Dude...what is it with this whitewash mentality everyone's demonstrating today. Nobody told you to go buy that computer from the headshop next to the tattoo parlor, did they ? Serves you right.
That being said, there are plenty of reputable places where you can get decent hardware at good prices. They'd be STUPID TO in today's market. That being said....stop and think "What else would they have to gain from this ?"
I'm sure that WinTel brain of yours will SURELY figure something out.
You're kidding me, right ? Intel lose "reputation" because of unscrupulous resellers from the far east, or shady local dealers. Who told you to buy your computer from that guy running the pawn shop next to the trailer park, anyway ??
People who overclock their CPU and then send in the CPU for free replacement ? How many people actually TRY to pull that stunt ? Are you nuts ? You think they can't spot some out-of-warranty shennanigans going on ? ( Unless the techs are in serious need of sleep so they can be alert enough to spot things like that. )
Let me clue you in on something spud-boy, Intel doesn't make it's core money from selling CPU's...are you high ? They make their money from licensing technologies AROUND their CPU's. They also make it from embedded systems and other related technologies that spring from the well that is their CPU business.
This patent, and any ploy ( and it IS a ploy ) like it is a move for one thing...money. Period.
What ? You think if you buy that nice little sports car at the dealer and put a supercharger and a NO2 system on that little DOHC 4-cylinder, and blow your rings doing a little drag. And then try putting the engine back as it was, and take it back to the dealer, that the mechanic isn't going to look at it and say, "So, I take it you didn't win your little drag race, huh ? Sorry buddy, out of warranty".
Sig: Get in touch with reality, don't bite ME. Bite yourself.
According to the article, they're "stated" purpose is to keep unscrupulous resellers from reselling a lower speed cpu at a higher rating. The problem with this logic is that in today's market, unless you're a in a third world country, it's not that common a problem.
Maybe I can see about 5-6 years ago this having been a problem, but the fact is that CPU prices have dropped so much and been driven down so "far"( anyone remember when a "NEW" CPU from Intel meant that it's initial retail price was over a $1000...it wasn't that long ago, HELLO ! )
So, given that the argument about "remarked" CPU's being such a moot point these days, you can see what Intel's real motivation behind this is. They're going back to the days of crystal-locking ( circa 80286 ). What is that going to effectively do ? Drive prices UP.
Call it for the shameless, monopolistic, BONEHEAD move that it is...and here I was about to switch back to Intel...way to go cheesers.
And no, I'm not an AMD fanboy. I just want the most performance vs price ratio I can find. The tide was starting to turn ( I'm not going to pay $500+ for an AMD 3000+ but I would pay that for a 3.06 with HyperThreading ). But now....I guess I'm going to have to wait for what AMD does next.
>>Could it be calls to Win32 or DirectX that >>makes the difference?
Obviously you don't have a grasp on the concept of how Photoshop works. I don't profess to know Adobe's code from inside out ( though I'm not above disassembling it to prove my point ). But...
DirectX is simply a means to accessing the physical video buffer ( since they're not doing any 3D rendering ), filtering, shading, effects, would be done strictly in software. As for Win32 vs OSX api, OSX's "API" is much thinner than Win32 ( You have NO IDEA how much cruft there is within those fancy dll's called user32.dll and it's assorted cohorts ).
That being said, my guess would place the onus on the actual processors. The fact that there are some SERIOUS capabilities built into the SSE2 instructions on a P3/P4 ( specifically for math intensive plug-ins ), and raw cpu speed ( though that's not always the factor that it seems ).
Think a little before putting together your comments.
Thank you. To all you out of the US Moderation hounds. It's folks like this, who have no clue about how economies actually work that can spew this sort of tripe ( You DO know that the real scenario is that you're immediately obsolete the moment you're BORN, dont' you ? ).
Hint: they are NOT as good as me. I've worked in more than one company bringing over H1B's. They may have a hard work ethic ( the one point I'll concede to you on...), but I would be hard pressed to say that their cookie-cutter mentality will produce better software.
You do know that the "Throw more bodies at the problem" doesn't work, don't you ? And if you haven't gotten the clue yet, then please..tell me what commercial software you help produce so I put it on my "do not buy" list.
And....coming from someone says on his website(and I quote) "If I had my way, every person on the damned internet would be communicating through telnet sessions", I think I'd be safe in saying that your degree isn't in economics.
