Or just read the article summary, where it says 50% of new player sales were Blu-Ray. That seems fairly mainstream.
The headline-grabbing premise of the article claims "Blu-Ray is failing", but the actual argument being made to convince us of that is "Blu-Ray has not entirely replaced DVD in the first few years", which most people would not consider to be the same. There's absolutely no argument stated that even tried to convince us that Blu-Ray sales are on the decline or that Blu-Rays won't continue to grow and eventually supplant DVDs just like most incremental, backward-compatible upgrades.
Exactly. How is HALF of hardware sales "failing" in a highly competitive market?
As for all the people banging on about how the difference in quality is marginal, well, yes. The jump from VHS to DVD was unquestionably bigger. But even on a fairly average HDTV (which, contrary to./ orthodoxy, shitloads of people own) the difference between DVD quality and Blu Ray quality is very noticeable. Once you get even a 10 year old receiver and some speakers into the mix the jump in sound quality is startling, especially for anything recorded in the DTS era.
My gf is certainly not the type of person to obsess about technical details. I bought season 2 of Fringe on Blu Ray having watched the first season on DVD. Out of the blue after about 3 episodes she expressed amazement at how good it looked and sounded.
I'm also into movies and again the jump in quality is very significant, and the overall viewing experience is substantially better. A well mastered movie on Blu Ray gets much closer to the director's intention than a DVD.
Frankly if there's a choice of formats and less than a 50% price difference we're going to find it hard to buy stuff on DVD in future, much as I despise Sony's DRM system.
Incidentally, on the subject of DRM people should be aware that a number of major publishers don't include DRM at all on Blu Ray, and for those that do the "zones" are typically larger than for DVD. If something from the USA doesn't work in your region something from the UK probably will.
As someone who is happy to pay $50 for a good game, there's many games I wanted to play, but simply refused to buy b/c of draconian anti-piracy measures; be they DRM, rootkits, or even requiring an online connection, especially when it's a single-player game with no online play.
While I don't personally install pirated games (too concerned about what else may come with it), I could see why people would if they really wanted to play game X. For me, there are enough other games typically that I'll just pass and go buy something else. I think the overboard DRM etc stuff does nothing to stop people from hacking it eventually, and just stops consumers like me, willing to pay for it, from buying the game(s) at all. And then there's also a certain about of ill will you feel towards the companies who do it -- maybe not a tangible, but I think it impacts my thinking and spending towards those publishers.
I'm in exactly the same boat. There are a number of PC games I really want to play but have decided not to buy thanks to DRM. Case in point - Civilization V - I would have bought this on release day, but it requires Steam. So I'm out. Likewise the new Shogun: Total War game: Steam = out. Assassin's Creed 2: on-line connection required = out. And so on.
The sad thing for the games industry is that I'm a life-long gamer who would love to give them my money. But not if they are going to dick me around with shitty on-line DRM.
I never thought I'd say it, but I miss a simple disc check and serial number.
It doesn't matter much how the time in your frame of reference relates to times of "stationary" observers; it's still the same amount of time for you.
Of course, the gain (and much larger than nanoseconds) might be there vs. just sitting on your rear end. But it depends greatly on the type of movement, for example whether it involves regular exercise.
Can someone explain to me how if I walk around and you stay "still" we aren't moving at the exact same speed relative to one another?
Not in any game I've ever played. You take a level 1 trainee mage up against a "boss" dragon, you get turned into ashes. Not fun at all.
I think you're missing the point - there's no consequence for violence that you commit in games. Take COD, you shoot dozens if not hundreds of human beings in that game and get rewarded for it.
It violates the "sovereignty" of the totally illegitimate dictatorship run by an insane monster.
It is actively invited and indeed demanded by the group which appears to represent the people of Libya.
Why are Ghadafi's interests "sovereign", but the citizens of Libya's interests "non-sovereign"?
Think about it in the context of what would happen if this civilian uprising were occurring in the Britain. The authorities would use varying levels of force to quell the unrest. At times, these levels would be appropriate.
Arguably if a genuine civilian uprising were to occur anywhere, it would be inherently legitimate, and if the reprisals were sufficiently disproportionate then intervention would be valid. I would certainly hope that the rest of us would intervene to rescue a rebelling British population from being massacred by a dictatorship if that's what it came to - wouldn't you?
