I was surprised to find a google search returned no hits from M$ itself, but when I switched to bing, it worked. It seems that M$ is blocking google from searching it's site.
Really? I just copied the phrase from your post "Exchange Certificate on a winmo smartphone" into Google and the first result was a technet article at Microsoft. The best that Bing could do with the same phrase was some press release stuff about the phones (at least on the first page).
I know the results vary depending on your country and phase of the moon, but it seems a bit premature to suggest that Microsoft are blocking google when a million other test searches could easily prove that wrong.
Then after installing XP on another computer, and updating everything (since she wouldnt) I found that in the newest IE I couldnt use google as my search, the "easy" way of adding it was gone.
In other branches of this thread, everyone else has already mentioned the Find more providers option (which really doesn't seem that hard), but what "easy" way has been removed?
That's a pretty unfair comparison for this discussion. If you run Windows with just a service like a firewall then it too is pretty secure. It is only when you start installing more complicated programs to read emails, browse the web and load office documents that it starts to become vulnerable to viruses.
How useless. I went to the site, found an ad that seemed interesting and clicked on it. Nothing. No, I couldn't zoom in to be able to read the text. The only link is to ebay so I can buy it from the site owner. This is just one big stupid catalog of ebay sales.
I am just about to put up some stuff on ebay to sell - I must remember to post the "story" here.
Thank god they haven't forced me onto Win7 at work yet!
I hate to tell you this, but these shortcuts date back to Windows 95. If you didn't know about them before now then I really don't think that it will affect your Windows 7 experience one way or the other.
Apple is preventing Google from adding a feature to Apple's device only. It still sucks, but Apple is not finding ways to prevent Google from creating, selling, or marketing Latitude in any other form, and that is the big difference.
Apple have created the iPhone, tied it closely with their App Store and then created rules to limit competition. Being excluded from the App Store hugely diminishes visibility to the potential users. Sure, Google are big enough that they can find other ways of getting their apps out there, but smaller companies would find their potential market would become unviable.
I just don't accept the argument that Apple should be able to get away with this sort of stuff because Microsoft have done worse in the past.
You're chasing a red herring, because Google knew exactly what it was getting into when it signed up to sell applications in the App Store.
It is still power over another company (and direct power if you want to call it that). Why should it matter that they knew that it was a possibility? Do you think that the people who have been screwed by Microsoft didn't know that might happen? Really you are splitting hairs trying to make a distinction.
Any company who is betting their livelihood on a guarantee that their apps will not be rejected by Apple is making a foolish business decision.
That is not practical. Mobile platforms are a perfect market for small developers. Unfortunately they have no choice but to rely on Apple letting them include their software in the official application repository. How can they hope to follow Apple's rules if one of them is to not conflict with unannounced future Apple products?
Compare with the Microsoft situation...
No. As I said, it doesn't matter what Microsoft does because it doesn't change what Apple should do.
Anti-trust laws aren't about morality as far as I can see, they are about the economy and marketplaces.
Well yes, that is my point. We should hold Apple and Microsoft to exactly the same standards, despite Microsoft's larger market share.
Apple does shitty things, but isn't in a position of direct power over other companies
What was the topic of this story again? Oh yes, that Apple denied Google's app from the app store because it would compete with Apple's own offering. Sounds like power over other companies to me.
But the whole "Microsoft is a monopoly" argument never really worked for me. If both Microsoft and Apple do something that is morally wrong, then more people will be affected by Microsoft. But this doesn't make it less morally wrong for Apple. Not being the monopoly is not a "get out of jail free" card.
Come on, give it a rest! In what way did they lose credibility by making a measurement that confirmed their predictions? That seems to be the ideal way of increasing credibility.
Can you really be suprised that they would bring up climate change in a scientific review of 2009 when it is such a hotly debated topic right now?
It's not surprising that Microsoft and Intel haven't put much effort into the netbook platform.
You keep repeating this after it has been shown to be untrue.
Microsoft and Intel HAVE put a lot of work into netbooks. Microsoft optimised Windows 7 so that it would work on netbooks because Vista was not viable for that platform. Intel fixed the major problem of the Atom, which was the power requirements for the supporting chipset by integrating a lot of it directly into the CPU itself.
