My biggest complaint about the Nexus 4 (And the reason I won't be getting one) is the lack of 4G. I understand why Google didn't include it, but as a consumer who has a provider with good 4G coverage, I want that speed. The lack of a MicroSD slot is a non-issue. It would be nice to have one, but I still have plenty of space on my gNex, that doesn't have a MicroSD slot either.
I have used Torque Pro since it was in beta, and it is amazing. The closest thing on an iOS device is the Rev app, which is pretty weak in terms of features when compared to Torque Pro, but is almost 10 times more expensive ($39.99 vs $4.95 for Torque Pro).
Actually, after checking the itunes page for Rev, it appears to have been abandoned, but is still for sale, and many people are reporting compatibility or connectivity issues.
There is another one called DashCommand, but that has some pretty average reviews, and is even more expensive at $49.99.
Right, and I'm betting that "8.1 tweak" will be to remove that interface-formerly-known-as-metro crap and slapping the start button back on it. Having the metro interface might be nice, if, like jellomizer said, you have a convertible laptop that you wish to use as a tablet occasionally. For normal PC use, it's just plain wrong, and I'm not buying it. I don't think many normal PC users will buy it either.
Contrary to popular belief, the PC is not dead. Far from it, and those of us that will continue to use them would prefer that they be usable.
Actually "Ports" started to happen in the C64/Atari 800/Apple II/BBC Micro days, All of them used the 6502 processor, which meant in many cases, code was reusable and only the graphics and sound needed to be recreated or converted. I realize you're talking about porting arcade games to consoles, but porting has been around basically as long as programming has.
It's not arrogance to point out the OP has a bias toward both embedded systems and touch-screens.
It's not even trolling to suggest to him [and other posters] that there are other methods of SOLVING PROBLEMS
but step one is to identify said PROBLEMS and step two is to work on SOLUTIONS. One doesn't start from
"hey um er uh like yeah which touch-screen should I use with my embedded system answer to everything that
my family and friends [please don't let me die of laughter] asked me to solve"
Has it occurred to you that OP's friends/family have asked him specifically to consider embedded systems? He says so right up there at the top of the page. It's also entirely possible/probable that he's already discussed potential solutions with his friends/family and they determined that embedded systems with touchscreens are the best solution, and all he's asking for is actual product suggestions? That's what I'm getting out of the question, and it seems that most of the others in this thread also got that.
You're making an assumption that he hasn't even considered the problem and immediately jumped to embedded systems with a touchscreen out of the blue, and it comes across as REALLY arrogant.
Keith
EA is innovative: one moderately original game among a hundred rehashes and sequels is not innovation. It's a *safe* plan.
Multiplayer is the direction to go: I've been playing games for longer, and although I like MMO's and some MP shooters, for the most part, when I want to game, I want to play a single player game because Multiplayer FPS games have no plot, and MMO's sometimes seem tedious. You and I place different values on our gaming experience, and that's completely OK. The problem is that this guy from EA is trying to proclaim that a particular style of game is dead when it's clearly not (Fallout 3 and Fallout NV have already been covered above)
I like EA games: This one is a touchy subject for me. I like a lot of stuff EA publishes as well, but they're not a game studio any more. They used to be a game studio, but now they just buy studios that have interesting/promising IP, milk it for all it's worth, then gut the original studio. This touches on your first point above, that EA is innovative. They aren't innovative, they just buy companies that are.
But back to the topic of this discussion: This dude from EA says single player is dead, when it's clearly not.
Current events. Keep up with them much? Around 70% of Californians (a super majority, or the overwhelming majority) voted on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Going to have to call you out on this.
The number is 52.3% voting for, which is just over half, not a the overwhelming majority.
It can also be said that at least a few of those who voted for it were actually confused, and thought they were voting to affirm gay marriages.
Get your shit straight.
I agree, it also felt the most like a "Battlefield" since BF:1942. I didn't like BF:Vietnam, BF2 or BF:2142 at all, but Bad Company brought back that BF:1942 feel that I missed so much. The single player was fun and entertaining, and the multiplayer was everything I missed about 1942.
They're already TRYING to do this (at least with iTunes anyway).
I specifically downloaded Quicktime *without* iTunes, because quite frankly, I don't want iTunes. When there's an update for Quicktime, the updater pre-checks iTunes for download and installation. The same thing happened when I updated Safari.
I suspect that in the future, any updates for iTunes or Quicktime for Windows users will also contain the pre-checked box for Safari as well.
It's just a checkbox, but the default action of most users is to just keep clicking next until the funny little window is gone.
