I think this might not be so much a generation difference as an age difference. As you get older, you mellow out. The urgency of your teen years seems silly in retrospect and you realize that not everything has to happen now and that you won't just die if xxx.
As you get a bit older, and see more then one younger generation, you will realize this. Or if you remember yourself a bit better.
About the only problem happens if a person doesn't grow up. If someone stays a teen to long, then they run into problem in the work place where adult behavior is expected. But teens being teens is not a problem.
If you watch young kids, they can jump from one topic to another faster then any adult can follow, but they are in fact doing 1 thing, talking to you. They just aren't very good yet at moderating their enthusiasms. A kid that plays with a dozen toys is doing 1 task: playing. A kid that talks about a dozen subjects, is doing 1 task: talking.
You can see children concentrate often enough, on say drawing with an intensity that is almost scary. You can call them and they don't ignore you because no child ignores a call for candy, they just are lost in their own universe, lost one doing on task really focused.
Teens have the same capability but when they are NOT focused on one task, they are struggling with a world that is full of new things and trying to find their role in it. How is a teen supposed to know what it wants to do later, if it doesn't try everything? A teens role is NOT to do one task very well, but to learn and you learn by trying lots of different things. And all the hormones rushing around make everything seem very urgent. A child has no concept of time because it doesn't happen to it, an adult knows its time is limited but so what? But to a teen, death is new and makes everything have to happen now.
And frankly, if you watch different generations and read accounts of teens far older then you, you realize that this sense of urgency and impatience with slow adults is universal.
Mind you, bitching about the youth of today is also universal.
The only problems occur if we start seeing teen behavior as desirable in an adult. Teens that don't grow up are the real problem.
The article makes a couple of leaps and doesn't seem to understand tech.
First off, the number of tasks in front of the tv. Is this a generation difference OR an age difference? They seem to claim that young people do more tasks because they are exposed to more modern technology at a younger age. HOWEVER this would ONLY be valid if they KEEP doing this as they get older. Else the conclusion must be that as you get older, you do fewer things at the same time.
And then they claim that instant messaging results in an instant reply. But SMS is NOT instant, voice is. So, if they want an instant reply, why do they send an SMS?
I think the author of the article tries to hard to make connections.
And that is to blame website developers who use flash for stuff that it ain't needed for. Such as playing video. The video tag works now (not on IE, but lets face it, if you got IE, you got flash) so support it.
Lets face it, most techies are guys. When I went to school (granted that was ages ago when women where not allowed to vote, good days) there were 2 girls in my class, and we were the only class to have them.
So it becomes easier to say "he" rather then "he/she" but that also reinforces the idea that only males read your posts. It is a real chicken/egg problem. Since we presume only guys are in tech, we treat everyone as a guy and become very unfriendly to women who then either don't join tech/leave as soon as possible/or hide their sex.
I know from MMO experience that some women are reluctant to reveal who they are, even asking men they do talk to on voice to not reveal to others they don't voice-chat to what gender they are.
BUT in turn, that also makes women who DO talk/act like women come out far stronger.
Someone else comments below that you are very in the face about being a girl. You certainly give that impression, by contrast. Since everyone here is either obviously male or gender neutral, a single woman speaking up is like a curse in a cathedral. A pin dropped in a silent room.
And last but not least, this site is getting overrun by wanna-be nerds. 13yr olds who think that MS invented computing who are defending their turf. You are a girl in their clubhouse and that is scary.
So, good for you that you don't hide who you are, but make sure you put on your asbestos panties. The moderation system invites abuse of the negative mods, since it is the only way for people to censor what they don't want to hear. But please remember, not everyone here is the same. "You people" in your last sentence is offending to all those who do not panic because there is a girl on slashdot. Don't become what you hate, a sexist person who generalizes based on gender.
All joking aside, I think the strong reaction by women against love robots for men stems from a perceived difference in what sex means for men and women.
Most women want something more then pure sex. And this is proving very hard to get, as most men just want them for sex. So the vibrator is NOT a replacement for what women want.
But a sex robot WOULD be a replacement for what men want.
