oh yeah, apple's real innovative. After all, they release almost the same outdated hardware in a slightly different shape, increment the major version, then have droves of their L Ron Hubbard cult rejects rush out to buy it at exorbitant cost.
Face it, the concept of innovation is truly lost on today's tech culture. Why innovate when you can stagnate at the top?
For me, having the menu always at the top is frustrating because it doesn't scale well to large/high res screens where having multiple applications side by side is common. Moving the mouse up to the top of the screen and away from the window is annoying. It only works for fullscreen one window at a time workflows, which, for me anyway, defeats the purpose of having such a screen.
You're welcome to try to make money from it. I don't think anyone's suggesting you shouldn't. It's when someone in your position gets used to the idea of easy ad-driven cash flows and then whines when people start blocking the annoying scripts they require. Go ahead, make money with your site, but you don't have a right to whine about what happens once your content hits others' machines. Once that happens, your code is on their turf. They decide. The internet is not cable TV nor should it be. If you really want to ensure every user pays, put it behind a paywall and you'll see just how valuable your content is.
define 'professional.' That word is often thrown around to reference some generic 'objective' standard that boils down to that person's expectation. When most people say 'professional' they're really looking at the aesthetics and using them to judge the quality of the content.. The problem is that there's an inverse correlation between looks and content on the net today.. The best looking sites often contain the least relevant information on top of a pile of ads and CSS/javascript. Frankly, I don't care if a site is static html with black text block paragraphs and a few static images so long as the content is relevant, mostly correct, and to the point.
Then there's the rather lopsided ratio. For every site containing an individual's content about a subject on a hacked-together half assed page, there're hundreds of nice looking, content barren gravity wells designed to flood search engines and draw your clicks to its ads. This is why people won't give any quarter to 'poor starving 'journalists'' who think just throwing up a page makes them deserving of a cash flow. If these people really want to charge for their 'content', they can put it behind a paywall. Leaving it open to public access and whining that people refuse to execute every last bit of jabbascript on their own computers deserves no sympathy whatsoever. They need to get real jobs.
His point was that it DID work.. It was just overtaken by a bunch of opportunists who now want their shitty business models propped up.
google et al wouldn't be NEEDED if 'webmasters' didnt work so hard at obfuscating their content behind tons of useless whitespace 'design' aesthetics, ads, and obtuse language in lame attempts to maximize 'click through'.
sadly most of those ugly looking geocities sites were easier to use and to the point than any of this overscripted web 2.x waste-of-whitespace bullshit we get now.
No thanks. I already pay for my internet bandwidth. I don't want to pay for everyone else's too. Paywall the site or shut it down and get a real job if the income isn't sufficient for you. Internet users aren't required to make the network a revenue stream for you. It's not cable tv, nor should it be.
They are based on elements of truth, and while basing judgments solely on them will result in incomplete understanding, purposefully avoiding them by whitewashing the media with contrarian examples also denies reality. In many cases, it'll end up denying more of it! Ideology is not reality no matter how much the society is filtered.
If you read the latter link from falkvinge, it becomes obvious very quickly that this is a white knight feminist power grab. Only they would push for such draconian demands to prevent 'the sexualization of girls', whatever that means. There are segments of the legislation that scare the shit out of me, and should scare anyone potentially living under its influence. Frankly, the fact any politician in the supposedly 'free' west would draft such a thing at all should be cause for concern. No amount of 'suffrage' or other outdated 1950s era rubbish justifies a police state. None. This kind of thing is a perfect example of ideology going so far as to eat its own tail.
I actually read TFA and these thoughts were running through my head the whole time. American or European, we gotta stop voting these idiots into office.
and white knights like you need to move beyond shaming language and ad hominem when others (rightly) the hypocrisy of using gender discrimination to fight gender discrimination.
No, the worthy cause is to get more qualified people in place.. not women specifically, people. Fighting systemic discrimination by layering more systemic bias on top of it does not solve anything.. It just creates more discrimination.
Equal opportunity != equal outcome. Assuming men and women are interchangeable drones with the later systemically oppressed is far too simplistic a model to be accurate. This is something else feminists have trouble with. If anything, today women have MORE opportunities than men do, starting in elementary, and scaling upward radically by college and beyond.
Actually it is this 'assumed equal capability' argument that keeps getting trotted out as an excuse to build systemic discrimination against men into society.
