it doesn't matter that the other party never even *sees* the amended offer!) has been said several times on Slashdot before and was ludicrous sub-intellectual wankery those times too. Really, get a clue.
(*) e.g. if you were time-pressured by the other party and clearly would have been unable to examine the contract under such circumstances.
Slashdot Mirror
DC is in the middle of relaunching their entire line, all 52 titles. Pulling all those DC graphic novels at a time when new readers have an interest in DC titles and might be looking to dig into their back catalog is just throwing away potential sales. Especially now that Borders is gone, BN is the only major book retailer left in a lot of areas so BN would have gotten those sales by default.
From what I've heard, this relaunch is in part aimed more at a "first time" younger audience than the current stereotypical- and now ageing- adult comic collector. (This makes sense- it would be unwise to rely on the grown-ups for their long term future. They have to get fresh blood in, and after all, it was this younger market that was the primary one for comics in their heyday.)
But since this is a "first time" market, you have to get them interested first, and if they're not already interested they're not going to be reading diehard comics fans' sites, nor queuing up to buy.
I assume that, had this incident not happened, that B&N would probably have been happy to promote this relaunch in-store and possibly in their windows, giving it more mainstream attention. How much this kind of mainstream attention and publicity is worth nowadays- particularly with a younger audience- is unclear, but I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand.
Oh, and having Googled for that cartoon, I also came across an interesting accompanying article (which explains the strip better as well).
And beta testing...God. You think you're getting paid to play games and it turns out you're getting paid to play *broken* games. And when something breaks you're not supposed to move on or work around it; your job is to break it again and again and again until you can document how, when, and maybe even why it breaks for the developers.
Obligatory Penny Arcade
Organizations cannot return loyalty.
Of course they can, if they are set up and run in the appropriate manner.
Clearly, the abstract concept of an organisation cannot feel loyalty in the human sense, but there is nothing inherent in the *general* concept that stops them from rewarding and returning loyalty- if that is the aim of those in charge, and if they are run appropriately.
Of course, whether a large, profit-driven corporation (one particular type of organisation) will do so is far less likely- though one could argue they should treat loyalty as an asset, this rarely happens.
No, it wasn't hosted there.
The discussion software on digg started out as being pretty bad, then went downhill with every pointless iteration. The operators of the site seemed to be at war with the users.
The discussion software was crap (no threading IIRC), but that wasn't the problem I was talking about. *That* problem (which I probably should have made clearer in the first place) was a consequence of the way the ranking algorithms, user interactions, friendships, popularity etc. (*) were set up.
In fact, it was basically Digg's "Web 2.0 meets wisdom-of-the-crowds" social features that differentiated it- and which were supposedly so great in theory- that made it suck in practice. They'd also be a horrible choice for Slashdot.
((*) I'm currently at work, so I don't have the archived article to hand and my memory is hazy on the details after 5 years).
Look at the results of the vote systems on Digg and Reddit. Formerly sites that had intelligent contribution that have been brought to the lowest common denominator and worse.
I don't know about Reddit, but Digg slid downhill *very* fast, very early on.
I first used Digg in early 2006, around a year after its launch, when it had already received masses of hype as the poster boy of the then-new Web 2.0. It was even being touted by some as a better version of Slashdot.
I can only assume if the hype was *ever* true, then it must have already started going downhill by the time I got there, because it was never that great for me. Given that it noticeably declined further to the point I got sick of it and left altogether within a year, this doesn't sound implausible.
In early 2007, shortly after I'd left, I came across a very good article that captured and summed up my negative feelings about Digg better than I had myself, as well as crystallising and spotting many other good points I hadn't consciously thought about. Unfortunately, it's since been removed from the net- though I found and saved an archive copy, I don't want to repost here as I assume the author *wanted* it removed and I don't wish to disrespect their wishes.
Bottom line though, that article was written in early 2007. That was just over 2 years after Digg launched, and it had *already* degenerated into an cesspool of attention-whoring, echo chamber opinion reinforcement, fanboys attacking any dissenting opinion en masse (you think *Slashdot* is bad for this?!), entrenched cabals of losers voting each others' stories up and generally contemptible incestuous self-obsessed worthless bullshit.
