Not a common English word? It's a word Dutch borrowed from English, referring to a projector that projects a computer screen on a wall. Popular in a variety of presentations.
Rooting a Droid is not the same as rooting a Milestone. I don't know what the current status is, but for a long time, there was no update.zip for the Milestone because there'd been no original update for the Milestone.
And here's the real question: if Android phones are so open, why do I need the help from hackers and do I need to wait for the right update.zip before I can really own my phone? Why can't I just activate root access out of the box with official Android support?
It's nice that it's 10 times easier than jailbreaking an iPhone, but it's still not in the manual, not something I could figure out myself, and not something I can do with official Android tools. It's not open, it's just badly locked.
And notice the language there. It doesn't say "no company may do this for profit" or "no one can do this for anyone else" (as many mistakenly believe), it says "No person." That means you sitting at home jailbreaking your own cellphone.
no, a smartphone is a phone sized general purpose computer.
Exactly! The word "smartphone" is misleading and demeaning. My Milestone happens to be able to make phone calls, but it's not its main function.
In fact, lately I've been wondering if it's possible to install some development environment on it. And I need to be able to hook it to a beamer. But it's possible I'm asking a bit much.
The problem is the people pointing out problems seem to refuse to accept that other people are capable of comprehending those problems. A minority of people are complaining about limitations those of us who are interested in the product either doesn't see as a limitation, or limitations that are outweighed by other benefits of the product.
No, the problem isn't that they point out problems that not everybody might care about, the problem is that some people want to silence anyone who points out something that isn't relevant to them personally.
Well, guess what. It might not be relevant to you, but it may still be relevant to me or a lot of other people. Don't think everybody is the same as you. The iPad may be perfect for you without being perfect for everybody. And it's useful to know what is and what is not perfect for you.
I'm certainly interested in mobility gadgets, and for that reason I'm very happy with people pointing out problems with any of them. If they didn't, I might buy the wrong one, and then everybody would say I shouldn't have bought it if I didn't want that. I have to know what the problems are before I can make that choice, don't I?
When I'm at home or traveling, I want something light I can use to keep in touch with people and entertain myself; I'd rather carry an iPad than a 7 lb laptop.
A Macbook is about 4-5 lbs, and an EeePC about 2. But personally I use my Milestone to keep in touch with people.
Even at the office, my laptop is tethered to my desk all day, and it's something of a pain to undock it, reset all the open network sessions, and fire up the VPN just to take it into a meeting.
That's your (or your employer's) choice to make it that complicated. At my previous job, I just closed my macbook, unplugged it, and stuffed it all in my bag. Ready to go.
"And because Apple doesn't, I'll go with a vendor who does."
Which is why no one needs to get their bytes out of order about any restrictions Apple or any other company puts on their devices. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY IT! So, whiners, STFU!
You don't have to buy it, but it's very useful to know why you shouldn't buy it before you actually go out and buy it. People pointing out the problems with hyped products is extremely useful. If you have nothing useful to add, please STFU yourself.
I think what Tzu was referring to was strategy and tactics - the methodology used to prosecute the war, and I agree with him there - a well-crafted and executed battle plan can have an elegance and beauty all it's own, (...)
Originally, "Art" means exactly that: well-crafted and executed. Renaissance paintings often represent exactly that what they show, but they do it incredibly well. I don't think anyone sane would deny that the paintings by Rembrand are art.
Actually, it sounds a lot like gamers (note: I game, a lot) are desperate to associate games as art.
Not at all. Most gamers couldn't care less, and just want to play their games. But some people who are familiar with both games and art, recognise games as an art form. Is that desperate? Is it more desperate than people who want books, paintings and movies recognised as art? Why even get hung up on narrow definitions of art at all?
He has a point, at the end of his article: why exactly are people insisting games are art? Does it make them better? Does it make you feel like less of a nerd, if it's artistic?