Men are already obsolete. They can use a vibrator for penetration, spermbank for babies, and a dog for sleeping on the couch. And yet, women still want men. Desperate enough that many put up with abuse just to have one.
Women are not yet obsolete. There is nothing as soft as a woman, we can't have babies, and a cat is to affectionate and emotionally reliable.
But a robot that is close enough for sex... that could mess relationships up. How many of us guys (especially when we were young) put up with women just for the sex? Say you can get exactly the same without the real human being... would you still date (or for us/.ers attempt to date)?
Don't say that you need the human companionship. Especially us techies have consistently tried to remove the human factor from daily interactions. Ticket machines instead of a manned counter. Text-messaging instead of talking to someone. Discussing the days events on a website rather then with friends. Playing against bits rather then against human people in the same room.
So I get it that vibrators are more accepted. For most women, they are NOT a replacement for a male partner.
There was a recent story about electrical (not hybrid) cars being so quiet, that blind people don't hear them. I only learned from reactions to that story that guide dogs don't actually see traffic. Always thought they did, but they just see the curb and then the blind person has to decide wether it is safe to cross. A bit hard with a silent car you cannot see...
So... how far do we go? Do we actually have to make silent cars make noise for a small percentage of people? It can't be easy being blind, I notice that in Holland around Utrecht there seem to be a lot recently traveling by public transport (not all fully blind of course) and you can see the problems. Snow? All of them gone, if the bus stops away from the curb, they can't readily see the entrance. If the stop is not used for some reason, the orange bag over the sign won't be seen. They can't check time tables, can't see announcements about altered routes.
So, do we even bother with them? Or tell them to go back to their institutions? Lock them up?
Like many others, i find the peanut allergy a bit silly. Where do you draw the line? You mean that if this person smells someone's peanut breath, they die? How do they life? You can ban peanuts from aircraft but not from the rest of the world. What about taxi's? The street? What if I bring peanuts on the plane myself? What if I work in peanut factory?
And what if someone is allergic to this woman? Say her scent? Will she comply with that? Wanna bet she drives her car despite people having asthma?
But there is a real danger in arguing what the parent argues. It is only a small distance from that and the gas chambers for those who are a drag on society. Already babies are euthanized because they are considered unfit to survive. Or in less advanced countries (such as the US), left to starve on their own because that is what god wants...
No, it is all to easy to say there is a line, but drawing that line sets a dangerous precedent. Once such a line has been drawn, beyond which point you are considered not worth "it" to society, that line can be moved. And it may never happen that this line reaches you, but that is a terrible way to life.
Personally, I think it can be solved rather simple, let her wear an isolation suit on the flight. Problem solved and you can use it in more situations then just aircraft. And the rest of the passengers just have to deal with it, just as you accept wet dog smell from a guide dog. Because we are human beings and we are better human beings if we don't live by survival of the fittest. Remember that the greatest mind alive today is probably also the least fit person.
First of all, not all nerds are nerds. The term nerd is part that of the guy who read popular mechanics instead of playboy under the covers and part the unathletic kid with brazes. Often they can be the same person but there is no rule. You got nerd marines. The astronauts, nerds all.
But the common perception MIGHT be due to people with an allergie perhaps leaning towards quieter pursuits then fully healthy person. if every time you run you need to suck on a allergy spray, you don't run so much.
Do nerds have allergies or do allergies make nerds? I am a nerd and got no allergies except possibly to some pollen because once in my youth I broke out like crazy but it never repeated.
I think it belongs on slashdot because it is part of how the world is just going insane.
Give me ONE example where MS has ever been on the ball. They are always late to every party.
And it has served them well. I don't think they do it on person, just that MS is very susceptible to the "not invented here" syndrome. If MS cannot control it from the start, it doesn't want it. And then it comes in late, announces that it will soon have something superior out and hope that buys it enough time to get its second version out, because the first sucks donkey balls as MS fails to have learned any lessons from watching everyone else.
But since MS is doing fine in a bad economy while its competitors are either dead, dying or to small. Sony is making record losses, Nintendo survived this round but each round is a huge risk for them. The other unixes are gone, Apple is doing fine but its catch-up is to slow and OSX is getting older everyday.