These were both major changes and were EXACTLY what was needed to be done by both companies. I can't see how you can interpret this as not putting much effort into the platform.
I stand by my statement that it should not be on the list. There is a wide spread perception that Y2K was a big con, and that we wasted a lot of money fixing up a problem that didn't exist. By including it in the first paragraph as the signature example of a tech mistake and also having it as the first item on the list, it perpetuates this myth.
I don't think the problem here is that two people are reading the same list and coming up with two different conclusions. It is that the list itself states two conflicting things. Sure it has the part that you quoted. But the first paragraph says "When clocks struck midnight on January 1st and the dreaded Y2K bug turned out to be nothing but a mild irritant, it proved once again that the experts often don't know what the heck they're talking about."
The experts were right. It was the people who didn't know what they were talking about (or went along with the paranoia for financial gain) who were predicting doom and gloom.
I wouldn't call it average from a technical standpoint. Keep in mind what the average was at the time it was released.
To be fair on the old Duke, I didn't play it when it was first released, so by the time that I tried it I had already played Quake 1. I remember at the time thinking that it was a step down from Quake. Maybe it was because I wanted the strippers to be less pixelated!
As for still being fun to play it now, it is on my list of games to revisit. Ooh, and I just found it on special at $3.89. Nice timing!
Did it really sound like I was being serious about nuking Poland? That was an extreme example of what would not ever happen.
You are trying to have it both ways by acknowledging that there was a real problem, but then go on to say that "it was a great pretext to scare the public and let idiocy run rampant". Yes it was a real problem that needed to be fixed and certainly was NOT a pretext for anything else. The fact that some people blew it out of proportion should not diminish the hard work that people had to do to keep everything working.
TFA is clearly riduling the doomsayers, not the people who prevented disaster.
Then it doesn't deserve to be on a list of lamest moments in tech. Surely it should be on the greatest moments in tech. Or the lamest moments in journalism.
On the other hand, it might deserve a place on this list if people started to ask why all the software was expecting the 1900s to go forever. I remember filling in a paper form back in high school in the 80s and thinking how short sighted it was to have 19____ on the form because it would not be reusable in 25 years. Yeah, it was stupid to think that a paper form (made on a typewriter and then photocopied) would still be used after all that time, but it made me be aware of assumptions in code. I have always allowed for dates with 4 digit years in my code.
(I have made some other really stupid assumptions in my programming, so I don't get off scott free on this point)
They never released it because the opposition kept getting better? If they could retain the great humour that went into the Duke3D, they would not need the latest and greatest in 3D gaming. It should stand alone.
Duke Nukem 3D was pretty average technically, but who cares when it is so funny and engaging. The saga of Duke Nukem Forever reminds me of how George Lucas discovered CGI, but forgot script writing. Just because something is pretty doesn't mean to say that it is good.
Developers spending a decade in a career holding pattern for below market salary with 'profit sharing' incentives, no real project deadlines, a motion capture room apparently used to capture the motion of strippers
Really, that's just too easy. Can't you at least make it a challenge to get +5 Funny???
Oh well, here goes... Sounds like my job, but without the strippers.
If you see a lot of Apple hate among these comments then why didn't you post your message as a reply to one of them? Oh, maybe because there isn't a lot of Apple hate here. This just goes to prove what we have all been saying about you: you're paranoid!
You aren't a coder, are you? If so, I envision many off-by-one errors in your work.
Surely a coder would have to be more mindful of the correct definitions of things like a decade. Otherwise if they moved between languages that had either 0 or 1 based arrays then they would constantly make errors.
Could you please point out a single example where a catastrophe was avoided due to fixing the code handing year changes?
How would we know? It is not as if people are going to publicise the bugs that they fix. "Hey everyone, we almost nuked Poland!"
Anyway, the worst of the hype that went around did not come from the experts. Nobody who knew what they were talking about would have said that there would be starvation in the streets. That said, there were definitely some people who tried to cash in on the paranoia. We had some consultant come in and try to sell us software to fix our systems because they were not Y2K ready. Sure enough, when the year changed the computers wrapped back to 1981. However, resetting them to the correct year worked fine.