I think for people like Ebert, his definition of art makes him feel relevant and important. I think it's similar with most people who make claims about how their work is associated with art. They see art with a capital "A", and it's something high and noble, despite the fact that it's often something dreadfully common and mundane.
Good art may be noble, but art is common. And anything can be art. C code can be art. Working machinery can be art. People try to limit the definition in order to draw power and importance to themselves, but they're wrong.
Yes. Or at least, a number of people treat it as an art form. It's just a form of art that I'd rather not be exposed to. And there's a lot of really, really, bad art.
So does that mean books are not art? Or does it mean that story-oriented games are art? Because I still don't see a fundamental difference between those two, apart from the interactive aspect.
Or does any kind of interaction mean it's not art anymore? Clapping for a performance makes it not art? Comedy or theatre that relies on audience input is not art? Anything where the audience is part of the greater experience is not art?
I'm unable to come to a definition of art that rules excludes all games without excluding a lot of accepted art.
How was Portal art? It was just a fun, quirky first-person puzzle game. People have stretched the word art to far that it now includes anything they think is clever or memorable.
If you don't like that, you need to take that discussion to 20th century artists and art critics. They're the ones who turned ridiculous nonsense into art. Plenty of games are a lot more artful than Dada and its offspring.
At this point it's almost like he's desperately trying to find some way of defining "art" in a way that excludes video games purely because he, for some reason, NEEDS them to not be art.
Actually, when he says:
"Santiago might cite an immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film."
he's redefining games to exclude anything that might be considered art. Some RPGs can be pretty close to improvised theatre. So is improvised theatre not art or are RPGs not games? Are some RPGs games while other RPGs are art? Admittedly, no CRPGs come anywhere near as close as PnP RPGs or possibly some LARPs may come, but even some CRPGs can be very artful. Planescape: Torment, anyone? It's much more about the story and the experience than about scoring points or winning, but it's definitely a game. Not a gamey game, but a story game is still a game to most people other than Roger Ebert.
The G1/HTC Dream came out in October 2008. If the iPhone isn't suitable, then why buy it in the first place? Put another way, if you are purchasing a phone with the expectation that it doesn't meet your needs, how much can you really complain afterward?
The G1, while nice, isn't in the same league as the iPhone. At that time, the iPhone was simply the best thing on the market, and news of apps banned from the app store was rare to nonexistent. Things changed a lot since then.
I want a PC and its comparative openness, but some of my favorite video game genres are horribly underrepresented on PC.
I want a Linux machine and its extreme openness, but most of my favourite video genres are only available on Windows. I'm not a console gamer, fortunately.
So the question is which is more important to you: the openness of the platform, or the number of applications (games) available? You may not be able to pick both.
And that's the problem. Why are more applications available for closed platforms? Are open platforms not attractive enough? Are open platform users not willing to pay for apps/games? Is it really that hard to conquer the market with an open platform?
We'll see how Android goes. Would be nice if it won, though it's still not quite as open as I'd like.
And the numbers can attest that Blackberry is the best selling smartphone and it didn't need to be locked down like the iPhone. It didn't need the 'Geek Stamp of Approval tm'. Its users are feeling comfortable purchasing it.
Blackberry not locked down? I thought its extreme lockdown options were its main selling point. My wife can't install a thing on her work-supplied blackberry, and a friend can't even make phonecalls on it (she can only read email, which she refuses to do in her free time). But here it's the employer who locks it down, not the manufacturer. Blackberry is 100% a business phone, and not a consumer phone at all.
Exactly. With a trailer you get to watch a bit of the movie, with a demo you get to play a bit of the game. By comparison, game trailers are sort of like a movie trailer where you only get to hear the audio.
Then again, some games are mostly movies and cutscenes that you have to watch passively. Any game for which a trailer is deemed to give sufficient insight into what the game is like, is probably not a game for me.
Demoes aren't a luxury, they're a courtesy.
And a smart one too. Otherwise, people might download their own demo from TPB or something.