So, quit YOUR bitching...this is the USA. I may fight for your right to spew such utter junk. But by the same right, I'll tell you to shut up, sit down, and enjoy your venti latte, while someone else has their turn on the soapbox to voice their rant.
Re:and I'm glad we still have H1B's galore
on
U.S. Jobs Jumping Ship
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You understand, of course, that Bill Gates once threatened..actually threatened the US government with picking up, lock, stock and barrel and moving across the border, just so he could get his fill of H1B's....
Then again....having been out of work myself for almost 8 months back in 2002...and then seeing the sorts of resumes' being thrashed around by some folks today, I can almost ( al..most ) understand some prospective employers apprehensions at hiring tech folks...
But for sure, the requirements being put out today, are just shy of insane. HR folks act out as though they're running their little fiefdoms'. Recruiters ( gotta bless their little hearts ), act like agents, only bothering to help you out, if they think they'll get the biggest percentage.
Luckily, I persevered, and from the sounds of it, I've faired better than most. [Knock on silicon]
Still, I salute fuckthatjob.com, they're providing an invaluable service.
Dude...I'm talking about targeting the Mobile phone platforms....getting the compiler/debugger/libraries, etc. etc. in open source...is not exactly straightforward for these platforms. So while I agree with you on a couple of fronts, it looks like you're talking Linux games ( or winders )...I'm talking a whole different microcosm altogether.
Exactly......and Symbian doesn't have an easy way to switch back and forth between library/target sets. Having looked at the UIQ as well as the Series 60 SDK's ( the 0.9 and 1.0, I've heard there's a 1.2, but I've yet to come across it ), it's not exactly developer-friendly.
Let's say you want to develop for both the 3650/7650 as well as the SonyEricsson P800. Mind you, both Nokia and SE have published their SDK's on their developer websites ( and KUDOS to them for doing even that much ! ). However, from what I can tell, the difference in CodeWarrior kits for both of these platforms, are the underpinnings to the SDK's/Emulators themselves. The ARM cross-compilers are based on gcc ( from what I've seen ). So why exactly would you want to pay twice for the same IDE ?
Why not sell ONE IDE that you can attach that SDK which you wish to develop for, and switch between SDK's ? The answer is probably more based on $$$, than it is on technical possibilities.
I understand that it comes with a phone, but just the same. It has nothing to do with that. The fact that you're paying $399, when what you're getting is the same SDK that's available from Nokia's Website. The ONLY different perhaps being the version of the compiler that's shipped, because after all, the libraries are coming from Symbian ( via Nokia ). SO what are you paying for ? An IDE ?
C'mon....why do you think so many people have migrated from CodeWarrior to Falch ?
The fact is....the SDKs and tools, work ( in most cases ) fine with VS 6.0. And, there have been a few souls who've used VS.NET's C++ IDE with it as well.
I understand as an employee, or affiliate of Metrowerks, perhaps some of my comments are a little offensive, but my points remain valid nonetheless.
Dude....most games back in the late 70's and Early 80's came out in little plastic pouches. I remember as late as 1986 buying games for the Amiga and Atari ST in pouches. Hell Flight Simulator I for the Apple ][ came in ziploc bag for crissakes !!!
"It still is. A good programmer and artist team can build a game for a few hundred dollars."
When was the last time you priced out ( or actually paid for ) development tools ? Hmm ?
Have you SEEN what it costs to just buy some of the development SOFTWARE (nevermind hardware/ target equipment ) ? Try pricing out some of that. Unless you're in Academia ( in which case, note that your "license" to that development software probably doesn't grant you to produce software for commercial use anyway. Not that anyone's noticing. ), it's INCREDIBLY expensive.
I remember when I paid $99 for Turbo C, and a friend and I produced a couple of "GO"-based games. Or when we paid $199 for Manx C for the Amiga ( and MAN did that purchase stretch my pocket at the time, after just dishing $1500 for the Amiga 1000 and monitor ), and wrote a Sargon knock-off we shared with our friends.
These days, we're talking upwards of a $1000 for a "Professional" grade IDE under Windows. The fact is, most of the development systems for these "mobile" platforms, exist hosted under Windows ( No argument from you Linux or Mac folks. I'm actually one of you, but I have kids to feed and clothe, ok ? )
No offense to Borland, but even the cost of C++ Builder has gotten ridiculous.
Cell Phones are indeed growing as a business for games. In Europe there are quite a few companies developing software for cell phones ( there are EVEN several 3-D Game Engines ).