To me, it's underhanded.
I just don't get it. If you use DOM based Javascript, there should be very little code required (if any) to make it compatible with MOST modern browsers. For instance, I'm writing a web based Multiplayer RPG that makes use of php, MySQL, and a WHOLE bunch of javascript/Ajax. I currently have about 3000 lines of javascript total, and the only "cross browser" code I've had to write so far deals with keypress events. I have 1 function for IE and another for everything else. The 50% of the game that's finished now works identical in IE 5.5, IE 6, IE 7, Firefox 1.x, Firefox 2.0, Opera 8+ and Safari.
I suspect it would be possible to create a Linux version of IETab, but it would most likely suffer the same problems as IE7 described in TFA (GIF's appearing as black boxes, etc)
1: Does anyone know of any significant javascript code which works on two different browsers without having to have conditionals based on the user agent?
How about DOM based javascript? I'm currently writing an ajax RPG and with several thousand lines of JS written, the only cross browser code I've had to write deals with keypress events.
The game runs in IE5.5+, Firefox, Mozilla, Opera, Safari, etc...
2: Most AJAX applications break accessibility rules, which are law in many countries (including the UK, where I am).
The same can be said for most websites. That's the fault of the author, not the implementation.
3: AJAX provides another attack vector on websites. Look at the myspace worm. I know that comes down to bad programming, but still it's another chance to miss something.
Again, this is a case where the author is at fault, not the implementation.
4: A number of companies block javascript at the firewall - trust me, it's true. Imagine how well an AJAX site will work there!
Sucks to be them...
5: Javascript is not available in all UA's (e.g. Lynx) - I firmly believe that no website should ever NEED javascript - in fact in my sites I avoid it all together.
Well, if the site you want to visit uses javascript, I would suggest not using Lynx. "No Javascript" is fine if you're writing a information website. What about a web application or a browser game?
I don't know about the book, but If you use DOM based javascript, the browser compatibility issues all but disappear. I'm writing an AJAX based multiplayer RPG using php and javascript, and, if I remember correctly, the ONLY bit of code I had to write for different browsers was for keypress events.
Incidentally, you are correct in that AJAX allows you to move a signifigant portion of your logic to the server and avoid some javascripts shortcomings.
Last time I checked, the Moon orbits the Earth in such a way that the same side of it always faces Earth, however, during a solar eclipse, the side of the Moon that faces away from Earth faces the Sun, so how are there places on the Moon that are "permanently in shadow?"
Nobody says anything about the "hundreds of useful, new, and non-obvious patents that are issued" because they are just that - Useful and non obvious.
On the other hand, we have patents like this, which are QUITE obvious, in bad faith, and filed for by companies that have NO DESIRE TO USE THE PATENT OTHER THAN TO SUE OTHERS WHO WERE ALREADY USING THE METHODS.
oh yeah, I cash my paycheck at the casino, where I actually get MORE than my check is worth. It's usually just a drink, but sometimes it's an additional $10 in nickels:)
I pretty much strictly use cash, but I live and work in Las Vegas, where cash is king.
If I can't pay for it with cash, or a money order that was payed for with cash, I'll find somewhere else to buy it.
I don't buy much online, but I have enough friends with CC's, and I pay them cash to make the purchase for me.
I don't have a bank account because I have yet to find a bank where the monthly fees don't negate the interest you SHOULD be earning on YOUR MONEY.
Banks make money by charging interest on YOUR MONEY that they loan to people buying a house/car/boat etc. You shouldn't have to pay for that as well.
I don't have a credit card. I learned about credit cards early, when I got my first and only credit card at age 18. I had a $300 limit on a "student" credit card that my then girlfriend ran up in one evening. 3 years and $1500 in fees later, I realized that CC's were nothing more than a scam played on those that had low income and were bad at math.
I now have 2 car payments (both at 1.9%), insurance, rent, cable, 3 telephone bills, water, student loans (the Wife's) and various other bills, all payed by money order.
Life without a bank is blissful. I may not be earning interest (who actually is?), but I'm not paying to spend my money.
Slashdot Mirror
My biggest complaint about the Nexus 4 (And the reason I won't be getting one) is the lack of 4G. I understand why Google didn't include it, but as a consumer who has a provider with good 4G coverage, I want that speed. The lack of a MicroSD slot is a non-issue. It would be nice to have one, but I still have plenty of space on my gNex, that doesn't have a MicroSD slot either.