But just because some unscrupulous people jumped on the bandwagon doesn't mean to say that there were not real bugs to fix. The main software that we wrote had a Y2K bug in it, but we fixed it back in 1997 without fanfare. Just because you never heard of it being fixed doesn't mean to say that it was a made up bug.
Erm, yeah, I guess he expected non-stupid reactions, from people who'd automatically assume a 1920 × 1080 resolution.
Really? My 22" LCD monitor has a native resolution of 1680x1050. It just shows how stupid it is to talk about screen size when you really mean resolution. That was the point that grandparent post was making.
I have to buy another LCD monitor soon, and it will run at 1920x1200 and not 1920x1080. This is why I won't just ask for a size in inches.
Hey nmg196, thanks for being the straight man (and to Armakuni for doing the punch line). But what's up with the moderator who gave you a flamebait mod. Shouldn't a knowledge of the Simpsons be a prerequisite for joining Slashdot? (I can forgive not knowing Southpark reference in the subject line).
Good on you, Italy. At least you are being honest about why you would want to censor the net. None of the usual "terrorist pedophile" nonsense. Just a nice, simple message to the populous: "we don't want to hear from you, please go away".
However, since I am against censorship, I might have to reconsider the answer to my Simpson quote regarding asteroid targets from earlier today.
First of all, this is just an example of the standard system in action, and not some amazing backflip. Any ratings decision is subject to an appeal by the publisher or any third party.
This is also an example of how misguided the people are who think that they are protecting the children by not having an R18+ rating. Nobody would have raised an eyebrow if this had been rated R, and it would have prevented kids from buying the game. But because we have forced the Classification Board to choose between two moronic choices (give it to kids or treat everyone like kids) for a popular, mainstream title then they have to end up letting kids see things that they arguably shouldn't.
The Classification Board would collectively jump for joy if an R18+ rating for games was finally added, as it would take enormous pressure off them.
Slashdot Mirror
So what is the answer? Make the interface to only allow Google to be added? Seems a bit unfair on the other search engines out there.
I was surprised to find a google search returned no hits from M$ itself, but when I switched to bing, it worked. It seems that M$ is blocking google from searching it's site.
Really? I just copied the phrase from your post "Exchange Certificate on a winmo smartphone" into Google and the first result was a technet article at Microsoft. The best that Bing could do with the same phrase was some press release stuff about the phones (at least on the first page).
I know the results vary depending on your country and phase of the moon, but it seems a bit premature to suggest that Microsoft are blocking google when a million other test searches could easily prove that wrong.
Then after installing XP on another computer, and updating everything (since she wouldnt) I found that in the newest IE I couldnt use google as my search, the "easy" way of adding it was gone.
In other branches of this thread, everyone else has already mentioned the Find more providers option (which really doesn't seem that hard), but what "easy" way has been removed?
That's a pretty unfair comparison for this discussion. If you run Windows with just a service like a firewall then it too is pretty secure. It is only when you start installing more complicated programs to read emails, browse the web and load office documents that it starts to become vulnerable to viruses.
How useless. I went to the site, found an ad that seemed interesting and clicked on it. Nothing. No, I couldn't zoom in to be able to read the text. The only link is to ebay so I can buy it from the site owner. This is just one big stupid catalog of ebay sales.
I am just about to put up some stuff on ebay to sell - I must remember to post the "story" here.
Thank god they haven't forced me onto Win7 at work yet!
I hate to tell you this, but these shortcuts date back to Windows 95. If you didn't know about them before now then I really don't think that it will affect your Windows 7 experience one way or the other.
Apple is preventing Google from adding a feature to Apple's device only. It still sucks, but Apple is not finding ways to prevent Google from creating, selling, or marketing Latitude in any other form, and that is the big difference.
Apple have created the iPhone, tied it closely with their App Store and then created rules to limit competition. Being excluded from the App Store hugely diminishes visibility to the potential users. Sure, Google are big enough that they can find other ways of getting their apps out there, but smaller companies would find their potential market would become unviable.
I just don't accept the argument that Apple should be able to get away with this sort of stuff because Microsoft have done worse in the past.