Your argument appears to be that the preferred position is to stand back and allow unarmed or lightly armed civilians who seek to impose democracy to be massacred, because it is more important to recognise the theoretical diplomatic status of brutal regimes. Are you sure that's really how you feel?
This is the part that sucks. Their dickery doesn't bother me that much when only affects the garden-dwellers, but this has the potential to raise prices across the board. Part of the blame for that will go to publishers who will not let Apple eat 30% of their profits, but Apple is the root cause.
On the flipside, this might be where Apple finally goes far enough to violate anti-trust/competition laws around the world. They are arguably abusing their position in one market (iphone hardware) to stifle competition and price gouge in another market (iphone software).
What I love in stories like this is the implication that Apple actually gets to CHOOSE when the warranty applies. This is wrong for at least two reasons:
1. You have private rights against Apple which you are entitled to enforce.
2. You have statutory rights which Apple cannot simply declare to be null and void.
On #1, you have the right to hold Apple to the warranty and to the contract of sale. Depending upon how it's expressed at the time you buy the device, the mere fact that a little sticker changes colour does not mean that Apple gets to unilaterally walk away from its obligations to you any more than you can unilaterally alter the terms of the warranty or agreement yourself.
On #2, in many places there are statutory warranties which do not give a flying fuck what Apple's opinion about a little sticker is. Again, they are likely to depend upon whether the device actually was damaged by the user through misuse, or whether it was in fact designed or manufactured in a defective way. Obviously these rights varies by jurisdiction.
The common thread is that Apple's arbitrary statements of "fact" do not in any way affect your right to have a defective product repaired or replaced, or to obtain a refund. The fact that a sticker changes colour does not somehow alter reality to mean that you did drop your device in a glass of water when you didn't, any more than a device which has been carefully half dipped in water would lead to a refund simply because the sticker hasn't changed colour.
I also wonder whether Apple implying that it is their random declarations of policy which determine whether you have refund rights might not be illegal. Certainly under Australia's new Australian Consumer Law it will be a serious offence to make false or misleading statements about what rights consumers have, and as of 2012 goods will be required to include a statement from the manufacturer confirming the consumers rights under the legislation.
iTunes is not their best work, but is far superior to Windows Media 1-99 (whatever version we are up to now).
Except that I've never needed to use Windows Media Player to update ANYTHING on my Windows Mobile phone. In fact, I can simply drag and drop whatever I want, just like the phone is another memory device... Why do I need a special program to access my phone in the first place?
GP also speaks like one who has not used Windows 7 or the latest version of WMP which, despite being a horrible Microsoft program, actually works very well. I still choose to use Media Player Classic Homecinema for most things, but in some situations I now find myself using Windows' built-in media player for the first time in about a decade.
It is FAR superior to the horrible, bloaty, buggy, featureless mess that is iTunes on Windows. Far, FAR superior.
That's what I mean with slightly creepy. Your neighbor might have never given you any reason to question his integrity but if he insists on going through your trash and wants to install a camera in your bathroom you're probably gonna be suspicious.
This is what seriously pissing me off with Firefox of late - like many people here I imagine, I am someone who is regularly asked by friends/family/colleagues for advice about things like which web browser to use. I typically push Firefox for the usual reasons of stability, security, open-sourced-ness, not being Microsoft or Google - but if they're taking away features (status bar, traditional URL bar, etc etc) and it's becoming unstable it gets harder and harder to convince people not to try Chrome. Once they do, they're unlikely to come back to FF, despite the obvious and serious privacy concerns.
Firefox used to be a relatively lightweight, super-functional browser that shat all over IE and was free as its main selling points. That is now what Chrome is becoming, while FF kills itself with stupid design decisions and death-by-committee "features" being added.
In summary: stop adding useless crap! Give us back browser features that people have been using for 20 years! Wake up to the fact that being "free" and not being IE isn't going to be enough any more!
They want to phase out the status bar, and they figured not providing that functionality was for the best
Wow, that's simply awful. The status bar is there for a reason. Do they really want people following links with even less information than they have now? If my browser is stalling out trying to load a page, how will I know what domain to block?
Looks like Mozilla is continuing to dumb down its user interface. Is there a browser around that targets the geek market? One for those of us who want more information and more control?
More to the point, even if they think this is a good idea, how hard would it be to include an OPTION to turn it back on. Just like they could easily include an option to turn back on the old address bar.
Simplifying the interface for some users might be a good idea. But removing choices from power users is a terrible idea, and will drive people into the arms of Google/Opera.
