Unless you're actually referring to a review process performed by fruit. While highly implausible, I'm sure someone's figured that one out in the depth and breadth of human knowledge. Where's the wikipedia article on this?
almost every application requires that you have local administrator privilege or it will not work properly
This is an application installation design issue. This is not an issue with the operating system security. InnoSetup as an example has a flag which installation creators can set to require administrative privileges. general guidelines say only to use it when it's actually needed. Not everyone follows guidelines, but MS is hardly to blame for this.
You can't just give yourself local administrator privilege to install and then take it away
"Run as..." can be accessed using an alternate click to impersonate any user when running any application. I have it on by default, so I can't tell which key combo; it's probably SHIFT + Right Click. Granted, some applications won't run because they think they're admin all the time and can do whatever they want, since they were installed as such. This is again an application issue.
so if you have an xp machine with more than one user, you choice is to not let those users use basic applications like Palm Desktop (it's a documented requirement, so it's 'not a bug' [yeah, right]) and cd/dvd burning software, or give everyone local administrator privilege -- which rather defeats the purpose of having a local administrator privilege
A solution is to find out which files your application requires access to and provide file-by-file access to users who need to run the program. You would do this for data files as well, so I don't see how this is any different. The complexity comes in when figuring out which files to "unlock". using a tool like filemon from http://www.sysinternals.com/ can help in that regard.
Nero as another example provides a tool to allow users without administrative privileges access to the DVD Burner. Their application is the problem, so they provided the solution. It's not up to MS to do this for them.
local administrators can delete or modify any locally stored file
You could theoretically make an account group with administrative-style privileges, and be able to lock this entire group out from folders. In my case, I have a laptop connected to a corporate LAN. noone logged in from that lan (including network admins!) can access primary shares on my drive. However, I've given read-only access to non-network systems so I can get stuff I need from any test computer (which are never logged on to the network).
In summary, you should think again about being admin yourself, since you don't understand the basic principles of administration. These same techniques (with variations of course) equally apply to any other OS. Unfortunately MS makes it look like it's easier than it really is.
So let me get this straight: You quit the MMORPG, because it wasn't addicting.
You also quit Jedi Academy, because it was addiciting.
By that reasoning you should be quitting every game you play! Can I have your spot in the next game you try?:)
throw out the baby with the bathwater, will you?
on
Bayesian Tail
·
· Score: 1
I'm don't understand how your suggestion fits in with your initial statement, or as a comment on the usefulness of a bayesian log filter. It's true that people know best. But after scrolling through the same "Operation completed with errors" line time and time again, the minute effort required adds up. even a simple automated filter can assist, which this person has implemented.
It is better to incorporate filtering into the application that generates the logs.
That's akin to only filling a dictionary with words that you use. Most people only use 5000-10,000 words. A dictionary contains a multitude more.
In most cases, I'll be looking to spell something mundane (to check it's not "mundain"). Occasionally I'd like to spell something a lot more difficult, eg: "disenfranchisement". (I wish firefox had a spellchecker...)
I'd be out of luck, if some filter decided not to include it in the book... I hope you see my point.
The day they start releasing open-source is the day that I won't mind open source running on their OS
You dislike the OS, despite that fact there is not a single barrier for OS software to run on windows? The multitude of cross-platform OSS that runs on windows proves the absence. Your idealogical objection towards the OS, becomes a practical punishment of its users. These same users you're trying to convince to come to your side of the argument. Not the most persuasive stance, if you ask me. Generally, a carrot is better than a stick.
Until then, why help them secure market dominance?
I contend quite the opposite. By not porting OSS to their platform, we're preventing market dominance of all OSS, and by extension maintaining the dominance of the OS as a significant requirement for general use of software. What happens when linus changes his mind and says that Linux is going for a CPL license (or something pseudo-FOSS, not that it will happen. Worst-case.). Software that isn't ubiquitously portable is hobbled without major investment of time and effort.