I have used Torque Pro since it was in beta, and it is amazing. The closest thing on an iOS device is the Rev app, which is pretty weak in terms of features when compared to Torque Pro, but is almost 10 times more expensive ($39.99 vs $4.95 for Torque Pro). Actually, after checking the itunes page for Rev, it appears to have been abandoned, but is still for sale, and many people are reporting compatibility or connectivity issues. There is another one called DashCommand, but that has some pretty average reviews, and is even more expensive at $49.99.
I saw it as Apples attempt to keep the larger screen Samsung phone from hitting the market before the iPhone5.
Considering the Galaxy Nexus was released almost a year BEFORE the iPhone 5, that's unlikely.
Right, and I'm betting that "8.1 tweak" will be to remove that interface-formerly-known-as-metro crap and slapping the start button back on it. Having the metro interface might be nice, if, like jellomizer said, you have a convertible laptop that you wish to use as a tablet occasionally. For normal PC use, it's just plain wrong, and I'm not buying it. I don't think many normal PC users will buy it either.
Contrary to popular belief, the PC is not dead. Far from it, and those of us that will continue to use them would prefer that they be usable.
Actually "Ports" started to happen in the C64/Atari 800/Apple II/BBC Micro days, All of them used the 6502 processor, which meant in many cases, code was reusable and only the graphics and sound needed to be recreated or converted. I realize you're talking about porting arcade games to consoles, but porting has been around basically as long as programming has.
It's not arrogance to point out the OP has a bias toward both embedded systems and touch-screens. It's not even trolling to suggest to him [and other posters] that there are other methods of SOLVING PROBLEMS but step one is to identify said PROBLEMS and step two is to work on SOLUTIONS. One doesn't start from "hey um er uh like yeah which touch-screen should I use with my embedded system answer to everything that my family and friends [please don't let me die of laughter] asked me to solve"
Has it occurred to you that OP's friends/family have asked him specifically to consider embedded systems? He says so right up there at the top of the page. It's also entirely possible/probable that he's already discussed potential solutions with his friends/family and they determined that embedded systems with touchscreens are the best solution, and all he's asking for is actual product suggestions? That's what I'm getting out of the question, and it seems that most of the others in this thread also got that. You're making an assumption that he hasn't even considered the problem and immediately jumped to embedded systems with a touchscreen out of the blue, and it comes across as REALLY arrogant. Keith
I have one of those and it was a waste of 49 bucks. the screen is so unresponsive as to be unusable.
Couple of things to point out:
EA is innovative: one moderately original game among a hundred rehashes and sequels is not innovation. It's a *safe* plan.
Multiplayer is the direction to go: I've been playing games for longer, and although I like MMO's and some MP shooters, for the most part, when I want to game, I want to play a single player game because Multiplayer FPS games have no plot, and MMO's sometimes seem tedious. You and I place different values on our gaming experience, and that's completely OK. The problem is that this guy from EA is trying to proclaim that a particular style of game is dead when it's clearly not (Fallout 3 and Fallout NV have already been covered above)
I like EA games: This one is a touchy subject for me. I like a lot of stuff EA publishes as well, but they're not a game studio any more. They used to be a game studio, but now they just buy studios that have interesting/promising IP, milk it for all it's worth, then gut the original studio. This touches on your first point above, that EA is innovative. They aren't innovative, they just buy companies that are.
But back to the topic of this discussion: This dude from EA says single player is dead, when it's clearly not.
Current events. Keep up with them much? Around 70% of Californians (a super majority, or the overwhelming majority) voted on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Going to have to call you out on this. The number is 52.3% voting for, which is just over half, not a the overwhelming majority. It can also be said that at least a few of those who voted for it were actually confused, and thought they were voting to affirm gay marriages. Get your shit straight.
The difference is that SMobile doesn't appear to have an antivirus/malware app for the iPhone.
I agree, it also felt the most like a "Battlefield" since BF:1942. I didn't like BF:Vietnam, BF2 or BF:2142 at all, but Bad Company brought back that BF:1942 feel that I missed so much. The single player was fun and entertaining, and the multiplayer was everything I missed about 1942.
remove the slash from the end of the link. /. likes to append them, but their server doesn't like it.
They're already TRYING to do this (at least with iTunes anyway).
I specifically downloaded Quicktime *without* iTunes, because quite frankly, I don't want iTunes. When there's an update for Quicktime, the updater pre-checks iTunes for download and installation. The same thing happened when I updated Safari.
I suspect that in the future, any updates for iTunes or Quicktime for Windows users will also contain the pre-checked box for Safari as well.