It is ridiculous that to get decent functionality back one must install a series of add ons that do little more than restore features.
It would seem Ctrl-C, Ctrl-X, and Ctrl-V (or Cmd on a Mac) would be easier and have the keys closer together
Actually, measuring on my Dell keyboard (at work), I get a distance of about 5 cm from the edge of Ctrl to the edge of V, while only about 4cm from the edge of Ctrl to the edge of Ins.
Factor in that a person using the mouse on the left has to move their hand off the mouse to use the left-side shortcuts and it makes sense that you would use them on the right.
Combined with a bit of knowledge about keyboard shortcuts (Ctrl-Ins : Copy, Shift-Del : Cut, Shift-Ins : Paste) and drag and drop (select some text, drag it with Ctrl key pressed : easy copy-paste)
You, sir, just improved my productivity by about 300%.
I too am right handed but use the mouse on the left, in my case due to a shoulder injury on my right side. I would say I am as proficient with my left hand as my right now, but shortcuts have been a constant hassle.
No longer! It never even occurred to me to check how left-handed people do it normally.
I am sick and tired of nerds calling their PCs rigs and referring to their IT workplaces as a windows "shop" or linux "shop". You guys are not blue collar workers and you would be laughed out of any bar that had real blue collar workers in it.
rig - noun - apparatus for some purpose; equipment; outfit; gear: a hi-fi rig; Bring your rod and reel and all the rest of your fishing rig.
Thank you for confirming that you have some irrational hatred of PC gaming and that your opinions on the subject are therefore irrelevant.
Just look at the newest games and how badly they perform on supposedly "powerful" machines. These games are not more creative, just flashy and poorly coded.
Have you actually played any new games on a semi-decent machine? Apart from Crysis itself this phenomenon hasn't really been around for about 5 years. It used to be the case that a game would claim to run on (say) a 386 DX but in truth needed a 486, but those games are largely gone. My games rig is about 2 years old, and still plays anything new I throw at it very nicely. For $200 you can get a graphics card that will happily play any new game on the market.
Of course, some games offer 'ultra' graphics settings that might cause a mid-level machine to labour. But this is icing - these games look fantastic even at medium detail settings, and far surpass consoles at that level.
I haven't seen anything innovative done on a PC that couldn't have been done on a PS2.
So you think graphics are completely irrelevant, good for you. I'm as much of a fan of gameplay innovation as anyone - I still play a lot of DOS games, in fact - but outstanding graphics DO add something, and there's no question that the PC has a lot more potential than current-gen consoles, let alone a PS2.
GP’s complaint was that someone can still tag you without linking to your profile, and if the image is public, anyone can see it. All they have to do is type your name and then un-check the box next to your profile link in the search results list.
You are not notified, you cannot un-tag yourself, you cannot search to find photos in which you’ve been tagged in this manner, and you cannot prevent random strangers from seeing it.
If this is the complaint, then it is no different to publication of such a photo anywhere on the web. There is nothing about putting up a named photo of someone on a web page which is unique to Facebook.
Also, if it's not linked to your profile the extent of the exposure to people you know will be very limited.
Sure, if _I_ choose to post something online about myself then I will live with the consequences of doing so. But that is not what this is about. Not even a little bit. (Is it just me or is this thread getting very Orwellian?)
Problem here specifically is that there is this online social community out there that a ton of people use. A lot of people carry out all forms of conversations on it. Sometimes two people will even have a conversation between themselves discussing someone else with the intent that the someone else won't be able to see it, at least that's the way it was the other day when they had the conversation. Now lo and behold, for example, your SO knows all about the exciting trip you have planned as a surprise for the weekend! (See, doesn't have to be about getting fired over some drunken party pic now does it?)
The problem with this is that you're wrong about what can and cannot be seen by others on FB. If you want to have a private "conversation", you can do that and no-one other than the two of you (or anyone either of you forwards the information on to) can ever see it. In Facebook this is what "messages" are, rather than "wall posts". Even better, you can use email, SMS or a telephone if you wish to improve the protection of your privacy.
If your conversation about your surprise weekend couldn't be seen by your SO last week, it can't be seen this week.
All that this new tool does is expose information that is already exposed to others in a summary way. Other people could already find all of this information by trawling through, for example, your FB wall for the past three years to see every message between you and Mr/Ms X. This tool simply does that task for them, so they can just click a "show me everything public between GeckoX and Mr/Ms X" button.