1. men are required to thanks to feminist 'equality' legislation. Unfortunately it does little but encourage another layer of systemic discrimination to form on top of claimed systemic discrimination.
2. men are instinctively inclined to place women on pedestals anyway..
3. today's 20 and 30 something men were brought up into neo-chivalry, which basically demands they give women 'equal' rewards while, at the same time, prop them up when they don't measure up, often to the point of taking the fall for her.
I sincerely hope this is sarcasm. I'll assume it is, but these points deserve feedback.
1. No they are not better at multitasking.. In fact, both genders suck at it.
2. If by 'social skills' you mean passive aggressive group dynamics where feelings matter more than facts, productivity, and efficiency, then yes, they are better. However, these dynamics are not what bring about productive workgroups.
3. If by 'educated' you mean more easily indoctrinated with socialist rhetoric, then, yes, they are better. Women much prefer to submit to the whims of the group. It's instinctive. Why do you think they're used as informer agents in Orwell's 1984?
4. I guess it depends on perspective. If by 'behave worse' you mean violence, then no, as both genders are violent. The split's about 50/50 in fact. Men are more extreme about it, while women lash out at much lower emotional thresholds. If we're judging masculine gender imperatives, it can also be said that men are more forthright, blunt, honest, rational, and 'willing to go there' when needed, even if feelings are hurt. Society needs more of this, not more political 'correction' that shields it from ever increasing amounts of reality.
5. Wars are fought by men when there isn't enough to go around. The women can stay home and vote the men to go to war, while they are protected from those who would take their resources from them. Which gender is the privileged class again?
6. While it's true that men eat more calories on average, they also get more work done per unit time, on average, as well as being willing and able to work more hours/day. This includes both physical and intellectual labor. Healthy men are far less willing or likely to play passive aggressive political games. Instead, they simply compete on competence and results. Of course, feminists call this out as insecure child's play, but it's not because it results in the attainment of more goals. This makes it better for the organization and society in general than the passive aggression women generate when they're forced into competition with each other. This passive aggression is a much more direct indicator of systemic insecurity in an organization than competition.
It's not that people think games should be free. It's that people expect to OWN something when they BUY a box with a disk. Bilking portals like steam and origin take this away.. People are only demanding what they've come to expect up through about 2004: dedicated server binaries (if applicable), mod tools (if applicable), and no remote DRM that can get shut off 2-5 years hence or gets in the way of the experience. These things allow customers to retain control over the access of what they purchased. When true, then $50 seems reasonable for a AAA title. If not, then the game's worth about $0.50 or one go at street fighter 2 in 1991.
No one wants to be bilked out of that much money for a rental experience. The fact that there are now microtransactions affecting game play on top of the initial $50 just shows how little value is left in today's games. It's not about selling good products at fair prices anymore, it's about how much they can bilk without the customer noticing.
It's not like game companies that made good products were suffering.. I seem to recall certain high profile people driving around in ferraris at the heights of their careers, so offering real, ownable value for the money does work. I think this new post 2005 model is due to the slow consolidation of smaller studios into top-heavy publishers who need ever growing revenue to stay afloat..
doom2 wasn't built with the concept of portal dependence like the later COD titles. The quake titles had user accessible server binaries and mod tools.
by then you're a year out from when they can the multiplayer servers.. why the hell do you want it on steam so badly? steam doesn't make the game 'better'. if anything it's an annoyance.
I was astonished to find that this was a post from someone who uses slashdot. I honestly had no idea that many slashdot users even bothered with console games. Why would anybody bother spending money on locked down, DRM'd to hell boxes with inferior IO, when they make sufficient money to play FPS on the best platform available: one they probably already have an instance or two of in the house already thanks to the nature of their employment. A few hundred bucks on a video card vs the cost of a games-dedicated black box, tv (one that doesn't lag), controllers, network subscriptions, and overpriced game discs is a no brainer.
Slashdot Mirror
Who gets to define what is 'bad'?
oh yeah, apple's real innovative. After all, they release almost the same outdated hardware in a slightly different shape, increment the major version, then have droves of their L Ron Hubbard cult rejects rush out to buy it at exorbitant cost.
Face it, the concept of innovation is truly lost on today's tech culture. Why innovate when you can stagnate at the top?