It's just a checkbox, but the default action of most users is to just keep clicking next until the funny little window is gone.
To me, it's underhanded.
I just don't get it. If you use DOM based Javascript, there should be very little code required (if any) to make it compatible with MOST modern browsers. For instance, I'm writing a web based Multiplayer RPG that makes use of php, MySQL, and a WHOLE bunch of javascript/Ajax. I currently have about 3000 lines of javascript total, and the only "cross browser" code I've had to write so far deals with keypress events. I have 1 function for IE and another for everything else. The 50% of the game that's finished now works identical in IE 5.5, IE 6, IE 7, Firefox 1.x, Firefox 2.0, Opera 8+ and Safari.
I suspect it would be possible to create a Linux version of IETab, but it would most likely suffer the same problems as IE7 described in TFA (GIF's appearing as black boxes, etc)
IE Tab only runs on Windows.
AND that you can't seem to get rid of it.
Actually, Viruses would be correct.Z PA:2006-03,WZPA:en&defl=en&q=define:Virii&sa=X&oi= glossary_definition&ct=title
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=WZPA,W
I really dislike AJAX, for the following reasons:
1: Does anyone know of any significant javascript code which works on two different browsers without having to have conditionals based on the user agent?
How about DOM based javascript? I'm currently writing an ajax RPG and with several thousand lines of JS written, the only cross browser code I've had to write deals with keypress events. The game runs in IE5.5+, Firefox, Mozilla, Opera, Safari, etc...
2: Most AJAX applications break accessibility rules, which are law in many countries (including the UK, where I am).
The same can be said for most websites. That's the fault of the author, not the implementation.
3: AJAX provides another attack vector on websites. Look at the myspace worm. I know that comes down to bad programming, but still it's another chance to miss something.
Again, this is a case where the author is at fault, not the implementation.
4: A number of companies block javascript at the firewall - trust me, it's true. Imagine how well an AJAX site will work there!
Sucks to be them...
5: Javascript is not available in all UA's (e.g. Lynx) - I firmly believe that no website should ever NEED javascript - in fact in my sites I avoid it all together.
Well, if the site you want to visit uses javascript, I would suggest not using Lynx. "No Javascript" is fine if you're writing a information website. What about a web application or a browser game?
I don't know about the book, but If you use DOM based javascript, the browser compatibility issues all but disappear. I'm writing an AJAX based multiplayer RPG using php and javascript, and, if I remember correctly, the ONLY bit of code I had to write for different browsers was for keypress events.
Incidentally, you are correct in that AJAX allows you to move a signifigant portion of your logic to the server and avoid some javascripts shortcomings.
Last time I checked, the Moon orbits the Earth in such a way that the same side of it always faces Earth, however, during a solar eclipse, the side of the Moon that faces away from Earth faces the Sun, so how are there places on the Moon that are "permanently in shadow?"
Am I missing something here?
But that still leaves 50% who are not employees, ie customers.
Nobody says anything about the "hundreds of useful, new, and non-obvious patents that are issued" because they are just that - Useful and non obvious.
On the other hand, we have patents like this, which are QUITE obvious, in bad faith, and filed for by companies that have NO DESIRE TO USE THE PATENT OTHER THAN TO SUE OTHERS WHO WERE ALREADY USING THE METHODS.
oh yeah, I cash my paycheck at the casino, where I actually get MORE than my check is worth. It's usually just a drink, but sometimes it's an additional $10 in nickels :)
THAT's interest for ya....
I pretty much strictly use cash, but I live and work in Las Vegas, where cash is king.
If I can't pay for it with cash, or a money order that was payed for with cash, I'll find somewhere else to buy it.
I don't buy much online, but I have enough friends with CC's, and I pay them cash to make the purchase for me.
I don't have a bank account because I have yet to find a bank where the monthly fees don't negate the interest you SHOULD be earning on YOUR MONEY. Banks make money by charging interest on YOUR MONEY that they loan to people buying a house/car/boat etc. You shouldn't have to pay for that as well.
I don't have a credit card. I learned about credit cards early, when I got my first and only credit card at age 18. I had a $300 limit on a "student" credit card that my then girlfriend ran up in one evening. 3 years and $1500 in fees later, I realized that CC's were nothing more than a scam played on those that had low income and were bad at math.
I now have 2 car payments (both at 1.9%), insurance, rent, cable, 3 telephone bills, water, student loans (the Wife's) and various other bills, all payed by money order.
Life without a bank is blissful. I may not be earning interest (who actually is?), but I'm not paying to spend my money.