Basically, never bother watching MS for the next trend.Rather watch them to see what trends have turned into every day reality.
So, basically MS wants ME to contribute to distribute THEIR content I already paid for and then actually download MORE then I can actually use?
A: Hidden charges, shipping charges laws. A product should have a clear price. But say I download such a product on a paid connection. Then I pay not just for the license but also for the download AND upload. And if my license is not for the full product, I download stuff I don't need. So, how much does a $7 movie cost? Really?
B: What does this change, DRM exists and has been broken. What is the point of adding even more complexity?
C: What happens to people on ISP's who restrict uploads?
And what generation has been behind all the budget cuts since those days of adventure? When the world has become boring, see wether you voted for the guy who promised lower taxes.
The old quarter paid the entire arcade AND the development. Staff, location, lighting etc etc.
MS has far fewer costs, yet charges more... amazing.
But then, people swallowed that with iTunes.
Costs savings to be passed on to the customer, wasn't that the whole point behind the free market? Elmer Fud told me so ages ago in a cartoon, so it must be true.
Dutch as well, and don't recognize the articles problems at all.
And living in the US ain't really cheaper. You got to look beyond single prices and look at total expenses. Simply put, American pay less taxes but their medical insurance is more expensive. We pay more taxes but our insurance is cheaper. As a business, you pay fewer taxes in the US, but you got to have very expensive litigation insurance, in Holland taxes are higher, but you can't be sued for millions because someone walked into your glass door.
The issues become very complex, take housing. housing in the US seems typically cheaper for MORE house, BUT it is in spreadout suburbs with no local provisions. The houses are also typically wood.
Now that sounds great, but it means greater travelling expenses, the wive can't just pop next door to visit her mother, kids need to be transported by car to their soccer club. Wood needs constant painting. All those extra rooms need furniture, heating, cooling etc etc.
This living space issue bit Microsoft in the ass with the X-box. To big for Japan where houses are smallest of all. Imagine a 50+ inch tv in most european houses, does it even fit? If you can't use a screen that large, you don't want it, but if you got a huge house in the US, then that screen becomes far more desirable.
What I seen from trips to the US and working with people from all over the world is that american workers need more, and can afford it because they spend more time with their job which in our eyes might look a bit like you are working to pay for gadgets that you can't enjoy because you are always at work.
Or as I wrote 2 days ago in a similar story, I had a US co-worker who worked for over a year in holland to pay for a big screen tv in the US... Why?
But this discussion will never be won. For a settlement to be reached, one side would have to admit that they are wrong and both europeans and americans are far to pigheaded to do that.
Lets face it, the US is the place things happen and EU is the place the economy hasn't tanked so badly. The american method works for americans, right up to the point that it doesn't. And in the EU, you can get 1000 euro raise, yet get only 300 more in your bank account (Yes really).
You mention the PS3 vs 360 vs Wii competition... but this is the FIRST generation tablet for MS. So it should be compared to the PS2 vs X-box vs Gamecube competition.
MS never makes a good first product. Go ahead, try Windows 1. The original Zune. IE1. Their first office suit. Silverlight 1.0. The list is endless.
Oh and the X-box cost MS money. History, learn it.
All the browsers except one (go ahead, guess which one) are becoming capable enough to do a lot of animation and tricks that people used to put in flash, themselves.
Flash itself is hated because it ruins the web, it locks up data in an executable that can't be indexed.
And then, MS comes along and rather then improve its browser to support standards, it adds a flash copy. Who needs it? Do we REALLY want to go back to the days of the web bubble where you had a dozen plugins begging to be installed? Bad enough that flash survived, we don't need a new one.
It also ruins the browser experience for those who have trouble with sight. The rest of the web can be spoken or enlarged or contrast changed (not IE) but that doesn't work for plugins.
The only use I seen for silverlight is to embed video. Why introduce yet another closed source player when it would have been trivial for MS to just support the video tag.