The problem lies ( for most "indy" developers )in availability of good development tools. I'll explain....( as I happen to be working on a game for cellphones at the moment ).
A) The use of "industry standard" software development tools, is in disarray. There's at least three different "Operating systems"( and/or "gaming engines" running ) on most phones today. None of which are compatible with one another. SO immediately, you're talking multi-platformed development to get any good market coverage. I will exclude J2ME from this, because J2ME, while "standard" across most advanced phones today, differ on the level of what's actually implemented within the VM on a given phone.
B) GNU-based tools for ARM are available, but targeted at areas very different from mobile computing( gaming ). Sure, there's eCOS and such, but what you have to go through to fit those pieces together makes you want to take up a paper route so you can afford Metroworks ( Aaaccck ! )
C) The compilers that the companies like Nokia and SonyEricsson ( Metroworks CodeWarrior ), are incredibly prohibitive expense-wise, for what I'd say most independent developers would be able to ( or care to ) spend. Example: $1150 for the Nokia 3650 software kit, alone.
Borland just released a "plug-in" to C++ Builder 6 that supports the Nokia 0.9 SDK for (Symbian 6.1 ) Series 60 ( i.e. Nokia 7650, 3650, etc. phones ), but yet again, the sdk is short yet again...no bluetooth support. Great, so I can write a game for the 3650, just not a multi-user one.
On the bright front, for those of us who still have our (LICENSED) Visual Studio 6.0, Nokia seems to have an SDK ( 126Mb ) that will work with it ( for the 7650/3650 ).
On the down side of that, SonyEricsson ( I have it from a good source ) has an SDK for their UIQ ( Symbian 7.0 ) platform that will also work with Visual Studio 6.0, but has not put it out for download. They're only releasing the one that ( yet again ) will work with CodeWarrior.
[Major Rant On] ( As if what I've said so far doesn't sound like a rant )
If the Phone Manufacturers REALLY want to increase their market share and spur growth in that market of "mobile entertainment", they'll come to their senses, and release SDK's that more than a handful of developers can work with, because of cost ( primarily ).
[Major Rant Off]
Sure...go ahead, call me a whiner. Send me your donations ($$) and I'll go and write a kick-ass game for your phones.
>>>How can you go wrong?
A) It costs about $150.00
B) The development kits are ridiculously priced
C) It's not generally available anywhere other than the Korean and Asia-Pacific markets....
Let's start with that.
Don't jump into the ring against "GameBoys" unless you're prepared for a fight.
Make sure you've got your act together with regards to developers.
Fine then what you should have is "Defensive" patents. Patents where the "innovation" is on the merit of building a software ( or hardware ) system that implements an inherently common-sense process, that even though may have been used in a different form by someone else, cannot be reproduced wholesale, by another entity, as was the case of your former employer.
So, one kid selling lemonade down the block can't sue the kid selling limeade on the opposite corner.
Possibly, but you don't see/. running out and asking for a software patent, do you ?
Still, there's something just fundamentally "wrong" about some of these software patents. That fact that we're debating it as much as we are, is a testament to the validity of the argument that it's inherently wrong.
If reasonably intelligent people, some WAY more versed on the subject than others, can find ill faith on the part of Amazon, well then there you have it.
It would be an AC to post an argument like this. Whomever the first guy who had to put up "Are you sure ?" probably did so on his own accord because he figured the "designer" didn't realize that the "user" probably wasn't as well versed on what they were doing, as the "designer" thought they would be.
Where do YOU think the phrase "User Error" came from ?
One-click required the same "decision" that the process you described does. Except that the decision was blanketed in setting up the users' preferences. Most programs include them, they're called confirmation prompts, and, if you're enough on the ball, you code things so that they're configurable. If you configure to not prompt you in ACCESS ( ok, cheesy example, but it's to the point ), when you're about to run a query that modifies a table...that's ONE-CLICK. If you configure OUTLOOK to automatically send when you click "SEND" ( ooo, what a concept ), instead of making you click "SEND" and then "Send/Receive", guess what...that's ONE-CLICK.
Don't give me this lame argument that because it's implemented on the web, that it somehow gives it this mystique to how something is implemented. Get over yourselves already.
Dude..keep the political rhetoric out of a worthy discussion on the internet. Where are you again ?.no ? Hmm ? Norway ? How does a USPO ruling affect you anyway ?