Facebook calls it a "wall" for a reason - it's like a semi-public noticeboard where things that are posted can be seen by more than just the owner of the wall and the person posting it. At minimum it's like a noticeboard on a wall in your house - other friends and acquaintances who come in can see what's on your wall. Depending on your settings and who you choose to befriend, it might be more like a wall at your workplace or in a public place.
blaming facebook is just shifting responsibility and personal accountability away from you when things go wrong because you weren't discreet
If only the system works like you described. Like someone said earlier, you have more to worry about from OTHER people's posts than you really do your own. Let's say I make a Facebook page - but I don't enter any information but my name and photo. I don't add any of my friends, I basically be a social outcast and hermit on Facebook.
Facebook still allows people to tag "nothings" in photos, so they can tag me in a photo and I won't get ANY notification because the Tag itself won't like to my page - instead it'll just say my name when they hover over it. A potential employer does some research on me - and they find that I have a facebook account but can't see anything but my picture. They then continue their goolge search and see a random picture someone put up of me with my tag on it and know its me because of the photo.
Damn - all I did was enter my name and a good photo of myself - and my reputation got ruined outside of my control.
Do you actually USE Facebook?
1. You DO get notified if someone tags you in a photo.
2. You can un-tag yourself from a photo and IIRC FB then won't allow anyone to re-tag you in that photo thereafter.
3. You can limit the information that random strangers can obtain about you, including finding photos in which you are tagged.
4. If none of the above does the trick, you have avenues of complaint to FB to get offensive material removed.
So why can't I &*^*&^ simply paste plain text? I have to go "paste special" and chose "Text" over and &^*&^ over again. I NEVER LIKE TO PASTE WITH THE OTHER FORMATTING!
Maybe you should try the option called "set default paste" and set it to "unformatted text". Amazing.
You may find it interesting that in the most recent Federal election in Australia both major parties suddenly, and somewhat unexpectedly, adopted a "small Australia" policy. Both had pushed "infinitely large Australia" previously at the behest of their friends in big business.
Although this new position has the advantage of allowing some pandering to racists/bigots by limiting immigration (a big issue in Australia), I personally also believe it reflects a growing public view that we have plenty of people and a nice amount of space, resources, etc and would be crazy to sacrifice that in exchange for a few large companies making a bit more money via population-driven growth in GDP.
Basically it hides your desktop and gives you nothing but a blank screen and text. If you want to you can navigate around your doc, but you don't have to. You can also set it to auto-load with the last thing you were working on, which gives a sense of persistence to it. Customizable colours etc too.
Stop focusing on the 3D wishwash and please manufacture cheap and affordable low latency screens. And no the advertised 2(0)ms 5(0)ms now mainstream products are not good, they still blur/ghost the image very much.
The loss of crisp and details on the image is still absurd, you cant play a simple sidescrolling game or scroll text without the image turning into an agravating and stressfull eye exposure in a short to long term use. And the more detailed the image is, the worse and more easily apparent how poor quality your products are.
Untill then, i won't bother even considering buying anything 3D. Actually, even after that.
Maybe you should actually do some research. Then you would discover that such products actually exist.
On my PC I have a 24" Benq LCD. It's colour reproduction is not up to publishing/pro-photographer standards, but as to your requirements it was "cheap and affordable" (a couple of hundred bucks from memory) and very, very low latency. I play plenty of games, including action games and even side-scrollers (via emulators) and they look fantastic. I have never noticed any ghosting/blur whatsoever.
As a TV I have a Panasonic plasma. I watch a fair bit of sport and a lot of movies, so I specifically sought something which had good blacks, good colour reproduction and could handle fast movement. A half-decent plasma will do all of these things. I don't know what you call "cheap" but this was about Australian $1500 for a 42" screen about four years ago. I consider it excellent value so far. Compared to what you could buy even 10 years ago its absolutely stunning - I remember forking out nearly $2000 for a 68cm flat screen Sony CRT in about 2001, which looked great at the time but looks horrible by comparison to the plasma now.
I kind of agree with you about the focus on 3D TVs, but it's not right to complain about a lack of cheap, good TVs and monitors.
Slashdot Mirror
Or just read the article summary, where it says 50% of new player sales were Blu-Ray. That seems fairly mainstream.