Make no mistake, silverlight is nothing more then activex 2.0. Yet another attempt by MS to turn the browser into a windows only experience.
Dogs are trained with the SCENT of the materials they are supposed to detect, not the actual materials. A rag exposed to the material is enough, and should be enough because if you claim the strength of the smell is important, then another layer of clothing will hide the smell.
So, this was just a really stupid stunt. What if someone had run in a panic during an arrest and been shot? If this story really is true (it seems idiotic) then the world would be wise to demand the execution of the people involved. It really is an amazingly bad move. Using random people as test subjects with life explosives on planes with no warning to other security forces to expect this.
Heads should definitly roll, in a very real sense.
This is like saying that since the majority of my HD will be filled with porn, it doesn't matter that a new HD only allows me to use 1% of it for programs. I DO need an OS to view my porn, where am I going to put that smartass?
I really do not get the 190mb limit, it seems truly insane. What if a user wants to install a large game? 190mb is an insanely small amount. I really got to wonder what the reasoning behind it is. When I first read it, I had to wonder if it was a misprint.
That content, that took you X hours to setup is interesting to how many people? If your entire class is interested, 20 or so? Lets say it results in a hundred visits, and then it done. They either think it was funny and will revisit for a while to see if there is something new or think it sucked and never visit again.
Same with Second Life. LOTS of people visited, even spend a few dollars, then they noticed you can only see so many 3d willies and never came back. Just not enough content to keep people hooked.
The BBC airs christmas specials during christmas (quite clever of them if you think of it) and it has to recycle old ones constantly. Not because nothing new is being created but 1-2 new ones each year that might or might not succeed doesn't fill up 3-4 days of tv even after 50+ years of TV.
Slashdot Mirror
The power you could have in a normal sized PC, where you can upgrade parts, swap broken parts, expand what you want.
Sorry, but what you are describing is the laptop, and I hate it when I am made to use one as a regular PC.
I think this might not be so much a generation difference as an age difference. As you get older, you mellow out. The urgency of your teen years seems silly in retrospect and you realize that not everything has to happen now and that you won't just die if xxx.
As you get a bit older, and see more then one younger generation, you will realize this. Or if you remember yourself a bit better.
About the only problem happens if a person doesn't grow up. If someone stays a teen to long, then they run into problem in the work place where adult behavior is expected. But teens being teens is not a problem.
If you watch young kids, they can jump from one topic to another faster then any adult can follow, but they are in fact doing 1 thing, talking to you. They just aren't very good yet at moderating their enthusiasms. A kid that plays with a dozen toys is doing 1 task: playing. A kid that talks about a dozen subjects, is doing 1 task: talking.
You can see children concentrate often enough, on say drawing with an intensity that is almost scary. You can call them and they don't ignore you because no child ignores a call for candy, they just are lost in their own universe, lost one doing on task really focused.
Teens have the same capability but when they are NOT focused on one task, they are struggling with a world that is full of new things and trying to find their role in it. How is a teen supposed to know what it wants to do later, if it doesn't try everything? A teens role is NOT to do one task very well, but to learn and you learn by trying lots of different things. And all the hormones rushing around make everything seem very urgent. A child has no concept of time because it doesn't happen to it, an adult knows its time is limited but so what? But to a teen, death is new and makes everything have to happen now.
And frankly, if you watch different generations and read accounts of teens far older then you, you realize that this sense of urgency and impatience with slow adults is universal.
Mind you, bitching about the youth of today is also universal.
The only problems occur if we start seeing teen behavior as desirable in an adult. Teens that don't grow up are the real problem.
The article makes a couple of leaps and doesn't seem to understand tech.
First off, the number of tasks in front of the tv. Is this a generation difference OR an age difference? They seem to claim that young people do more tasks because they are exposed to more modern technology at a younger age. HOWEVER this would ONLY be valid if they KEEP doing this as they get older. Else the conclusion must be that as you get older, you do fewer things at the same time.
And then they claim that instant messaging results in an instant reply. But SMS is NOT instant, voice is. So, if they want an instant reply, why do they send an SMS?
I think the author of the article tries to hard to make connections.