Lives, perhaps, but exactly what threat does bin Laden pose to Americans' liberties and freedoms? Is he going to run for President in 2012?
All the post-9/11 impositions on American freedoms have come from the US government, not some crazy guy in a cave in Afghanistan. And most of them are things the government have wanted to do for years but had no excuse to impose before that point.
But it as all happened because of that guy in Afghanistan. He's a threat by giving our governments an excuse to limit our freedom.
Of course he was originally trained and funded by the US government, so terrorism is really just a tool that governments use to take away our freedom.
Terrorism has been proven a threat, and so has excessive government control over peoples' lives. I'd say they're much closer in peril-level than the sting/gunshot example above. They both pose a threat to the liberties, freedoms, and lives of Americans.
The main way in which terrorism has proven to be a threat, is through excessive government control over people's lives. The number of deaths caused by terrorism is negligible compared to deaths by traffic, disease, crime or whatever. The terrorists' biggest victory is getting our governments to take away our liberties.
I guess people are a bit disappointed that Obama didn't turn out to be the reincarnation of Lincoln and FDR, as he was made out to be at some point, but he's by no means as awful as the previous guy.
It is explicitly said in the EULA that the warranty of "fitness for a particular purpose" is totally disclaimed in any imaginable or non-imaginable way.
The EULA applies to firmware, too, according to the 3rd paragraph.
I have serious doubts that the EULA can override law like that.
Slashdot Mirror
sorry, english is not my first language. I just know only one word for projector.
It's not my first language either. It's entirely possible that Dutch borrowed a word and immediately attached a new meaning to it.
whats a beamer?
Not a common English word? It's a word Dutch borrowed from English, referring to a projector that projects a computer screen on a wall. Popular in a variety of presentations.
Rooting a Droid is not the same as rooting a Milestone. I don't know what the current status is, but for a long time, there was no update.zip for the Milestone because there'd been no original update for the Milestone.
And here's the real question: if Android phones are so open, why do I need the help from hackers and do I need to wait for the right update.zip before I can really own my phone? Why can't I just activate root access out of the box with official Android support?
It's nice that it's 10 times easier than jailbreaking an iPhone, but it's still not in the manual, not something I could figure out myself, and not something I can do with official Android tools. It's not open, it's just badly locked.
That said, I enjoy my Android phone. What exactly isn't as open as you'd like about it? It's about as open as I want my phone to be.
Do you know how I can update the OS on my Milestone? Preferably with my own changes?
And notice the language there. It doesn't say "no company may do this for profit" or "no one can do this for anyone else" (as many mistakenly believe), it says "No person." That means you sitting at home jailbreaking your own cellphone.
Not me. My home is not in the US.
no, a smartphone is a phone sized general purpose computer.
Exactly! The word "smartphone" is misleading and demeaning. My Milestone happens to be able to make phone calls, but it's not its main function.
In fact, lately I've been wondering if it's possible to install some development environment on it. And I need to be able to hook it to a beamer. But it's possible I'm asking a bit much.
The problem is the people pointing out problems seem to refuse to accept that other people are capable of comprehending those problems. A minority of people are complaining about limitations those of us who are interested in the product either doesn't see as a limitation, or limitations that are outweighed by other benefits of the product.
No, the problem isn't that they point out problems that not everybody might care about, the problem is that some people want to silence anyone who points out something that isn't relevant to them personally.
Well, guess what. It might not be relevant to you, but it may still be relevant to me or a lot of other people. Don't think everybody is the same as you. The iPad may be perfect for you without being perfect for everybody. And it's useful to know what is and what is not perfect for you.
I'm certainly interested in mobility gadgets, and for that reason I'm very happy with people pointing out problems with any of them. If they didn't, I might buy the wrong one, and then everybody would say I shouldn't have bought it if I didn't want that. I have to know what the problems are before I can make that choice, don't I?