When I came back to Slashdot, the comments genuinely seemed in a different league in terms of intelligence and insight. Says it all.
Although my wife and I have talked about polygamy I think it would be just too much hassle. Can you imagine two wives, both on the rag at the same time?
Wouldn't it be better to choose them such that they *weren't* both on the rag at the same time?
Though you'd have to keep them apart- apparently womens' cycles have a habit of gradually synchronising if they're living in close proximity for an extended period of time.
None of that for Shatner though...he's as gay as the day is long.
So you're saying Shatner's level of alleged homosexuality varies with the amount of daylight and hence the seasons?
I didn't even know Napster was still around ... or relevant for that matter.
They're not, and they're not.
Some other company bought the name when the "real" Napster went bankrupt a decade or so ago, and used it to rebrand a crappy early "legal" music service. That's about it.
This would have been big news... ten years ago. =P
Yes, if we'd been talking about the original- and long-defunct- original Napster (which was entering its death throes at this point a decade back).
Basically, Roxio bought the name after the original owners went bankrupt, and used it to rebrand their paid music service Pressplay. From then on, it's been "Napster" in name only. It's just another music service that we probably wouldn't be even discussing if it wasn't wearing the name of the otherwise unrelated famous original.
It was phrased that way because it is the objective truth.
If you had merely stated that it was a "compromise", you would of course be correct, as we already agreed. However, describing it as a "kludge compromise" carries a negative implication, which is not merely an "objective truth" nor representative of a general consensus- it's your opinion.
You interpreted my pointing out the obvious technical problems with glass-front "smart phones" as a condemnation of all the users of the phones.
No, I didn't. The way that you said it I interpreted as either (a) you implying that many people held similar opinions or (b) that many people's usage patterns backed up your assertion, even if they didn't realise it.
Many will find that instead of usability gains they prefer for the thing to fit in their back jeans pocket. So I stated: "to each their own". Repeatedly.
This is somewhat disingenuous. You claim that you are posting your personal opinion, but you phrase such things as if they are representative of generally-accepted consensus and/or trend, or "objective" truth (see above).
In short: Amazon pays what they want to pay. Not a penny more, nor less.
Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, I'm sure that Amazon would *want* to pay thruppence ha'penny, but that's not going to happen! :-)
Corporations use existing ones like Google toke Linux
So when Google say they get a buzz off Linux, it's not just vapid marketing hype?!
No, what I am saying that for many people, myself included, the usage patterns of the phone/tablet are such that we no longer need the functionality of the "smart phone" because that part has been transferred to the tablet and what remains is the functionality of a wireless voice/data communication device.
Honestly, it sounds like you're putting forward your own personal opinion- which is quite valid in itself- as representative of a general trend in public opinion. (*)
(Either that or you're suggesting that in your opinion the way many smartphone users use their devices is such that they would be better off with a tablet, even if they themselves haven't expressed- nor even consciously realised- that...?)
At any rate, I don't agree with this. I believe that many people originally bought- and still buy- touch-screen smartphones because they wanted that sort of functionality in a *portable* "phone" sized device. I don't see any evidence that the majority- or even a significant minority- bought them primarily because they were mini tablets (**)... and I still don't see that the majority of smartphone owners would agree with you that a non-smart phone plus a non-portable tablet would meet the same need.
As I said before, your opinion is quite reasonable in itself. I just don't think it's representative of public opinion in general, nor a good case for explaining why smartphones have supposedly been rendered redundant by the arrival of the tablet.
(*) For similar reasons, I interpreted this line in your original post:-
This is because with the advent of tablets the concept of a "smart phone" has become quite exposed for a kludge-compromise that it is.
as intended to be representative of a consensus rather than personal opinion because of the way it was phrased.
(**) Even granting allowance for the fact that although most people would not have heard of a "tablet" when the iPhone first came out, nor were probably even aware of the concept, it could still (theoretically) have appealed to them on that level.