The major point of Open Source adopters is that we are forcing a major change for the better in the whole mega-corporate game force? We can't and shouldn't force anything. Force implies that willingness to participate is not an issue. If you can't convince people to use Open Source without coercion, do you think forcing them will make them want to use it more? The fact that MS forced its way onto the desktop doesn't mean that people want to use their OS more. Accessibility of alternatives in all software respects and the ease of switching to them are key to executing change, both for individual users and in business. Porting software to Windows makes it more accessible, and also makes it easier for people to switch, not only their applications, but ultimately their OS. Porting applications is part of the process of commoditizing the OS layer.
Theoretically, Open Source Software can run on anything, because porting by anyone is enabled by the visibility of the source. In practice, where it runs on should be based on where it can be used most effectively, not due to idealogical differences unrelated to practical limitations. I don't see Apache being ported to Palm, simply because it's not practical. If suddenly people found a use for a mobile web server (there's an idea!), then I don't see any reason not to start the port. Palm is as closed source as windows (for now). Yet I wouldn't expect as much resistance to this suggestion.
Another point uses FreeBSD (or was it OpenBSD?) as an example. Their stance on only accepting truly Free software is different to KDE's stance, because they limit only themselves. They don't say "closed source is bad so noone should use it". They say "incompatible licenses are unacceptable to us for shipping.". I can still run whatever I want if I choose to, as long it runs. Their stance garners a lot more respect from me as someone who's never even looked at their distro than KDE's stance, simply because I can move to them should I choose. I can't move to KDE because they essentially bar me.
He's saying "lend us a tool to do our work.". You're saying: "limit the tools to linux, screw the rest." (paraphrasing, I know).
Why should linux be required for running any software application? Why should windows be required? The most widespread software has the minimum of requirements in all respects.
As a software developer looking at my toolset and my professional future, the tools I value the most are those that work regardless of my working environment. Tools which can (for example) compile from CVS using libraries I have (pre-existing, added, accompanied or otherwise). In turn the most valuable libraries are those that work, again regardless of their working environment. libraries and tools like wxWidgets, Apache, which have been ported to more platforms than you can shake a stick at show that NOT porting to a platform goes against the "open" spirit of Open Source.
Lets take apache for example. They were #1. They are #1. Not just #1 in linux, but on any platform. They don't care where they run on. They want to run well. I'm sure they'd be pleasantly amused if they saw a Dreamcast running an Apache server (,I know I would).
Note that for the paragraphs on tools no specific platform was mentioned. That's because the OS should not matter. Imagine if the first thing people did with their windows machines was install KDE! that would be an exciting future indeed. Imagine the first thing people did on a linux box was install KDE! that happens now. Imagine any , newly acquired where the first thing installed is KDE!
Developers limiting themselves to any OS are shortchanging their applications. Open Source will be the norm, when we have a world where Things Just Work.*
Balanced words from a sensible man. But I do sense some conflict in his views on languages. For example, his explanation of the many layered concepts required of a java program. Many of those concepts, while visible in java, also exist in other languages, so I don't necessarily agree that java is as "conceptually overloaded" as he suggests. The structure of any program even in its most basic form requires understanding of programming concepts. Many programming concepts are language agnostic (procedures ~ functions ~ methods) and only differ in their implementation.
Never having used PERL, I can't really comment on relative merits, but having used various languages such as Scheme, Java,.NET, C/C++, I do find that to write a solid program in any language there is a required minimum of understanding of basic programming concepts and the how they fit in the design of the language you're using. I agree with him with regards to the danger of language specialization for this very reason. Recursiveness in Scheme is highly appropriate and key to efficient execution. As it happens the same concept is highly useful when traversing trees (which I wrote a few weeks ago using a recursive function in.NET). If I had never used scheme and understood what works and what doesn't in that language I don't think my tree traversal would have been as efficient in its implementation. I didn't replicate any code or structure from Scheme, I simply applied the concept in what best suited the language and the situation.