For me, having the menu always at the top is frustrating because it doesn't scale well to large/high res screens where having multiple applications side by side is common. Moving the mouse up to the top of the screen and away from the window is annoying. It only works for fullscreen one window at a time workflows, which, for me anyway, defeats the purpose of having such a screen.
You're welcome to try to make money from it. I don't think anyone's suggesting you shouldn't. It's when someone in your position gets used to the idea of easy ad-driven cash flows and then whines when people start blocking the annoying scripts they require. Go ahead, make money with your site, but you don't have a right to whine about what happens once your content hits others' machines. Once that happens, your code is on their turf. They decide. The internet is not cable TV nor should it be. If you really want to ensure every user pays, put it behind a paywall and you'll see just how valuable your content is.
define 'professional.' That word is often thrown around to reference some generic 'objective' standard that boils down to that person's expectation. When most people say 'professional' they're really looking at the aesthetics and using them to judge the quality of the content.. The problem is that there's an inverse correlation between looks and content on the net today.. The best looking sites often contain the least relevant information on top of a pile of ads and CSS/javascript. Frankly, I don't care if a site is static html with black text block paragraphs and a few static images so long as the content is relevant, mostly correct, and to the point.
Then there's the rather lopsided ratio. For every site containing an individual's content about a subject on a hacked-together half assed page, there're hundreds of nice looking, content barren gravity wells designed to flood search engines and draw your clicks to its ads. This is why people won't give any quarter to 'poor starving 'journalists'' who think just throwing up a page makes them deserving of a cash flow. If these people really want to charge for their 'content', they can put it behind a paywall. Leaving it open to public access and whining that people refuse to execute every last bit of jabbascript on their own computers deserves no sympathy whatsoever. They need to get real jobs.
His point was that it DID work.. It was just overtaken by a bunch of opportunists who now want their shitty business models propped up.
google et al wouldn't be NEEDED if 'webmasters' didnt work so hard at obfuscating their content behind tons of useless whitespace 'design' aesthetics, ads, and obtuse language in lame attempts to maximize 'click through'.
sadly most of those ugly looking geocities sites were easier to use and to the point than any of this overscripted web 2.x waste-of-whitespace bullshit we get now.
No thanks. I already pay for my internet bandwidth. I don't want to pay for everyone else's too. Paywall the site or shut it down and get a real job if the income isn't sufficient for you. Internet users aren't required to make the network a revenue stream for you. It's not cable tv, nor should it be.
They are based on elements of truth, and while basing judgments solely on them will result in incomplete understanding, purposefully avoiding them by whitewashing the media with contrarian examples also denies reality. In many cases, it'll end up denying more of it! Ideology is not reality no matter how much the society is filtered.
If you read the latter link from falkvinge, it becomes obvious very quickly that this is a white knight feminist power grab. Only they would push for such draconian demands to prevent 'the sexualization of girls', whatever that means. There are segments of the legislation that scare the shit out of me, and should scare anyone potentially living under its influence. Frankly, the fact any politician in the supposedly 'free' west would draft such a thing at all should be cause for concern. No amount of 'suffrage' or other outdated 1950s era rubbish justifies a police state. None. This kind of thing is a perfect example of ideology going so far as to eat its own tail.
I actually read TFA and these thoughts were running through my head the whole time. American or European, we gotta stop voting these idiots into office.
Tell that to the feminist lobby groups in washington who claim to speak for you..
and why would their positions be any less biased? Humans, male or female, will act/defend their own interests.
and white knights like you need to move beyond shaming language and ad hominem when others (rightly) the hypocrisy of using gender discrimination to fight gender discrimination.
No, the worthy cause is to get more qualified people in place.. not women specifically, people. Fighting systemic discrimination by layering more systemic bias on top of it does not solve anything.. It just creates more discrimination.
Equal opportunity != equal outcome. Assuming men and women are interchangeable drones with the later systemically oppressed is far too simplistic a model to be accurate. This is something else feminists have trouble with. If anything, today women have MORE opportunities than men do, starting in elementary, and scaling upward radically by college and beyond.
Actually it is this 'assumed equal capability' argument that keeps getting trotted out as an excuse to build systemic discrimination against men into society.
Empathy from your doctor might feel nice, but it doesn't mean she'll be the best at diagnosing your illness and deriving a solution.
because:
1. men are required to thanks to feminist 'equality' legislation. Unfortunately it does little but encourage another layer of systemic discrimination to form on top of claimed systemic discrimination.