The headline-grabbing premise of the article claims "Blu-Ray is failing", but the actual argument being made to convince us of that is "Blu-Ray has not entirely replaced DVD in the first few years", which most people would not consider to be the same. There's absolutely no argument stated that even tried to convince us that Blu-Ray sales are on the decline or that Blu-Rays won't continue to grow and eventually supplant DVDs just like most incremental, backward-compatible upgrades.
Exactly. How is HALF of hardware sales "failing" in a highly competitive market?
As for all the people banging on about how the difference in quality is marginal, well, yes. The jump from VHS to DVD was unquestionably bigger. But even on a fairly average HDTV (which, contrary to ./ orthodoxy, shitloads of people own) the difference between DVD quality and Blu Ray quality is very noticeable. Once you get even a 10 year old receiver and some speakers into the mix the jump in sound quality is startling, especially for anything recorded in the DTS era.
My gf is certainly not the type of person to obsess about technical details. I bought season 2 of Fringe on Blu Ray having watched the first season on DVD. Out of the blue after about 3 episodes she expressed amazement at how good it looked and sounded.
I'm also into movies and again the jump in quality is very significant, and the overall viewing experience is substantially better. A well mastered movie on Blu Ray gets much closer to the director's intention than a DVD.
Frankly if there's a choice of formats and less than a 50% price difference we're going to find it hard to buy stuff on DVD in future, much as I despise Sony's DRM system.
Incidentally, on the subject of DRM people should be aware that a number of major publishers don't include DRM at all on Blu Ray, and for those that do the "zones" are typically larger than for DVD. If something from the USA doesn't work in your region something from the UK probably will.
As someone who is happy to pay $50 for a good game, there's many games I wanted to play, but simply refused to buy b/c of draconian anti-piracy measures; be they DRM, rootkits, or even requiring an online connection, especially when it's a single-player game with no online play.
While I don't personally install pirated games (too concerned about what else may come with it), I could see why people would if they really wanted to play game X. For me, there are enough other games typically that I'll just pass and go buy something else. I think the overboard DRM etc stuff does nothing to stop people from hacking it eventually, and just stops consumers like me, willing to pay for it, from buying the game(s) at all. And then there's also a certain about of ill will you feel towards the companies who do it -- maybe not a tangible, but I think it impacts my thinking and spending towards those publishers.
I'm in exactly the same boat. There are a number of PC games I really want to play but have decided not to buy thanks to DRM. Case in point - Civilization V - I would have bought this on release day, but it requires Steam. So I'm out. Likewise the new Shogun: Total War game: Steam = out. Assassin's Creed 2: on-line connection required = out. And so on.
The sad thing for the games industry is that I'm a life-long gamer who would love to give them my money. But not if they are going to dick me around with shitty on-line DRM.
I never thought I'd say it, but I miss a simple disc check and serial number.
It doesn't matter much how the time in your frame of reference relates to times of "stationary" observers; it's still the same amount of time for you.
Of course, the gain (and much larger than nanoseconds) might be there vs. just sitting on your rear end. But it depends greatly on the type of movement, for example whether it involves regular exercise.
Can someone explain to me how if I walk around and you stay "still" we aren't moving at the exact same speed relative to one another?
"no consequences for violence"
Not in any game I've ever played. You take a level 1 trainee mage up against a "boss" dragon, you get turned into ashes. Not fun at all.
I think you're missing the point - there's no consequence for violence that you commit in games. Take COD, you shoot dozens if not hundreds of human beings in that game and get rewarded for it.
Think the US would start a nuclear conflict over an island? Won't happen.
They got pretty damn close with Cuba at one point...
It violates Libya's sovereignty.
It violates the "sovereignty" of the totally illegitimate dictatorship run by an insane monster.
It is actively invited and indeed demanded by the group which appears to represent the people of Libya.
Why are Ghadafi's interests "sovereign", but the citizens of Libya's interests "non-sovereign"?
Think about it in the context of what would happen if this civilian uprising were occurring in the Britain. The authorities would use varying levels of force to quell the unrest. At times, these levels would be appropriate.
Arguably if a genuine civilian uprising were to occur anywhere, it would be inherently legitimate, and if the reprisals were sufficiently disproportionate then intervention would be valid. I would certainly hope that the rest of us would intervene to rescue a rebelling British population from being massacred by a dictatorship if that's what it came to - wouldn't you?
Your argument appears to be that the preferred position is to stand back and allow unarmed or lightly armed civilians who seek to impose democracy to be massacred, because it is more important to recognise the theoretical diplomatic status of brutal regimes. Are you sure that's really how you feel?