... that the splash screen is one of the first things that I turn off when I install a new program and run it for the first time. It really doesn't matter what it looks like to me. It could be the equivalent of Michelango's David and I'd still turn it off.
The primary reason I turn it off, is because I don't want some static, always-on-top window blocking my view of other windows I'm working on. I don't mind programs taking time to load if they need it, just let me read something while it's waiting. In my case, programs rarely get opened up on their own.
Usually splash screens play nice, but they always seems to block something I'm looking at there and then. An about box will suffice if I really find out what I'm running.
knowledge propagation would only be an issue if they lived long enough to tell their buddies. It would still be consistent, plannable behaviour if they passed this on. If some grunt on another world knew about it, I'd say that's bad propagation, but if you manage to snipe one brute, then the others should be smart enough to realise he's dead and "duck and cover".
... but we all know how effective that technique is... *aims the rocket launcher*
Sorry to break it to you, but your book example proves my point. Your web interface is greatly simplified relative to the actual processing that goes on behind it. Searching for books for example, requires a large amount of indexing,categorization and sifting through data, which you as a user don't have to worry or see anything about.
It's the difference between:
"Start Internet Explorer"
and
C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe (It took me a while to remember where it was)
The basic activity I as a user want to accomplish is browse the web (which I'm doing with firefox, right now). I don't want to find a file, THEN execute it, THEN browse the web. I also didn't consciously take in where the icon was located. I knew where it was, I knew what it did and I used it.
Small-team designers can take a lot of ideas from around them for all areas of a project. There are good and bad examples abound and its only in our own benefits to learn from both.
I think the context of these projects is important.
Agreed. A developer shouldn't misrepresent their graphic skills, though. If a customer wants something to look really flashy, then they should be prepared to pay for a qualified person. It all starts with managing customer expectations ie: You Get What You Pay For. I'm sure there are developers who can do an acceptable job from a customer's perspective. There will also be customers who demand more skill than a jack-of-all-trades can provide. Ultimately if the customer is well-versed (unfortunately rare), then they determine where professional begins with their wallet.
separating UI design and graphic design is silly. Shall we seperate web design as well?
While they all require understanding of human interaction, lumping them together as identical is a common mistake and a dangerous trap. Not all web designers do good application UI and vice versa. Graphic design when dealing with print also has different issues than dealing with screen. there are large areas of overlap, but there are also significant differences. An example off the top of my head is on things you can do with the medium. A pamflet has a texture, fold and other attributes which can be accentuated and used to assist in the actions to take on the paper. A screen doesn't fold (and still work), but could have a variety of cues to perform actions (buttons, sliders, hotzones, highlights). There are actions on both, but each medium has nuances which can be overlooked when transferred.
...ultimately [to] communicate the inner functionality of a system
I have to disagree. The best UI is one where you don't know what's going on on the inside! Some of the best UI's are the ones you don't notice are there, but still allow you to perform actions when you need to, without hassle or conscious thought. Unfortunately these are rare. As I mentioned, some (but by no means all) graphic designers want their 'art' to stand out. Developers want this also, but their 'art' is the software itself and its designed structure. The User justs wants to do their job, as efficiently and intuitively as possible. The key to good software design is balancing these three points of view satisfactorily.
It's more important for a graphic designer to know computers than it is for a software engineer to know how to use colour wheels. I'm not saying it's unnecessary, but I am saying graphic design is a task that isn't common in software projects. UI design - while requiring the same traits as graphic design - is another skill entirely, and I've seen some really unfriendly UI designs from graphic designers thinking they can transfer the knowledge form one area to another and always get it right.
I've had graphic designer friends come to me for minor-incident tech support or other small software-related tasks, because they don't have the money or budget to get a full-time software partner. The same problem occurrs with smaller developers. budgetary restraints in software projects simply eliminate the ability to hire a graphic artist for minor work.