You're chasing a red herring, because Google knew exactly what it was getting into when it signed up to sell applications in the App Store.
It is still power over another company (and direct power if you want to call it that). Why should it matter that they knew that it was a possibility? Do you think that the people who have been screwed by Microsoft didn't know that might happen? Really you are splitting hairs trying to make a distinction.
Any company who is betting their livelihood on a guarantee that their apps will not be rejected by Apple is making a foolish business decision.
That is not practical. Mobile platforms are a perfect market for small developers. Unfortunately they have no choice but to rely on Apple letting them include their software in the official application repository. How can they hope to follow Apple's rules if one of them is to not conflict with unannounced future Apple products?
Compare with the Microsoft situation...
No. As I said, it doesn't matter what Microsoft does because it doesn't change what Apple should do.
Anti-trust laws aren't about morality as far as I can see, they are about the economy and marketplaces.
Well yes, that is my point. We should hold Apple and Microsoft to exactly the same standards, despite Microsoft's larger market share.
Apple does shitty things, but isn't in a position of direct power over other companies
What was the topic of this story again? Oh yes, that Apple denied Google's app from the app store because it would compete with Apple's own offering. Sounds like power over other companies to me.
But the whole "Microsoft is a monopoly" argument never really worked for me. If both Microsoft and Apple do something that is morally wrong, then more people will be affected by Microsoft. But this doesn't make it less morally wrong for Apple. Not being the monopoly is not a "get out of jail free" card.
Come on, give it a rest! In what way did they lose credibility by making a measurement that confirmed their predictions? That seems to be the ideal way of increasing credibility.
Can you really be suprised that they would bring up climate change in a scientific review of 2009 when it is such a hotly debated topic right now?
It's not surprising that Microsoft and Intel haven't put much effort into the netbook platform.
You keep repeating this after it has been shown to be untrue.
Microsoft and Intel HAVE put a lot of work into netbooks. Microsoft optimised Windows 7 so that it would work on netbooks because Vista was not viable for that platform. Intel fixed the major problem of the Atom, which was the power requirements for the supporting chipset by integrating a lot of it directly into the CPU itself.
These were both major changes and were EXACTLY what was needed to be done by both companies. I can't see how you can interpret this as not putting much effort into the platform.
I stand by my statement that it should not be on the list. There is a wide spread perception that Y2K was a big con, and that we wasted a lot of money fixing up a problem that didn't exist. By including it in the first paragraph as the signature example of a tech mistake and also having it as the first item on the list, it perpetuates this myth.
I don't think the problem here is that two people are reading the same list and coming up with two different conclusions. It is that the list itself states two conflicting things. Sure it has the part that you quoted. But the first paragraph says "When clocks struck midnight on January 1st and the dreaded Y2K bug turned out to be nothing but a mild irritant, it proved once again that the experts often don't know what the heck they're talking about."
The experts were right. It was the people who didn't know what they were talking about (or went along with the paranoia for financial gain) who were predicting doom and gloom.
I wouldn't call it average from a technical standpoint. Keep in mind what the average was at the time it was released.
To be fair on the old Duke, I didn't play it when it was first released, so by the time that I tried it I had already played Quake 1. I remember at the time thinking that it was a step down from Quake. Maybe it was because I wanted the strippers to be less pixelated!
As for still being fun to play it now, it is on my list of games to revisit. Ooh, and I just found it on special at $3.89. Nice timing!
Amazing how climate change seems to be the bane of all existence...
Yep. Who would have thought that global warming could actually affect different things across the globe.
Did it really sound like I was being serious about nuking Poland? That was an extreme example of what would not ever happen.
You are trying to have it both ways by acknowledging that there was a real problem, but then go on to say that "it was a great pretext to scare the public and let idiocy run rampant". Yes it was a real problem that needed to be fixed and certainly was NOT a pretext for anything else. The fact that some people blew it out of proportion should not diminish the hard work that people had to do to keep everything working.
TFA is clearly riduling the doomsayers, not the people who prevented disaster.
Then it doesn't deserve to be on a list of lamest moments in tech. Surely it should be on the greatest moments in tech. Or the lamest moments in journalism.