I'll take your word for it on the Java dates then, as the ones I had were vague. That obviously shifts the argument of the balance in favour of what you originally said, at least a bit. Also, it's amazing how I'd almost forgotten about the notorious ActiveX, despite it being so ubiquitous around the turn of the millennium.
The fact that MS considered it acceptable to use something that was such a major security hole in IE says a lot about them at the time.
This is also why many prefer the flip-phone format, despite the fashionistas trying to ram the glass-front brick down everyone's throats.
You seem (here and elsewhere) to use "flip phone" as synonymous with "solid, traditional, non-smart mobile phone". Which obviously misses out the "bar" format of phones like the once ubiquitous Nokia 3310.
IIRC the "bar" form factor was much more common than the flip-phone/clamshell around the turn of the millennium, and that seems nice and functional too. The clamshell form factor seemed to reach its peak of popularity here in the UK around the mid-noughties (*), but since then they seem to have gone out of fashion again and almost completely disappeared (**). Virtually all the non-smart phones seem to have gone back to the "bar" form factor, or perhaps it's that the people who once bought clamshells are now buying smartphones, and the people who just wanted simple functionality always preferred the "bar" phones.
(BTW, I always had a dislike for the clamshell form factor myself, but this was admittedly just personal taste).
(*) Hate that name for the last decade, only became aware of it once it had ended, but not aware of anything better.
(**) Wikipedia claims that flip phones were still the most popular form factor in the US in 2009. Maybe the US market is different to the UK, who knows?
This is because with the advent of tablets the concept of a "smart phone" has become quite exposed for a kludge-compromise that it is. A tablet is very good at web browsing, email, apps etc but a phone is a communication device and mostly sucks at those things due to its restrictive form factor.
Well, clearly a smartphone's usability will be a compromise due to its limited dimensions.
However- and I apologise for stating the blooming obvious here- they're generally that size so they fit in your pocket. A tablet won't.
Your argument is apparently(?) that now tablets are here smartphones are no longer needed as we can use a non-smart phone for the "phone" bit and a tablet for the "smart" bit. Missing the point that this isn't much good if you want the "smart" bit on the go and don't have iPad-sized pockets(!) (Or were you saying something else?)
You prefer a solid traditional phone? That's fine, I can understand that. But others might not, and a tablet certainly isn't a replacement for a smartphone. Personally, I have a smartphone, but little interest in tablets as they currently are- I'd rather just use my computer if I didn't want to use something that fitted in my pocket!
2 points. I don't think Flash killed applets.
I agree entirely! I thought I'd already said the same thing, but realised I'd made a mistake so this wasn't clear. Here's what I'd *meant* to say.
"I wouldn't say that Flash killed Applets though- by the time the former [not "latter"] had started to evolve beyond being a simple multimedia tool, the latter had already been out for years and clearly failed to have taken off *without* any major competition."
I was under the impression that it was the very slow startup time (which seems sluggish even today on the rare occasion you see a Java Applet) and general lack of speed that killed Applets. But you could be right that it was the MS factor as well.
Flash had lower ambitions that didn't threaten Microsoft
Yes, this sounds plausible. I don't know if this was by design (i.e. Adobe intentionally flying under MS's radar) or whether it was an unintentional consequence of Flash simply growing more powerful over the years that it ended up being and doing what Applets had originally been positioned to be and do.
2) I think applets were a major success. They broke the hold of HTML/CGI. Prior to applets there was no way to even having something like a variable menu. The web was static information + forms + response. It simply didn't offer anything like interactivity. Think about something like .pdfs today.
I disagree. It's true that until then the web was basically static pages and server-side CGI (and this was partly why Applets seemed such a big deal at the time). However, you miss the fact that JavaScript (as LiveScript) launched around the same time (*)- certainly the launch dates of the two were too close together for it to be likely that LiveScript was noticeably influenced by Java. So we'd have still had LiveScript (albeit without the pointless renaming), and that gave us some- admittedly basic- client-side scripting.
IMHO Applets weren't influential, simply because they weren't used that much!