Where are those moderator points when you REALLY need them.
Are you high on over the counter medicines or something ? Or don't you understand that that is "normal free enterprise progression". Things change. Deal with it. That would be like one automaker trying to keep another from making spark plugs for their cars. It's preposterous. The mechanism for discussing "items" has been around for a long time, it's been used everywhere from your local bulletin board at your elementary school, to newsgroups ( on the net ), to IRC ( which has been around WAY LONGER than any investment any of those spiny-minded shareholders might think they have claims to it ).
What they invested in, was a MEDIUM of selling. The thought that expression within that medium would belong to only one company is like saying that only Sears could hold "Sales", or Macy's could have "Clearances". Funny, where's the guy who patented the original "shopping cart" to SUE ALL online retailers for reusing his concept without a license ?
Sorry, but I understand the fair market system a little too well to let a lame argument like "we have to protect our shareholders investments" go by unchallenged. RAMBUS used the same argument when they "casually" neglected to share IP with JEDEC. M$ has "casually" neglected to open up certain API's we've known to be there for years. And for what ? "Protect shareholder investment"....GIVE the consumer a break already.
It's ridiculous to say that you would need to touch the boot sector to provide a safeguard for your product. You're a program for crimony sakes !!
Maybe this'll affect my Karma, but I say let's have a Turbo Tax CD burning. Or maybe everyone ought to send their CD's back and ask for a refund all at the same time. Or, maybe some more clever lawyer out there, will see this and smell "Class Action". Maybe they should've let M$ buy them out a few years ago, then at least they'd have an argument by saying they're "part of the OS", like M$ has said IE is supposed to be.
Re:11b devices work fine in my 11g network
on
WiFi Woes With .11g
·
· Score: 1
Ok, so you're saying I'm safe with having picked up a USB 11b Network Adapter for the kid, and still run the 802.11g Router and the PC Card for my laptop on the same setup ? Have you tried accessing this set from a PDA like the Toshiba e740, or some other WiFi enabled PDA ?
Inquiring minds REALLY wanna know...
Marcelo
Don't disagree with you. Then again, it doesn't come across to me ( and I could be wrong, I'll admit ), that the "Core" folks are exactly the most democratic ( if after all, they were ELECTED ) bunch of folks around.
True, having a personality like that around can be detrimental to the group. You should always consider though, when you have some personality exascerbated situations in a development team, the actual why's behind the friction.
Did Matt jump the shark ? Yeah, he probably did. Did he have a good starting point ( or reason ) when he first took issue with the matter at hand ? Quite possibly, it sounds to me ( and quite a folks ), that it did.
Obviously Patrick, you live outside silicon valley. Or many other high tech areas. Exactly what condition do you think the economy is in again ?
But that's besides the point. Sure, Matt has to seriously consider switching to DECAF. But, and it's a BIG "BUT", exactly what makes you think that he's the only one with a big ego there ? Just because he A) Didn't tow the party line or B) spoke rather strongly, does that make his point any the less strong ? Perhaps, but the fact is. He's got a point.
Now c'mon, don't tell me you've never lost your cool with someone else you've worked on a development project on.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you...I can just smell marketing spin.
That being said, there are plenty of reputable places where you can get decent hardware at good prices. They'd be STUPID TO in today's market. That being said....stop and think "What else would they have to gain from this ?"
I'm sure that WinTel brain of yours will SURELY figure something out.
People who overclock their CPU and then send in the CPU for free replacement ? How many people actually TRY to pull that stunt ? Are you nuts ? You think they can't spot some out-of-warranty shennanigans going on ? ( Unless the techs are in serious need of sleep so they can be alert enough to spot things like that. )
Let me clue you in on something spud-boy, Intel doesn't make it's core money from selling CPU's...are you high ? They make their money from licensing technologies AROUND their CPU's. They also make it from embedded systems and other related technologies that spring from the well that is their CPU business.
This patent, and any ploy ( and it IS a ploy ) like it is a move for one thing...money. Period.
What ? You think if you buy that nice little sports car at the dealer and put a supercharger and a NO2 system on that little DOHC 4-cylinder, and blow your rings doing a little drag. And then try putting the engine back as it was, and take it back to the dealer, that the mechanic isn't going to look at it and say, "So, I take it you didn't win your little drag race, huh ? Sorry buddy, out of warranty". Sig: Get in touch with reality, don't bite ME. Bite yourself.