And that is to blame website developers who use flash for stuff that it ain't needed for. Such as playing video. The video tag works now (not on IE, but lets face it, if you got IE, you got flash) so support it.
Lets face it, most techies are guys. When I went to school (granted that was ages ago when women where not allowed to vote, good days) there were 2 girls in my class, and we were the only class to have them.
So it becomes easier to say "he" rather then "he/she" but that also reinforces the idea that only males read your posts. It is a real chicken/egg problem. Since we presume only guys are in tech, we treat everyone as a guy and become very unfriendly to women who then either don't join tech/leave as soon as possible/or hide their sex.
I know from MMO experience that some women are reluctant to reveal who they are, even asking men they do talk to on voice to not reveal to others they don't voice-chat to what gender they are.
BUT in turn, that also makes women who DO talk/act like women come out far stronger.
Someone else comments below that you are very in the face about being a girl. You certainly give that impression, by contrast. Since everyone here is either obviously male or gender neutral, a single woman speaking up is like a curse in a cathedral. A pin dropped in a silent room.
And last but not least, this site is getting overrun by wanna-be nerds. 13yr olds who think that MS invented computing who are defending their turf. You are a girl in their clubhouse and that is scary.
So, good for you that you don't hide who you are, but make sure you put on your asbestos panties. The moderation system invites abuse of the negative mods, since it is the only way for people to censor what they don't want to hear. But please remember, not everyone here is the same. "You people" in your last sentence is offending to all those who do not panic because there is a girl on slashdot. Don't become what you hate, a sexist person who generalizes based on gender.
All joking aside, I think the strong reaction by women against love robots for men stems from a perceived difference in what sex means for men and women.
Most women want something more then pure sex. And this is proving very hard to get, as most men just want them for sex. So the vibrator is NOT a replacement for what women want.
But a sex robot WOULD be a replacement for what men want.
Men are already obsolete. They can use a vibrator for penetration, spermbank for babies, and a dog for sleeping on the couch. And yet, women still want men. Desperate enough that many put up with abuse just to have one.
Women are not yet obsolete. There is nothing as soft as a woman, we can't have babies, and a cat is to affectionate and emotionally reliable.
But a robot that is close enough for sex... that could mess relationships up. How many of us guys (especially when we were young) put up with women just for the sex? Say you can get exactly the same without the real human being... would you still date (or for us /.ers attempt to date)?
Don't say that you need the human companionship. Especially us techies have consistently tried to remove the human factor from daily interactions. Ticket machines instead of a manned counter. Text-messaging instead of talking to someone. Discussing the days events on a website rather then with friends. Playing against bits rather then against human people in the same room.
So I get it that vibrators are more accepted. For most women, they are NOT a replacement for a male partner.
There was a recent story about electrical (not hybrid) cars being so quiet, that blind people don't hear them. I only learned from reactions to that story that guide dogs don't actually see traffic. Always thought they did, but they just see the curb and then the blind person has to decide wether it is safe to cross. A bit hard with a silent car you cannot see...
So... how far do we go? Do we actually have to make silent cars make noise for a small percentage of people? It can't be easy being blind, I notice that in Holland around Utrecht there seem to be a lot recently traveling by public transport (not all fully blind of course) and you can see the problems. Snow? All of them gone, if the bus stops away from the curb, they can't readily see the entrance. If the stop is not used for some reason, the orange bag over the sign won't be seen. They can't check time tables, can't see announcements about altered routes.
So, do we even bother with them? Or tell them to go back to their institutions? Lock them up?
Like many others, i find the peanut allergy a bit silly. Where do you draw the line? You mean that if this person smells someone's peanut breath, they die? How do they life? You can ban peanuts from aircraft but not from the rest of the world. What about taxi's? The street? What if I bring peanuts on the plane myself? What if I work in peanut factory?
And what if someone is allergic to this woman? Say her scent? Will she comply with that? Wanna bet she drives her car despite people having asthma?
But there is a real danger in arguing what the parent argues. It is only a small distance from that and the gas chambers for those who are a drag on society. Already babies are euthanized because they are considered unfit to survive. Or in less advanced countries (such as the US), left to starve on their own because that is what god wants...