In a perfect world, only graphic designers would design graphics and only software developers would develop software. As it is today, some people have to do a little of everything to get by. Some of their required tasks they're trained in, and in others they're not.
I'm sure you can design the most beautiful icon ever seen by mankind, but if you can't do it for $100 or less, then you're not going to get many requests from programmers working alone.
Someone else's feelings and suppositions hardly spoil my fun or potential satisfaction of the plot. But then I'm not the only one reading this. Some plots shouldn't clearly end. I'll reserve my final feelings until I see the end credits.
Has anyone ever considered that new single player levels might get downloaded from Xbox live? now that could be paid content worth having! Regardless of the brevity or length of plot or gameplay time, I expect that if there was enough demand they could use live to extend the game far beyond the lifespan of HALO (which I still play heavily).
From what you're saying, you spend your time dealing with the 'lower end of the scale', with regards to the effects of online dating. Because you deal with troubled relationships for work, then you're seeing a higher proportion of failures than successes. Would someone go to a doctor to declare themselves 100% fit (besides hypochondriacs obviously)?
I still agree that there are sites which only serve to push porn, prostitutes and phoneys, but if you find a site that's good and you make the effort to do something, I see that as a positive step.
If personal ads and dating services truly didn't work then why are they still around? There are too many positive stories to simply discount it as a misleading direction. It's not the only by any means, and there are a number of other non-site-related options discussed in this thread, but online dating is no less or no more effective than anything else. It's partly a stigma issue that we're still not certain what the effects are.
One could argue that Apple has the better marketing department. The difference between MS and Apple is also philosophy, not just in how they're marketed. Apple 'went for the marlin' and while admirable for it, didn't catch anywhere near as much as MS did by 'trawling the seas'. MS strategy on both the technological and marketing fronts are geared towards the most common denominator approach. Apple hasn't operated like that.
I've played both daggerfall and morrowind for hundreds of hours each, and I'd agree that morrowind is a lot more stable and recoverable than daggerfall when it comes to void excursions. As one parent noted, the lower res screens have it more. I think that's because there aren't enough pixels to step on between tiles, so eventually you'll end up stepping on "nothing". Morrowind's void fortunately wraps around, where daggerfall was an infinite one.
Both GTA3 and Vice City on the PS2 have the same problem with voids, although not as bad as daggerfall. If you manage to fly the dodo through GTA3, you'll find they got lazy with the buildings and you can clip and fall through very, very easily. I've done some major height stunts in a dodo doing that.
Vice City's a lot better but still has a lot of tile transitions that don't quite connect...
I'd be interested to see what kind of tiling engine Oblivion has. Just to see if The Void(tm), makes its return.:) When you're bored of making 400 pt light potions (*sings 'blinded by the light'*) Trying to explore the engine mechanics can be quite a diversion for me.
Slashdot Mirror
P A S S W O R D
Please enter Pass 2:
P A S S W O R D
Please enter Pass 3:
P A S S W O R D
more is less.
Unless you're actually referring to a review process performed by fruit. While highly implausible, I'm sure someone's figured that one out in the depth and breadth of human knowledge. Where's the wikipedia article on this?
...so Linus works for Charlie Brown, Lucy and Snoopy?
doesn't resolve for me. Does that mean I'm in China?
This is an application installation design issue. This is not an issue with the operating system security. InnoSetup as an example has a flag which installation creators can set to require administrative privileges. general guidelines say only to use it when it's actually needed. Not everyone follows guidelines, but MS is hardly to blame for this.
You can't just give yourself local administrator privilege to install and then take it away
"Run as..." can be accessed using an alternate click to impersonate any user when running any application. I have it on by default, so I can't tell which key combo; it's probably SHIFT + Right Click. Granted, some applications won't run because they think they're admin all the time and can do whatever they want, since they were installed as such. This is again an application issue.
so if you have an xp machine with more than one user, you choice is to not let those users use basic applications like Palm Desktop (it's a documented requirement, so it's 'not a bug' [yeah, right]) and cd/dvd burning software, or give everyone local administrator privilege -- which rather defeats the purpose of having a local administrator privilege
A solution is to find out which files your application requires access to and provide file-by-file access to users who need to run the program. You would do this for data files as well, so I don't see how this is any different. The complexity comes in when figuring out which files to "unlock". using a tool like filemon from http://www.sysinternals.com/ can help in that regard.