F1 is of course very heavily limited. Engine size, for example, is intentionally capped.
It used to be a relative free-for-all but the cars got too fast to be safe (at least in the minds of the FIA).
This is the part that sucks. Their dickery doesn't bother me that much when only affects the garden-dwellers, but this has the potential to raise prices across the board. Part of the blame for that will go to publishers who will not let Apple eat 30% of their profits, but Apple is the root cause.
On the flipside, this might be where Apple finally goes far enough to violate anti-trust/competition laws around the world. They are arguably abusing their position in one market (iphone hardware) to stifle competition and price gouge in another market (iphone software).
What I love in stories like this is the implication that Apple actually gets to CHOOSE when the warranty applies. This is wrong for at least two reasons:
1. You have private rights against Apple which you are entitled to enforce.
2. You have statutory rights which Apple cannot simply declare to be null and void.
On #1, you have the right to hold Apple to the warranty and to the contract of sale. Depending upon how it's expressed at the time you buy the device, the mere fact that a little sticker changes colour does not mean that Apple gets to unilaterally walk away from its obligations to you any more than you can unilaterally alter the terms of the warranty or agreement yourself.
On #2, in many places there are statutory warranties which do not give a flying fuck what Apple's opinion about a little sticker is. Again, they are likely to depend upon whether the device actually was damaged by the user through misuse, or whether it was in fact designed or manufactured in a defective way. Obviously these rights varies by jurisdiction.
The common thread is that Apple's arbitrary statements of "fact" do not in any way affect your right to have a defective product repaired or replaced, or to obtain a refund. The fact that a sticker changes colour does not somehow alter reality to mean that you did drop your device in a glass of water when you didn't, any more than a device which has been carefully half dipped in water would lead to a refund simply because the sticker hasn't changed colour.
I also wonder whether Apple implying that it is their random declarations of policy which determine whether you have refund rights might not be illegal. Certainly under Australia's new Australian Consumer Law it will be a serious offence to make false or misleading statements about what rights consumers have, and as of 2012 goods will be required to include a statement from the manufacturer confirming the consumers rights under the legislation.
iTunes is not their best work, but is far superior to Windows Media 1-99 (whatever version we are up to now).
Except that I've never needed to use Windows Media Player to update ANYTHING on my Windows Mobile phone. In fact, I can simply drag and drop whatever I want, just like the phone is another memory device... Why do I need a special program to access my phone in the first place?
GP also speaks like one who has not used Windows 7 or the latest version of WMP which, despite being a horrible Microsoft program, actually works very well. I still choose to use Media Player Classic Homecinema for most things, but in some situations I now find myself using Windows' built-in media player for the first time in about a decade.
It is FAR superior to the horrible, bloaty, buggy, featureless mess that is iTunes on Windows. Far, FAR superior.
That's what I mean with slightly creepy. Your neighbor might have never given you any reason to question his integrity but if he insists on going through your trash and wants to install a camera in your bathroom you're probably gonna be suspicious.
This is what seriously pissing me off with Firefox of late - like many people here I imagine, I am someone who is regularly asked by friends/family/colleagues for advice about things like which web browser to use. I typically push Firefox for the usual reasons of stability, security, open-sourced-ness, not being Microsoft or Google - but if they're taking away features (status bar, traditional URL bar, etc etc) and it's becoming unstable it gets harder and harder to convince people not to try Chrome. Once they do, they're unlikely to come back to FF, despite the obvious and serious privacy concerns.
Firefox used to be a relatively lightweight, super-functional browser that shat all over IE and was free as its main selling points. That is now what Chrome is becoming, while FF kills itself with stupid design decisions and death-by-committee "features" being added.
In summary: stop adding useless crap! Give us back browser features that people have been using for 20 years! Wake up to the fact that being "free" and not being IE isn't going to be enough any more!
They want to phase out the status bar, and they figured not providing that functionality was for the best
Wow, that's simply awful. The status bar is there for a reason. Do they really want people following links with even less information than they have now? If my browser is stalling out trying to load a page, how will I know what domain to block?
Looks like Mozilla is continuing to dumb down its user interface. Is there a browser around that targets the geek market? One for those of us who want more information and more control?
More to the point, even if they think this is a good idea, how hard would it be to include an OPTION to turn it back on. Just like they could easily include an option to turn back on the old address bar.
Simplifying the interface for some users might be a good idea. But removing choices from power users is a terrible idea, and will drive people into the arms of Google/Opera.