2. men are instinctively inclined to place women on pedestals anyway..
3. today's 20 and 30 something men were brought up into neo-chivalry, which basically demands they give women 'equal' rewards while, at the same time, prop them up when they don't measure up, often to the point of taking the fall for her.
Criticism of feminism, or rather, accusing it of hypocrisy is not hatred of women. You are categorically and definitionally incorrect.
because of feminists stereotyping them..
I sincerely hope this is sarcasm. I'll assume it is, but these points deserve feedback.
1. No they are not better at multitasking.. In fact, both genders suck at it.
2. If by 'social skills' you mean passive aggressive group dynamics where feelings matter more than facts, productivity, and efficiency, then yes, they are better. However, these dynamics are not what bring about productive workgroups.
3. If by 'educated' you mean more easily indoctrinated with socialist rhetoric, then, yes, they are better. Women much prefer to submit to the whims of the group. It's instinctive. Why do you think they're used as informer agents in Orwell's 1984?
4. I guess it depends on perspective. If by 'behave worse' you mean violence, then no, as both genders are violent. The split's about 50/50 in fact. Men are more extreme about it, while women lash out at much lower emotional thresholds. If we're judging masculine gender imperatives, it can also be said that men are more forthright, blunt, honest, rational, and 'willing to go there' when needed, even if feelings are hurt. Society needs more of this, not more political 'correction' that shields it from ever increasing amounts of reality.
5. Wars are fought by men when there isn't enough to go around. The women can stay home and vote the men to go to war, while they are protected from those who would take their resources from them. Which gender is the privileged class again?
6. While it's true that men eat more calories on average, they also get more work done per unit time, on average, as well as being willing and able to work more hours/day. This includes both physical and intellectual labor. Healthy men are far less willing or likely to play passive aggressive political games. Instead, they simply compete on competence and results. Of course, feminists call this out as insecure child's play, but it's not because it results in the attainment of more goals. This makes it better for the organization and society in general than the passive aggression women generate when they're forced into competition with each other. This passive aggression is a much more direct indicator of systemic insecurity in an organization than competition.
it's too bad jitsi wasnt written in decent c/c++. desktop java applications are clunky, slow and take way too much memory than they should.
productive and clueful people who do more with the internet than twaddle their thumbs with angry birds.
um.. ever heard of the 'Rack Unit' standard?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_unit
It's not that people think games should be free. It's that people expect to OWN something when they BUY a box with a disk. Bilking portals like steam and origin take this away.. People are only demanding what they've come to expect up through about 2004: dedicated server binaries (if applicable), mod tools (if applicable), and no remote DRM that can get shut off 2-5 years hence or gets in the way of the experience. These things allow customers to retain control over the access of what they purchased. When true, then $50 seems reasonable for a AAA title. If not, then the game's worth about $0.50 or one go at street fighter 2 in 1991.
No one wants to be bilked out of that much money for a rental experience. The fact that there are now microtransactions affecting game play on top of the initial $50 just shows how little value is left in today's games. It's not about selling good products at fair prices anymore, it's about how much they can bilk without the customer noticing.
It's not like game companies that made good products were suffering.. I seem to recall certain high profile people driving around in ferraris at the heights of their careers, so offering real, ownable value for the money does work. I think this new post 2005 model is due to the slow consolidation of smaller studios into top-heavy publishers who need ever growing revenue to stay afloat..
doom2 wasn't built with the concept of portal dependence like the later COD titles. The quake titles had user accessible server binaries and mod tools.
Using doom2 as a counterexample is NOT valid.
by then you're a year out from when they can the multiplayer servers.. why the hell do you want it on steam so badly? steam doesn't make the game 'better'. if anything it's an annoyance.
I was astonished to find that this was a post from someone who uses slashdot. I honestly had no idea that many slashdot users even bothered with console games. Why would anybody bother spending money on locked down, DRM'd to hell boxes with inferior IO, when they make sufficient money to play FPS on the best platform available: one they probably already have an instance or two of in the house already thanks to the nature of their employment. A few hundred bucks on a video card vs the cost of a games-dedicated black box, tv (one that doesn't lag), controllers, network subscriptions, and overpriced game discs is a no brainer.