Nero as another example provides a tool to allow users without administrative privileges access to the DVD Burner. Their application is the problem, so they provided the solution. It's not up to MS to do this for them.
local administrators can delete or modify any locally stored file
You could theoretically make an account group with administrative-style privileges, and be able to lock this entire group out from folders. In my case, I have a laptop connected to a corporate LAN. noone logged in from that lan (including network admins!) can access primary shares on my drive. However, I've given read-only access to non-network systems so I can get stuff I need from any test computer (which are never logged on to the network).
In summary, you should think again about being admin yourself, since you don't understand the basic principles of administration. These same techniques (with variations of course) equally apply to any other OS. Unfortunately MS makes it look like it's easier than it really is.
You also quit Jedi Academy, because it was addiciting.
By that reasoning you should be quitting every game you play! Can I have your spot in the next game you try? :)
That's akin to only filling a dictionary with words that you use. Most people only use 5000-10,000 words. A dictionary contains a multitude more.
In most cases, I'll be looking to spell something mundane (to check it's not "mundain"). Occasionally I'd like to spell something a lot more difficult, eg: "disenfranchisement". (I wish firefox had a spellchecker...) I'd be out of luck, if some filter decided not to include it in the book... I hope you see my point.
Wouldn't they use pigeons?
You dislike the OS, despite that fact there is not a single barrier for OS software to run on windows? The multitude of cross-platform OSS that runs on windows proves the absence. Your idealogical objection towards the OS, becomes a practical punishment of its users. These same users you're trying to convince to come to your side of the argument. Not the most persuasive stance, if you ask me. Generally, a carrot is better than a stick.
Until then, why help them secure market dominance?
I contend quite the opposite. By not porting OSS to their platform, we're preventing market dominance of all OSS, and by extension maintaining the dominance of the OS as a significant requirement for general use of software. What happens when linus changes his mind and says that Linux is going for a CPL license (or something pseudo-FOSS, not that it will happen. Worst-case.). Software that isn't ubiquitously portable is hobbled without major investment of time and effort.
The major point of Open Source adopters is that we are forcing a major change for the better in the whole mega-corporate game
force? We can't and shouldn't force anything. Force implies that willingness to participate is not an issue. If you can't convince people to use Open Source without coercion, do you think forcing them will make them want to use it more? The fact that MS forced its way onto the desktop doesn't mean that people want to use their OS more. Accessibility of alternatives in all software respects and the ease of switching to them are key to executing change, both for individual users and in business. Porting software to Windows makes it more accessible, and also makes it easier for people to switch, not only their applications, but ultimately their OS. Porting applications is part of the process of commoditizing the OS layer.
Theoretically, Open Source Software can run on anything, because porting by anyone is enabled by the visibility of the source. In practice, where it runs on should be based on where it can be used most effectively, not due to idealogical differences unrelated to practical limitations. I don't see Apache being ported to Palm, simply because it's not practical. If suddenly people found a use for a mobile web server (there's an idea!), then I don't see any reason not to start the port. Palm is as closed source as windows (for now). Yet I wouldn't expect as much resistance to this suggestion.
Another point uses FreeBSD (or was it OpenBSD?) as an example. Their stance on only accepting truly Free software is different to KDE's stance, because they limit only themselves. They don't say "closed source is bad so noone should use it". They say "incompatible licenses are unacceptable to us for shipping.". I can still run whatever I want if I choose to, as long it runs. Their stance garners a lot more respect from me as someone who's never even looked at their distro than KDE's stance, simply because I can move to them should I choose. I can't move to KDE because they essentially bar me.