It is ridiculous that to get decent functionality back one must install a series of add ons that do little more than restore features.
(Ctrl-Ins : Copy, Shift-Del : Cut, Shift-Ins : Paste)
It would seem Ctrl-C, Ctrl-X, and Ctrl-V (or Cmd on a Mac) would be easier and have the keys closer together
Actually, measuring on my Dell keyboard (at work), I get a distance of about 5 cm from the edge of Ctrl to the edge of V, while only about 4cm from the edge of Ctrl to the edge of Ins.
Factor in that a person using the mouse on the left has to move their hand off the mouse to use the left-side shortcuts and it makes sense that you would use them on the right.
Combined with a bit of knowledge about keyboard shortcuts (Ctrl-Ins : Copy, Shift-Del : Cut, Shift-Ins : Paste) and drag and drop (select some text, drag it with Ctrl key pressed : easy copy-paste)
You, sir, just improved my productivity by about 300%.
I too am right handed but use the mouse on the left, in my case due to a shoulder injury on my right side. I would say I am as proficient with my left hand as my right now, but shortcuts have been a constant hassle.
No longer! It never even occurred to me to check how left-handed people do it normally.
I am sick and tired of nerds calling their PCs rigs and referring to their IT workplaces as a windows "shop" or linux "shop". You guys are not blue collar workers and you would be laughed out of any bar that had real blue collar workers in it.
rig - noun - apparatus for some purpose; equipment; outfit; gear: a hi-fi rig; Bring your rod and reel and all the rest of your fishing rig.
Thank you for confirming that you have some irrational hatred of PC gaming and that your opinions on the subject are therefore irrelevant.
Just look at the newest games and how badly they perform on supposedly "powerful" machines. These games are not more creative, just flashy and poorly coded.
Have you actually played any new games on a semi-decent machine? Apart from Crysis itself this phenomenon hasn't really been around for about 5 years. It used to be the case that a game would claim to run on (say) a 386 DX but in truth needed a 486, but those games are largely gone. My games rig is about 2 years old, and still plays anything new I throw at it very nicely. For $200 you can get a graphics card that will happily play any new game on the market.
Of course, some games offer 'ultra' graphics settings that might cause a mid-level machine to labour. But this is icing - these games look fantastic even at medium detail settings, and far surpass consoles at that level.
I haven't seen anything innovative done on a PC that couldn't have been done on a PS2.
So you think graphics are completely irrelevant, good for you. I'm as much of a fan of gameplay innovation as anyone - I still play a lot of DOS games, in fact - but outstanding graphics DO add something, and there's no question that the PC has a lot more potential than current-gen consoles, let alone a PS2.
GP’s complaint was that someone can still tag you without linking to your profile, and if the image is public, anyone can see it. All they have to do is type your name and then un-check the box next to your profile link in the search results list.
You are not notified, you cannot un-tag yourself, you cannot search to find photos in which you’ve been tagged in this manner, and you cannot prevent random strangers from seeing it.
If this is the complaint, then it is no different to publication of such a photo anywhere on the web. There is nothing about putting up a named photo of someone on a web page which is unique to Facebook.
Also, if it's not linked to your profile the extent of the exposure to people you know will be very limited.
Sure, if _I_ choose to post something online about myself then I will live with the consequences of doing so. But that is not what this is about. Not even a little bit. (Is it just me or is this thread getting very Orwellian?)
Problem here specifically is that there is this online social community out there that a ton of people use. A lot of people carry out all forms of conversations on it. Sometimes two people will even have a conversation between themselves discussing someone else with the intent that the someone else won't be able to see it, at least that's the way it was the other day when they had the conversation. Now lo and behold, for example, your SO knows all about the exciting trip you have planned as a surprise for the weekend! (See, doesn't have to be about getting fired over some drunken party pic now does it?)
The problem with this is that you're wrong about what can and cannot be seen by others on FB. If you want to have a private "conversation", you can do that and no-one other than the two of you (or anyone either of you forwards the information on to) can ever see it. In Facebook this is what "messages" are, rather than "wall posts". Even better, you can use email, SMS or a telephone if you wish to improve the protection of your privacy.
If your conversation about your surprise weekend couldn't be seen by your SO last week, it can't be seen this week.
All that this new tool does is expose information that is already exposed to others in a summary way. Other people could already find all of this information by trawling through, for example, your FB wall for the past three years to see every message between you and Mr/Ms X. This tool simply does that task for them, so they can just click a "show me everything public between GeckoX and Mr/Ms X" button.