When I'm at home or traveling, I want something light I can use to keep in touch with people and entertain myself; I'd rather carry an iPad than a 7 lb laptop.
A Macbook is about 4-5 lbs, and an EeePC about 2.
But personally I use my Milestone to keep in touch with people.
Even at the office, my laptop is tethered to my desk all day, and it's something of a pain to undock it, reset all the open network sessions, and fire up the VPN just to take it into a meeting.
That's your (or your employer's) choice to make it that complicated. At my previous job, I just closed my macbook, unplugged it, and stuffed it all in my bag. Ready to go.
"And because Apple doesn't, I'll go with a vendor who does."
Which is why no one needs to get their bytes out of order about any restrictions Apple or any other company puts on their devices. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY IT! So, whiners, STFU!
You don't have to buy it, but it's very useful to know why you shouldn't buy it before you actually go out and buy it. People pointing out the problems with hyped products is extremely useful. If you have nothing useful to add, please STFU yourself.
By your criteria running up to someone and kicking them in the shins is 'art'
Isn't that what martial arts are about?
I think what Tzu was referring to was strategy and tactics - the methodology used to prosecute the war, and I agree with him there - a well-crafted and executed battle plan can have an elegance and beauty all it's own, (...)
Originally, "Art" means exactly that: well-crafted and executed. Renaissance paintings often represent exactly that what they show, but they do it incredibly well. I don't think anyone sane would deny that the paintings by Rembrand are art.
Actually, it sounds a lot like gamers (note: I game, a lot) are desperate to associate games as art.
Not at all. Most gamers couldn't care less, and just want to play their games. But some people who are familiar with both games and art, recognise games as an art form. Is that desperate? Is it more desperate than people who want books, paintings and movies recognised as art? Why even get hung up on narrow definitions of art at all?
He has a point, at the end of his article: why exactly are people insisting games are art? Does it make them better? Does it make you feel like less of a nerd, if it's artistic?
I think for people like Ebert, his definition of art makes him feel relevant and important. I think it's similar with most people who make claims about how their work is associated with art. They see art with a capital "A", and it's something high and noble, despite the fact that it's often something dreadfully common and mundane.
Good art may be noble, but art is common. And anything can be art. C code can be art. Working machinery can be art. People try to limit the definition in order to draw power and importance to themselves, but they're wrong.
What about trolling? Is trolling a art?
Yes. Or at least, a number of people treat it as an art form. It's just a form of art that I'd rather not be exposed to. And there's a lot of really, really, bad art.
So does that mean books are not art? Or does it mean that story-oriented games are art? Because I still don't see a fundamental difference between those two, apart from the interactive aspect.
Or does any kind of interaction mean it's not art anymore? Clapping for a performance makes it not art? Comedy or theatre that relies on audience input is not art? Anything where the audience is part of the greater experience is not art?
I'm unable to come to a definition of art that rules excludes all games without excluding a lot of accepted art.
Beautifully put. Best definition of art that I've seen in a long time. Please start giving lectures on art, if you're not doing so already.
How was Portal art? It was just a fun, quirky first-person puzzle game. People have stretched the word art to far that it now includes anything they think is clever or memorable.
If you don't like that, you need to take that discussion to 20th century artists and art critics. They're the ones who turned ridiculous nonsense into art. Plenty of games are a lot more artful than Dada and its offspring.
At this point it's almost like he's desperately trying to find some way of defining "art" in a way that excludes video games purely because he, for some reason, NEEDS them to not be art.
Actually, when he says:
"Santiago might cite an immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film."
he's redefining games to exclude anything that might be considered art. Some RPGs can be pretty close to improvised theatre. So is improvised theatre not art or are RPGs not games? Are some RPGs games while other RPGs are art? Admittedly, no CRPGs come anywhere near as close as PnP RPGs or possibly some LARPs may come, but even some CRPGs can be very artful. Planescape: Torment, anyone? It's much more about the story and the experience than about scoring points or winning, but it's definitely a game. Not a gamey game, but a story game is still a game to most people other than Roger Ebert.