He's saying "lend us a tool to do our work.". You're saying: "limit the tools to linux, screw the rest." (paraphrasing, I know).
Why should linux be required for running any software application? Why should windows be required? The most widespread software has the minimum of requirements in all respects.
As a software developer looking at my toolset and my professional future, the tools I value the most are those that work regardless of my working environment. Tools which can (for example) compile from CVS using libraries I have (pre-existing, added, accompanied or otherwise). In turn the most valuable libraries are those that work, again regardless of their working environment. libraries and tools like wxWidgets, Apache, which have been ported to more platforms than you can shake a stick at show that NOT porting to a platform goes against the "open" spirit of Open Source.
Lets take apache for example. They were #1. They are #1. Not just #1 in linux, but on any platform. They don't care where they run on. They want to run well. I'm sure they'd be pleasantly amused if they saw a Dreamcast running an Apache server (,I know I would).
Note that for the paragraphs on tools no specific platform was mentioned. That's because the OS should not matter. Imagine if the first thing people did with their windows machines was install KDE! that would be an exciting future indeed. Imagine the first thing people did on a linux box was install KDE! that happens now. Imagine any , newly acquired where the first thing installed is KDE!
Developers limiting themselves to any OS are shortchanging their applications. Open Source will be the norm, when we have a world where Things Just Work.*
*no exceptions or limitations
but then... I got that info from the Addams Family movie...
I don't know know about that... remember that german guy who liked to eat people in his spare time?
For example, his explanation of the many layered concepts required of a java program. Many of those concepts, while visible in java, also exist in other languages, so I don't necessarily agree that java is as "conceptually overloaded" as he suggests. The structure of any program even in its most basic form requires understanding of programming concepts. Many programming concepts are language agnostic (procedures ~ functions ~ methods) and only differ in their implementation.
Never having used PERL, I can't really comment on relative merits, but having used various languages such as Scheme, Java, .NET, C/C++, I do find that to write a solid program in any language there is a required minimum of understanding of basic programming concepts and the how they fit in the design of the language you're using. I agree with him with regards to the danger of language specialization for this very reason. Recursiveness in Scheme is highly appropriate and key to efficient execution. As it happens the same concept is highly useful when traversing trees (which I wrote a few weeks ago using a recursive function in .NET). If I had never used scheme and understood what works and what doesn't in that language I don't think my tree traversal would have been as efficient in its implementation. I didn't replicate any code or structure from Scheme, I simply applied the concept in what best suited the language and the situation.
A good interview, overall.
The primary reason I turn it off, is because I don't want some static, always-on-top window blocking my view of other windows I'm working on. I don't mind programs taking time to load if they need it, just let me read something while it's waiting. In my case, programs rarely get opened up on their own.
Usually splash screens play nice, but they always seems to block something I'm looking at there and then. An about box will suffice if I really find out what I'm running.
*aims the rocket launcher*
Sorry to break it to you, but your book example proves my point. Your web interface is greatly simplified relative to the actual processing that goes on behind it. Searching for books for example, requires a large amount of indexing ,categorization and sifting through data, which you as a user don't have to worry or see anything about.
It's the difference between:
"Start Internet Explorer"
and
C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe (It took me a while to remember where it was)
The basic activity I as a user want to accomplish is browse the web (which I'm doing with firefox, right now). I don't want to find a file, THEN execute it, THEN browse the web. I also didn't consciously take in where the icon was located. I knew where it was, I knew what it did and I used it.
Small-team designers can take a lot of ideas from around them for all areas of a project. There are good and bad examples abound and its only in our own benefits to learn from both.
Agreed. A developer shouldn't misrepresent their graphic skills, though. If a customer wants something to look really flashy, then they should be prepared to pay for a qualified person. It all starts with managing customer expectations ie: You Get What You Pay For. I'm sure there are developers who can do an acceptable job from a customer's perspective. There will also be customers who demand more skill than a jack-of-all-trades can provide. Ultimately if the customer is well-versed (unfortunately rare), then they determine where professional begins with their wallet.
separating UI design and graphic design is silly. Shall we seperate web design as well?