On the other hand, it might deserve a place on this list if people started to ask why all the software was expecting the 1900s to go forever. I remember filling in a paper form back in high school in the 80s and thinking how short sighted it was to have 19____ on the form because it would not be reusable in 25 years. Yeah, it was stupid to think that a paper form (made on a typewriter and then photocopied) would still be used after all that time, but it made me be aware of assumptions in code. I have always allowed for dates with 4 digit years in my code.
(I have made some other really stupid assumptions in my programming, so I don't get off scott free on this point)
They never released it because the opposition kept getting better? If they could retain the great humour that went into the Duke3D, they would not need the latest and greatest in 3D gaming. It should stand alone.
Duke Nukem 3D was pretty average technically, but who cares when it is so funny and engaging. The saga of Duke Nukem Forever reminds me of how George Lucas discovered CGI, but forgot script writing. Just because something is pretty doesn't mean to say that it is good.
Developers spending a decade in a career holding pattern for below market salary with 'profit sharing' incentives, no real project deadlines, a motion capture room apparently used to capture the motion of strippers
Really, that's just too easy. Can't you at least make it a challenge to get +5 Funny???
Oh well, here goes... Sounds like my job, but without the strippers.
If you see a lot of Apple hate among these comments then why didn't you post your message as a reply to one of them? Oh, maybe because there isn't a lot of Apple hate here. This just goes to prove what we have all been saying about you: you're paranoid!
You aren't a coder, are you? If so, I envision many off-by-one errors in your work.
Surely a coder would have to be more mindful of the correct definitions of things like a decade. Otherwise if they moved between languages that had either 0 or 1 based arrays then they would constantly make errors.
Could you please point out a single example where a catastrophe was avoided due to fixing the code handing year changes?
How would we know? It is not as if people are going to publicise the bugs that they fix. "Hey everyone, we almost nuked Poland!"
Anyway, the worst of the hype that went around did not come from the experts. Nobody who knew what they were talking about would have said that there would be starvation in the streets. That said, there were definitely some people who tried to cash in on the paranoia. We had some consultant come in and try to sell us software to fix our systems because they were not Y2K ready. Sure enough, when the year changed the computers wrapped back to 1981. However, resetting them to the correct year worked fine.
But just because some unscrupulous people jumped on the bandwagon doesn't mean to say that there were not real bugs to fix. The main software that we wrote had a Y2K bug in it, but we fixed it back in 1997 without fanfare. Just because you never heard of it being fixed doesn't mean to say that it was a made up bug.
Erm, yeah, I guess he expected non-stupid reactions, from people who'd automatically assume a 1920 × 1080 resolution.
Really? My 22" LCD monitor has a native resolution of 1680x1050. It just shows how stupid it is to talk about screen size when you really mean resolution. That was the point that grandparent post was making.
I have to buy another LCD monitor soon, and it will run at 1920x1200 and not 1920x1080. This is why I won't just ask for a size in inches.
Hey nmg196, thanks for being the straight man (and to Armakuni for doing the punch line). But what's up with the moderator who gave you a flamebait mod. Shouldn't a knowledge of the Simpsons be a prerequisite for joining Slashdot? (I can forgive not knowing Southpark reference in the subject line).
Good on you, Italy. At least you are being honest about why you would want to censor the net. None of the usual "terrorist pedophile" nonsense. Just a nice, simple message to the populous: "we don't want to hear from you, please go away".
However, since I am against censorship, I might have to reconsider the answer to my Simpson quote regarding asteroid targets from earlier today.
First of all, this is just an example of the standard system in action, and not some amazing backflip. Any ratings decision is subject to an appeal by the publisher or any third party.
This is also an example of how misguided the people are who think that they are protecting the children by not having an R18+ rating. Nobody would have raised an eyebrow if this had been rated R, and it would have prevented kids from buying the game. But because we have forced the Classification Board to choose between two moronic choices (give it to kids or treat everyone like kids) for a popular, mainstream title then they have to end up letting kids see things that they arguably shouldn't.
The Classification Board would collectively jump for joy if an R18+ rating for games was finally added, as it would take enormous pressure off them.
What's your least favorite country: Italy or France?