According to the article, they're "stated" purpose is to keep unscrupulous resellers from reselling a lower speed cpu at a higher rating. The problem with this logic is that in today's market, unless you're a in a third world country, it's not that common a problem.
Maybe I can see about 5-6 years ago this having been a problem, but the fact is that CPU prices have dropped so much and been driven down so "far"( anyone remember when a "NEW" CPU from Intel meant that it's initial retail price was over a $1000...it wasn't that long ago, HELLO ! )
So, given that the argument about "remarked" CPU's being such a moot point these days, you can see what Intel's real motivation behind this is. They're going back to the days of crystal-locking ( circa 80286 ). What is that going to effectively do ? Drive prices UP.
Call it for the shameless, monopolistic, BONEHEAD move that it is...and here I was about to switch back to Intel...way to go cheesers.
And no, I'm not an AMD fanboy. I just want the most performance vs price ratio I can find. The tide was starting to turn ( I'm not going to pay $500+ for an AMD 3000+ but I would pay that for a 3.06 with HyperThreading ). But now....I guess I'm going to have to wait for what AMD does next.
>>Could it be calls to Win32 or DirectX that >>makes the difference? Obviously you don't have a grasp on the concept of how Photoshop works. I don't profess to know Adobe's code from inside out ( though I'm not above disassembling it to prove my point ). But... DirectX is simply a means to accessing the physical video buffer ( since they're not doing any 3D rendering ), filtering, shading, effects, would be done strictly in software. As for Win32 vs OSX api, OSX's "API" is much thinner than Win32 ( You have NO IDEA how much cruft there is within those fancy dll's called user32.dll and it's assorted cohorts ). That being said, my guess would place the onus on the actual processors. The fact that there are some SERIOUS capabilities built into the SSE2 instructions on a P3/P4 ( specifically for math intensive plug-ins ), and raw cpu speed ( though that's not always the factor that it seems ). Think a little before putting together your comments.
Hint: they are NOT as good as me. I've worked in more than one company bringing over H1B's. They may have a hard work ethic ( the one point I'll concede to you on...), but I would be hard pressed to say that their cookie-cutter mentality will produce better software.
You do know that the "Throw more bodies at the problem" doesn't work, don't you ? And if you haven't gotten the clue yet, then please..tell me what commercial software you help produce so I put it on my "do not buy" list.
And....coming from someone says on his website(and I quote) "If I had my way, every person on the damned internet would be communicating through telnet sessions", I think I'd be safe in saying that your degree isn't in economics. So, quit YOUR bitching...this is the USA. I may fight for your right to spew such utter junk. But by the same right, I'll tell you to shut up, sit down, and enjoy your venti latte, while someone else has their turn on the soapbox to voice their rant.
Then again....having been out of work myself for almost 8 months back in 2002...and then seeing the sorts of resumes' being thrashed around by some folks today, I can almost ( al..most ) understand some prospective employers apprehensions at hiring tech folks...
But for sure, the requirements being put out today, are just shy of insane. HR folks act out as though they're running their little fiefdoms'. Recruiters ( gotta bless their little hearts ), act like agents, only bothering to help you out, if they think they'll get the biggest percentage. Luckily, I persevered, and from the sounds of it, I've faired better than most. [Knock on silicon] Still, I salute fuckthatjob.com, they're providing an invaluable service.
Dude...I'm talking about targeting the Mobile phone platforms....getting the compiler/debugger/libraries, etc. etc. in open source...is not exactly straightforward for these platforms. So while I agree with you on a couple of fronts, it looks like you're talking Linux games ( or winders )...I'm talking a whole different microcosm altogether.
Let's say you want to develop for both the 3650/7650 as well as the SonyEricsson P800. Mind you, both Nokia and SE have published their SDK's on their developer websites ( and KUDOS to them for doing even that much ! ). However, from what I can tell, the difference in CodeWarrior kits for both of these platforms, are the underpinnings to the SDK's/Emulators themselves. The ARM cross-compilers are based on gcc ( from what I've seen ). So why exactly would you want to pay twice for the same IDE ?
Why not sell ONE IDE that you can attach that SDK which you wish to develop for, and switch between SDK's ? The answer is probably more based on $$$, than it is on technical possibilities.
Your mileage may vary.