While they all require understanding of human interaction, lumping them together as identical is a common mistake and a dangerous trap. Not all web designers do good application UI and vice versa. Graphic design when dealing with print also has different issues than dealing with screen. there are large areas of overlap, but there are also significant differences. An example off the top of my head is on things you can do with the medium. A pamflet has a texture, fold and other attributes which can be accentuated and used to assist in the actions to take on the paper. A screen doesn't fold (and still work), but could have a variety of cues to perform actions (buttons, sliders, hotzones, highlights). There are actions on both, but each medium has nuances which can be overlooked when transferred.
I have to disagree. The best UI is one where you don't know what's going on on the inside! Some of the best UI's are the ones you don't notice are there, but still allow you to perform actions when you need to, without hassle or conscious thought. Unfortunately these are rare. As I mentioned, some (but by no means all) graphic designers want their 'art' to stand out. Developers want this also, but their 'art' is the software itself and its designed structure. The User justs wants to do their job, as efficiently and intuitively as possible. The key to good software design is balancing these three points of view satisfactorily.
I've had graphic designer friends come to me for minor-incident tech support or other small software-related tasks, because they don't have the money or budget to get a full-time software partner. The same problem occurrs with smaller developers. budgetary restraints in software projects simply eliminate the ability to hire a graphic artist for minor work.
In a perfect world, only graphic designers would design graphics and only software developers would develop software. As it is today, some people have to do a little of everything to get by. Some of their required tasks they're trained in, and in others they're not. I'm sure you can design the most beautiful icon ever seen by mankind, but if you can't do it for $100 or less, then you're not going to get many requests from programmers working alone.
Has anyone ever considered that new single player levels might get downloaded from Xbox live? now that could be paid content worth having! Regardless of the brevity or length of plot or gameplay time, I expect that if there was enough demand they could use live to extend the game far beyond the lifespan of HALO (which I still play heavily).
Because you deal with troubled relationships for work, then you're seeing a higher proportion of failures than successes. Would someone go to a doctor to declare themselves 100% fit (besides hypochondriacs obviously)?
I still agree that there are sites which only serve to push porn, prostitutes and phoneys, but if you find a site that's good and you make the effort to do something, I see that as a positive step.
If personal ads and dating services truly didn't work then why are they still around? There are too many positive stories to simply discount it as a misleading direction. It's not the only by any means, and there are a number of other non-site-related options discussed in this thread, but online dating is no less or no more effective than anything else. It's partly a stigma issue that we're still not certain what the effects are.
She sends out pics of her latest flower arrangements to a large group of friends, and her heart isn't as good as it used to be...
One could argue that Apple has the better marketing department. The difference between MS and Apple is also philosophy, not just in how they're marketed. Apple 'went for the marlin' and while admirable for it, didn't catch anywhere near as much as MS did by 'trawling the seas'. MS strategy on both the technological and marketing fronts are geared towards the most common denominator approach. Apple hasn't operated like that.
.. or yet another weird acronym:
V.O.W.L. On a chip, anyone?
Both GTA3 and Vice City on the PS2 have the same problem with voids, although not as bad as daggerfall. If you manage to fly the dodo through GTA3, you'll find they got lazy with the buildings and you can clip and fall through very, very easily. I've done some major height stunts in a dodo doing that. Vice City's a lot better but still has a lot of tile transitions that don't quite connect...
I'd be interested to see what kind of tiling engine Oblivion has. Just to see if The Void(tm), makes its return. :)
When you're bored of making 400 pt light potions (*sings 'blinded by the light'*) Trying to explore the engine mechanics can be quite a diversion for me.
Of course, I for one hope never again to clip into the void from oblivion, but then this is a bethesda developed game...