The G1/HTC Dream came out in October 2008. If the iPhone isn't suitable, then why buy it in the first place? Put another way, if you are purchasing a phone with the expectation that it doesn't meet your needs, how much can you really complain afterward?
The G1, while nice, isn't in the same league as the iPhone. At that time, the iPhone was simply the best thing on the market, and news of apps banned from the app store was rare to nonexistent. Things changed a lot since then.
I want a PC and its comparative openness, but some of my favorite video game genres are horribly underrepresented on PC.
I want a Linux machine and its extreme openness, but most of my favourite video genres are only available on Windows. I'm not a console gamer, fortunately.
So the question is which is more important to you: the openness of the platform, or the number of applications (games) available? You may not be able to pick both.
And that's the problem. Why are more applications available for closed platforms? Are open platforms not attractive enough? Are open platform users not willing to pay for apps/games? Is it really that hard to conquer the market with an open platform?
We'll see how Android goes. Would be nice if it won, though it's still not quite as open as I'd like.
And the numbers can attest that Blackberry is the best selling smartphone and it didn't need to be locked down like the iPhone. It didn't need the 'Geek Stamp of Approval tm'. Its users are feeling comfortable purchasing it.
Blackberry not locked down? I thought its extreme lockdown options were its main selling point. My wife can't install a thing on her work-supplied blackberry, and a friend can't even make phonecalls on it (she can only read email, which she refuses to do in her free time). But here it's the employer who locks it down, not the manufacturer. Blackberry is 100% a business phone, and not a consumer phone at all.
Exactly. With a trailer you get to watch a bit of the movie, with a demo you get to play a bit of the game. By comparison, game trailers are sort of like a movie trailer where you only get to hear the audio.
Then again, some games are mostly movies and cutscenes that you have to watch passively. Any game for which a trailer is deemed to give sufficient insight into what the game is like, is probably not a game for me.
Demoes aren't a luxury, they're a courtesy.
And a smart one too. Otherwise, people might download their own demo from TPB or something.
Lives, perhaps, but exactly what threat does bin Laden pose to Americans' liberties and freedoms? Is he going to run for President in 2012?
All the post-9/11 impositions on American freedoms have come from the US government, not some crazy guy in a cave in Afghanistan. And most of them are things the government have wanted to do for years but had no excuse to impose before that point.
But it as all happened because of that guy in Afghanistan. He's a threat by giving our governments an excuse to limit our freedom.
Of course he was originally trained and funded by the US government, so terrorism is really just a tool that governments use to take away our freedom.
Terrorism has been proven a threat, and so has excessive government control over peoples' lives. I'd say they're much closer in peril-level than the sting/gunshot example above. They both pose a threat to the liberties, freedoms, and lives of Americans.
The main way in which terrorism has proven to be a threat, is through excessive government control over people's lives. The number of deaths caused by terrorism is negligible compared to deaths by traffic, disease, crime or whatever. The terrorists' biggest victory is getting our governments to take away our liberties.
Even Bush managed to get re-elected, despite the stupid war he dragged the US into. I don't see how Obama can do worse than that.
I guess people are a bit disappointed that Obama didn't turn out to be the reincarnation of Lincoln and FDR, as he was made out to be at some point, but he's by no means as awful as the previous guy.
Without his White grandparents, where would Barack Obama be?
Where would anyone be without his parents. Where, for example, would George W. Bush have been without his dad?
Obama's grandparents are not the ruling political elite. Obama didn't go from rags to riches, but he's a lot more self-made than most US politicians.
Read the EULA here. ( http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html )
It is explicitly said in the EULA that the warranty of "fitness for a particular purpose" is totally disclaimed in any imaginable or non-imaginable way.
The EULA applies to firmware, too, according to the 3rd paragraph.
I have serious doubts that the EULA can override law like that.