I understand that it comes with a phone, but just the same. It has nothing to do with that. The fact that you're paying $399, when what you're getting is the same SDK that's available from Nokia's Website. The ONLY different perhaps being the version of the compiler that's shipped, because after all, the libraries are coming from Symbian ( via Nokia ). SO what are you paying for ? An IDE ? C'mon....why do you think so many people have migrated from CodeWarrior to Falch ? The fact is....the SDKs and tools, work ( in most cases ) fine with VS 6.0. And, there have been a few souls who've used VS.NET's C++ IDE with it as well. I understand as an employee, or affiliate of Metrowerks, perhaps some of my comments are a little offensive, but my points remain valid nonetheless.
Dude....most games back in the late 70's and Early 80's came out in little plastic pouches. I remember as late as 1986 buying games for the Amiga and Atari ST in pouches. Hell Flight Simulator I for the Apple ][ came in ziploc bag for crissakes !!!
Innovate, don't succubate.
Innovate, don't succubate.
When was the last time you priced out ( or actually paid for ) development tools ? Hmm ?
Have you SEEN what it costs to just buy some of the development SOFTWARE (nevermind hardware/ target equipment ) ? Try pricing out some of that. Unless you're in Academia ( in which case, note that your "license" to that development software probably doesn't grant you to produce software for commercial use anyway. Not that anyone's noticing. ), it's INCREDIBLY expensive.
I remember when I paid $99 for Turbo C, and a friend and I produced a couple of "GO"-based games. Or when we paid $199 for Manx C for the Amiga ( and MAN did that purchase stretch my pocket at the time, after just dishing $1500 for the Amiga 1000 and monitor ), and wrote a Sargon knock-off we shared with our friends.
These days, we're talking upwards of a $1000 for a "Professional" grade IDE under Windows. The fact is, most of the development systems for these "mobile" platforms, exist hosted under Windows ( No argument from you Linux or Mac folks. I'm actually one of you, but I have kids to feed and clothe, ok ? )
No offense to Borland, but even the cost of C++ Builder has gotten ridiculous.
New sig: Innovate, don't succubate.
The problem lies ( for most "indy" developers )in availability of good development tools. I'll explain....( as I happen to be working on a game for cellphones at the moment ).
A) The use of "industry standard" software development tools, is in disarray. There's at least three different "Operating systems"( and/or "gaming engines" running ) on most phones today. None of which are compatible with one another. SO immediately, you're talking multi-platformed development to get any good market coverage. I will exclude J2ME from this, because J2ME, while "standard" across most advanced phones today, differ on the level of what's actually implemented within the VM on a given phone.
B) GNU-based tools for ARM are available, but targeted at areas very different from mobile computing( gaming ). Sure, there's eCOS and such, but what you have to go through to fit those pieces together makes you want to take up a paper route so you can afford Metroworks ( Aaaccck ! )
C) The compilers that the companies like Nokia and SonyEricsson ( Metroworks CodeWarrior ), are incredibly prohibitive expense-wise, for what I'd say most independent developers would be able to ( or care to ) spend. Example: $1150 for the Nokia 3650 software kit, alone.
Borland just released a "plug-in" to C++ Builder 6 that supports the Nokia 0.9 SDK for (Symbian 6.1 ) Series 60 ( i.e. Nokia 7650, 3650, etc. phones ), but yet again, the sdk is short yet again...no bluetooth support. Great, so I can write a game for the 3650, just not a multi-user one.
On the bright front, for those of us who still have our (LICENSED) Visual Studio 6.0, Nokia seems to have an SDK ( 126Mb ) that will work with it ( for the 7650/3650 ).
On the down side of that, SonyEricsson ( I have it from a good source ) has an SDK for their UIQ ( Symbian 7.0 ) platform that will also work with Visual Studio 6.0, but has not put it out for download. They're only releasing the one that ( yet again ) will work with CodeWarrior.
[Major Rant On] ( As if what I've said so far doesn't sound like a rant )
If the Phone Manufacturers REALLY want to increase their market share and spur growth in that market of "mobile entertainment", they'll come to their senses, and release SDK's that more than a handful of developers can work with, because of cost ( primarily ).
[Major Rant Off]
Sure...go ahead, call me a whiner. Send me your donations ($$) and I'll go and write a kick-ass game for your phones.
>>>How can you go wrong? A) It costs about $150.00 B) The development kits are ridiculously priced C) It's not generally available anywhere other than the Korean and Asia-Pacific markets.... Let's start with that. Don't jump into the ring against "GameBoys" unless you're prepared for a fight. Make sure you've got your act together with regards to developers.