No, it is all to easy to say there is a line, but drawing that line sets a dangerous precedent. Once such a line has been drawn, beyond which point you are considered not worth "it" to society, that line can be moved. And it may never happen that this line reaches you, but that is a terrible way to life.
Personally, I think it can be solved rather simple, let her wear an isolation suit on the flight. Problem solved and you can use it in more situations then just aircraft. And the rest of the passengers just have to deal with it, just as you accept wet dog smell from a guide dog. Because we are human beings and we are better human beings if we don't live by survival of the fittest. Remember that the greatest mind alive today is probably also the least fit person.
First of all, not all nerds are nerds. The term nerd is part that of the guy who read popular mechanics instead of playboy under the covers and part the unathletic kid with brazes. Often they can be the same person but there is no rule. You got nerd marines. The astronauts, nerds all.
But the common perception MIGHT be due to people with an allergie perhaps leaning towards quieter pursuits then fully healthy person. if every time you run you need to suck on a allergy spray, you don't run so much.
Do nerds have allergies or do allergies make nerds? I am a nerd and got no allergies except possibly to some pollen because once in my youth I broke out like crazy but it never repeated.
I think it belongs on slashdot because it is part of how the world is just going insane.
I am allergic to parachute silk!
Oh you got to be kidding. Learn history kid. Everyone of them has been done long before MS got involved.
Give me ONE example where MS has ever been on the ball. They are always late to every party.
And it has served them well. I don't think they do it on person, just that MS is very susceptible to the "not invented here" syndrome. If MS cannot control it from the start, it doesn't want it. And then it comes in late, announces that it will soon have something superior out and hope that buys it enough time to get its second version out, because the first sucks donkey balls as MS fails to have learned any lessons from watching everyone else.
But since MS is doing fine in a bad economy while its competitors are either dead, dying or to small. Sony is making record losses, Nintendo survived this round but each round is a huge risk for them. The other unixes are gone, Apple is doing fine but its catch-up is to slow and OSX is getting older everyday.
Basically, never bother watching MS for the next trend.Rather watch them to see what trends have turned into every day reality.
So, basically MS wants ME to contribute to distribute THEIR content I already paid for and then actually download MORE then I can actually use?
A: Hidden charges, shipping charges laws. A product should have a clear price. But say I download such a product on a paid connection. Then I pay not just for the license but also for the download AND upload. And if my license is not for the full product, I download stuff I don't need. So, how much does a $7 movie cost? Really?
B: What does this change, DRM exists and has been broken. What is the point of adding even more complexity?
C: What happens to people on ISP's who restrict uploads?
You want a tax on X because you can't sell Y anymore.
X being anything at all, as long as it isn't in anyway related to Y.
I think it is time to liberate France once more. Any volunteers to bomb them to freedom come?
And what generation has been behind all the budget cuts since those days of adventure? When the world has become boring, see wether you voted for the guy who promised lower taxes.
The old quarter paid the entire arcade AND the development. Staff, location, lighting etc etc.
MS has far fewer costs, yet charges more... amazing.
But then, people swallowed that with iTunes.
Costs savings to be passed on to the customer, wasn't that the whole point behind the free market? Elmer Fud told me so ages ago in a cartoon, so it must be true.
Dutch as well, and don't recognize the articles problems at all.
And living in the US ain't really cheaper. You got to look beyond single prices and look at total expenses. Simply put, American pay less taxes but their medical insurance is more expensive. We pay more taxes but our insurance is cheaper. As a business, you pay fewer taxes in the US, but you got to have very expensive litigation insurance, in Holland taxes are higher, but you can't be sued for millions because someone walked into your glass door.
The issues become very complex, take housing. housing in the US seems typically cheaper for MORE house, BUT it is in spreadout suburbs with no local provisions. The houses are also typically wood.
Now that sounds great, but it means greater travelling expenses, the wive can't just pop next door to visit her mother, kids need to be transported by car to their soccer club. Wood needs constant painting. All those extra rooms need furniture, heating, cooling etc etc.