Also, my dismissal of Applets as a failure was relative to their initial hype in the mid-90s. Put simply, they never took off to the extent promised- Java created (and Sun hyped) a role for itself, but it was already clear by the turn of the millennium that it couldn't (and wouldn't) meet this.
(*) Javascript (as Livescript) came out in autumn 1995 and AFAICT Java came out in 1995 or early 1996 (release date of 1.0 JDK is January 1996).
Remember JavaScript was originally called "ActionScript"
Actually, you mean LiveScript.
Yep, you're right- I meant LiveScript. Sorry folks. :-O
The other technologies that followed the initial JavaScript attempt have been shitty, too. Java applets
Java came out at almost the exact same time as JavaScript (1995). Remember JavaScript was originally called "ActionScript", and Netscape licensed the name from Sun in (what I assume was) an attempt to capitalise on the hype bandwagon that surrounded Java- or more specifically, client-side Java Applets- at its mid-90s launch.
(They must have paid Sun a lot of money; I can't see any other reason why Sun would have let someone dilute and confuse the Java trademark with something that really had nothing to do with it).
FWIW, Java Applets may have been crap, but they were never a major success- in fact they were a major failure if you judge their actual success vs. the hype and publicity they got in their early years. They were never a major factor.
I also find it odd that few people notice that Flash essentially ended up fulfilling almost the exact same role that Java Applets were originally meant to meet- plugin-based apps running on the client via the Internet. I wouldn't say that Flash killed Applets though- by the time the latter had started to evolve beyond being a simple multimedia tool, the latter had already been out for years and clearly failed to have taken off *without* any major competition.
I want a recent-generation video card which works well with classic 8-bit ISA bus. I have at least one IBM XT-class machine I want to run Starcraft II on.
Bah... you kids with your newfangled PCs and all that nonsense! I want a card that fits in my Altair's S100 bus, you insensitive clods!
I too would like to give Starcraft II a go once I get that card working, but I understand the game has high-end requirements that may require other upgrades to my Altair, such as a keyboard, a mouse and some form of display more sophisticated than the LEDs on the front panel.
boas vindas ao nosso novo overlords rentÃvel
Automatic translators often give ridiculous results. That's the case here.
Oh, and how do you know his hovercraft *isn't* full of eels, you insensitive clod?!
You come as normal user to a site, create an account, check you have accepted the TOS without even reading them.
What's your point? If you sign a paper contract without having read it- and with no mitigating circumstances to explain that (*)- then you're likely bound by the contract.
The only signs for them agreeing is, that they designed the TOS and they created the account.
That may well be the way that a court would see it.
You changed the text, then you clicked agree, if they designed their site in a way they do not even receive the text which is finally agreed on, its a bug of their site and their fault.
Do you *seriously* think such a dubious argument would hold up in court?
As I said originally, this is just one of those stupid pseudo-logical, pseudo-legal geek "arguments" that appear on Slashdot that have no bearing on how the real world works.
For a lawyer the technical details are unimportant.
No, for a lawyer a detail can be deemed "important" if it benefits his case and "unimportant" if it damages it!
But legally, I suspect that such details *are* important insofar as they affect the case, e.g. if I notify you of something via a recorded-delivery letter, I'd be in a strong position to argue that you knew about it. If I trained a pigeon to tap out the same message in morse code on the recipient's front lawn, I don't think I could say the same. (Silly illustration, but it makes the point.)
But to be honest, I think I'm dignifying your idea too much by discussing it at this level, or even assuming that you intended it to be taken seriously in court. Regardless of the legality of click-through acceptance, your stupid idea of "amending" what you agree to (and thinking it doesn't matter that the other party never even *sees* the amended offer!) has been said several times on Slashdot before and was ludicrous sub-intellectual wankery those times too. Really, get a clue.
(*) e.g. if you were time-pressured by the other party and clearly would have been unable to examine the contract under such circumstances.
IMV, a fast boot cannot compensate for a spectacular lack of features you'd expect to find in a modern OS.
Apparently much of the OS was stored in ROM, which would explain the fast boot, though it has its disadvantages.