So, one kid selling lemonade down the block can't sue the kid selling limeade on the opposite corner.
Still, there's something just fundamentally "wrong" about some of these software patents. That fact that we're debating it as much as we are, is a testament to the validity of the argument that it's inherently wrong.
If reasonably intelligent people, some WAY more versed on the subject than others, can find ill faith on the part of Amazon, well then there you have it.
Where do YOU think the phrase "User Error" came from ?
One-click required the same "decision" that the process you described does. Except that the decision was blanketed in setting up the users' preferences. Most programs include them, they're called confirmation prompts, and, if you're enough on the ball, you code things so that they're configurable. If you configure to not prompt you in ACCESS ( ok, cheesy example, but it's to the point ), when you're about to run a query that modifies a table...that's ONE-CLICK. If you configure OUTLOOK to automatically send when you click "SEND" ( ooo, what a concept ), instead of making you click "SEND" and then "Send/Receive", guess what...that's ONE-CLICK.
Don't give me this lame argument that because it's implemented on the web, that it somehow gives it this mystique to how something is implemented. Get over yourselves already.
Dude..keep the political rhetoric out of a worthy discussion on the internet. Where are you again ? .no ? Hmm ? Norway ? How does a USPO ruling affect you anyway ?
Where are those moderator points when you REALLY need them.
Are you high on over the counter medicines or something ? Or don't you understand that that is "normal free enterprise progression". Things change. Deal with it. That would be like one automaker trying to keep another from making spark plugs for their cars. It's preposterous. The mechanism for discussing "items" has been around for a long time, it's been used everywhere from your local bulletin board at your elementary school, to newsgroups ( on the net ), to IRC ( which has been around WAY LONGER than any investment any of those spiny-minded shareholders might think they have claims to it ). What they invested in, was a MEDIUM of selling. The thought that expression within that medium would belong to only one company is like saying that only Sears could hold "Sales", or Macy's could have "Clearances". Funny, where's the guy who patented the original "shopping cart" to SUE ALL online retailers for reusing his concept without a license ? Sorry, but I understand the fair market system a little too well to let a lame argument like "we have to protect our shareholders investments" go by unchallenged. RAMBUS used the same argument when they "casually" neglected to share IP with JEDEC. M$ has "casually" neglected to open up certain API's we've known to be there for years. And for what ? "Protect shareholder investment"....GIVE the consumer a break already.
It's ridiculous to say that you would need to touch the boot sector to provide a safeguard for your product. You're a program for crimony sakes !!
Maybe this'll affect my Karma, but I say let's have a Turbo Tax CD burning. Or maybe everyone ought to send their CD's back and ask for a refund all at the same time. Or, maybe some more clever lawyer out there, will see this and smell "Class Action". Maybe they should've let M$ buy them out a few years ago, then at least they'd have an argument by saying they're "part of the OS", like M$ has said IE is supposed to be.
Ok, so you're saying I'm safe with having picked up a USB 11b Network Adapter for the kid, and still run the 802.11g Router and the PC Card for my laptop on the same setup ? Have you tried accessing this set from a PDA like the Toshiba e740, or some other WiFi enabled PDA ? Inquiring minds REALLY wanna know... Marcelo
Don't disagree with you. Then again, it doesn't come across to me ( and I could be wrong, I'll admit ), that the "Core" folks are exactly the most democratic ( if after all, they were ELECTED ) bunch of folks around. True, having a personality like that around can be detrimental to the group. You should always consider though, when you have some personality exascerbated situations in a development team, the actual why's behind the friction. Did Matt jump the shark ? Yeah, he probably did. Did he have a good starting point ( or reason ) when he first took issue with the matter at hand ? Quite possibly, it sounds to me ( and quite a folks ), that it did.
Obviously Patrick, you live outside silicon valley. Or many other high tech areas. Exactly what condition do you think the economy is in again ? But that's besides the point. Sure, Matt has to seriously consider switching to DECAF. But, and it's a BIG "BUT", exactly what makes you think that he's the only one with a big ego there ? Just because he A) Didn't tow the party line or B) spoke rather strongly, does that make his point any the less strong ? Perhaps, but the fact is. He's got a point. Now c'mon, don't tell me you've never lost your cool with someone else you've worked on a development project on.