Facebook calls it a "wall" for a reason - it's like a semi-public noticeboard where things that are posted can be seen by more than just the owner of the wall and the person posting it. At minimum it's like a noticeboard on a wall in your house - other friends and acquaintances who come in can see what's on your wall. Depending on your settings and who you choose to befriend, it might be more like a wall at your workplace or in a public place.
blaming facebook is just shifting responsibility and personal accountability away from you when things go wrong because you weren't discreet
If only the system works like you described. Like someone said earlier, you have more to worry about from OTHER people's posts than you really do your own. Let's say I make a Facebook page - but I don't enter any information but my name and photo. I don't add any of my friends, I basically be a social outcast and hermit on Facebook.
Facebook still allows people to tag "nothings" in photos, so they can tag me in a photo and I won't get ANY notification because the Tag itself won't like to my page - instead it'll just say my name when they hover over it. A potential employer does some research on me - and they find that I have a facebook account but can't see anything but my picture. They then continue their goolge search and see a random picture someone put up of me with my tag on it and know its me because of the photo.
Damn - all I did was enter my name and a good photo of myself - and my reputation got ruined outside of my control.
Do you actually USE Facebook?
1. You DO get notified if someone tags you in a photo.
2. You can un-tag yourself from a photo and IIRC FB then won't allow anyone to re-tag you in that photo thereafter.
3. You can limit the information that random strangers can obtain about you, including finding photos in which you are tagged.
4. If none of the above does the trick, you have avenues of complaint to FB to get offensive material removed.
So why can't I &*^*&^ simply paste plain text? I have to go "paste special" and chose "Text" over and &^*&^ over again. I NEVER LIKE TO PASTE WITH THE OTHER FORMATTING!
Maybe you should try the option called "set default paste" and set it to "unformatted text". Amazing.
Indeed - get the masses to the point where they don't think 'have a shitload of kids because that's just what you do.'
You may find it interesting that in the most recent Federal election in Australia both major parties suddenly, and somewhat unexpectedly, adopted a "small Australia" policy. Both had pushed "infinitely large Australia" previously at the behest of their friends in big business.
Although this new position has the advantage of allowing some pandering to racists/bigots by limiting immigration (a big issue in Australia), I personally also believe it reflects a growing public view that we have plenty of people and a nice amount of space, resources, etc and would be crazy to sacrifice that in exchange for a few large companies making a bit more money via population-driven growth in GDP.
Or the multi-platform, also excellent (and free) Dark Room:
http://they.misled.us/dark-room
Basically it hides your desktop and gives you nothing but a blank screen and text. If you want to you can navigate around your doc, but you don't have to. You can also set it to auto-load with the last thing you were working on, which gives a sense of persistence to it. Customizable colours etc too.
Stop focusing on the 3D wishwash and please manufacture cheap and affordable low latency screens. And no the advertised 2(0)ms 5(0)ms now mainstream products are not good, they still blur/ghost the image very much.
The loss of crisp and details on the image is still absurd, you cant play a simple sidescrolling game or scroll text without the image turning into an agravating and stressfull eye exposure in a short to long term use.
And the more detailed the image is, the worse and more easily apparent how poor quality your products are.
Untill then, i won't bother even considering buying anything 3D. Actually, even after that.
Maybe you should actually do some research. Then you would discover that such products actually exist.
On my PC I have a 24" Benq LCD. It's colour reproduction is not up to publishing/pro-photographer standards, but as to your requirements it was "cheap and affordable" (a couple of hundred bucks from memory) and very, very low latency. I play plenty of games, including action games and even side-scrollers (via emulators) and they look fantastic. I have never noticed any ghosting/blur whatsoever.
As a TV I have a Panasonic plasma. I watch a fair bit of sport and a lot of movies, so I specifically sought something which had good blacks, good colour reproduction and could handle fast movement. A half-decent plasma will do all of these things. I don't know what you call "cheap" but this was about Australian $1500 for a 42" screen about four years ago. I consider it excellent value so far. Compared to what you could buy even 10 years ago its absolutely stunning - I remember forking out nearly $2000 for a 68cm flat screen Sony CRT in about 2001, which looked great at the time but looks horrible by comparison to the plasma now.
I kind of agree with you about the focus on 3D TVs, but it's not right to complain about a lack of cheap, good TVs and monitors.