This living space issue bit Microsoft in the ass with the X-box. To big for Japan where houses are smallest of all. Imagine a 50+ inch tv in most european houses, does it even fit? If you can't use a screen that large, you don't want it, but if you got a huge house in the US, then that screen becomes far more desirable.
What I seen from trips to the US and working with people from all over the world is that american workers need more, and can afford it because they spend more time with their job which in our eyes might look a bit like you are working to pay for gadgets that you can't enjoy because you are always at work.
Or as I wrote 2 days ago in a similar story, I had a US co-worker who worked for over a year in holland to pay for a big screen tv in the US... Why?
But this discussion will never be won. For a settlement to be reached, one side would have to admit that they are wrong and both europeans and americans are far to pigheaded to do that.
Lets face it, the US is the place things happen and EU is the place the economy hasn't tanked so badly. The american method works for americans, right up to the point that it doesn't. And in the EU, you can get 1000 euro raise, yet get only 300 more in your bank account (Yes really).
You mention the PS3 vs 360 vs Wii competition... but this is the FIRST generation tablet for MS. So it should be compared to the PS2 vs X-box vs Gamecube competition.
MS never makes a good first product. Go ahead, try Windows 1. The original Zune. IE1. Their first office suit. Silverlight 1.0. The list is endless.
Oh and the X-box cost MS money. History, learn it.
All the browsers except one (go ahead, guess which one) are becoming capable enough to do a lot of animation and tricks that people used to put in flash, themselves.
Flash itself is hated because it ruins the web, it locks up data in an executable that can't be indexed.
And then, MS comes along and rather then improve its browser to support standards, it adds a flash copy. Who needs it? Do we REALLY want to go back to the days of the web bubble where you had a dozen plugins begging to be installed? Bad enough that flash survived, we don't need a new one.
It also ruins the browser experience for those who have trouble with sight. The rest of the web can be spoken or enlarged or contrast changed (not IE) but that doesn't work for plugins.
The only use I seen for silverlight is to embed video. Why introduce yet another closed source player when it would have been trivial for MS to just support the video tag.
Make no mistake, silverlight is nothing more then activex 2.0. Yet another attempt by MS to turn the browser into a windows only experience.
Sorry, try your "I hate the future" speech a little bit more.
The illegal immigrant who ran from police because he knew he was a criminal and wanted to escape arrest. Something a normal person would not do?
Get this and get this straight, he was shot because he ran and he ran because he was a criminal.
They invented it in the 1600's. Yes, I know before the actual founding of the bloody country but hey, that just shows how big the conspiracy is!
So, this was just a really stupid stunt. What if someone had run in a panic during an arrest and been shot? If this story really is true (it seems idiotic) then the world would be wise to demand the execution of the people involved. It really is an amazingly bad move. Using random people as test subjects with life explosives on planes with no warning to other security forces to expect this.
Heads should definitly roll, in a very real sense.
This is like saying that since the majority of my HD will be filled with porn, it doesn't matter that a new HD only allows me to use 1% of it for programs. I DO need an OS to view my porn, where am I going to put that smartass?
I really do not get the 190mb limit, it seems truly insane. What if a user wants to install a large game? 190mb is an insanely small amount. I really got to wonder what the reasoning behind it is. When I first read it, I had to wonder if it was a misprint.
Plus, I heard that climate was recently spotted in Yemen.
I think it is better like this.
That content, that took you X hours to setup is interesting to how many people? If your entire class is interested, 20 or so? Lets say it results in a hundred visits, and then it done. They either think it was funny and will revisit for a while to see if there is something new or think it sucked and never visit again.
Same with Second Life. LOTS of people visited, even spend a few dollars, then they noticed you can only see so many 3d willies and never came back. Just not enough content to keep people hooked.
The BBC airs christmas specials during christmas (quite clever of them if you think of it) and it has to recycle old ones constantly. Not because nothing new is being created but 1-2 new ones each year that might or might not succeed doesn't fill up 3-4 days of tv even after 50+ years of TV.