I imagine that one of the biggest hurdles is the process management, which in Windows is a bit of a mess and tied very closely to the Win32 API, and thus the OS.
Actually, in my experience, those who claim that "language word usages and spellings are continually changing" in defense of a typo, are the ones who can't spell.
>> See, the human population doesn't entirely consist of frothing Mac/Jobs fanbois.
No, but I'd bet that the majority of people would be more impressed with the shiny boxes found inside the trendy store with the cool looking guys, than with the ones sitting on a pull-cart in the middle of the walkway, manned by a bored looking bloke payed minimum wage.
I don't know about that. There's this game, whose name I've forgotten, where you man a submarine and have to go around the water avoiding getting shot down by other subs and picking up stray scuba-divers, before surfacing to replenish your air supply. I love that game and still play it often (on a PS2 emulator).
I play that game purely for its gameplay, not for any nostalgic value. I never owned an Atari VCS/2600 when I was young (though I had an Intellivision), and don't even remember this particular game from back then. I'll admit that there are many games that do not stand the test of time, but some of them do purely on their merits of fun.
Now, on the Intellivision, some of my favorite games that I played endlessly when I was a child do seem rather lame nowadays (I'm looking at you Star Strike). However, there are some that I still enjoy playing very much nowadays; and some of these (like the Atari example above) I never owned nor played when I was young, so they have practically no nostalgic value to me.
Try playing Warcraft III. I do every so often and can say that it truly is a great game. Talk about a classic. Most of the issues you mentioned (damn, I remember those!) have been fixed in Warcraft III, and it brings along better graphics, music, and mechanics. There's even better AI and path-finding algorithms for your peons, so they (almost) never get stuck when encountering a tree or rock on their path, when you send them somewhere.
The only things I miss from Warcraft II are the boats. You don't get to build shipyards and boats to transport your human troops. Oh well.
Not only caused by crappy clones, but by an insanely huge amount of ill-conceived, therefore crappy, games. I love a lot of those old Classics from the 80s, which I played endlessly in my youth; but what most people tend to forget about the 80s is that, just like now, for every one classic Pac-Man or Galaga or Donkey Kong, there were hundreds--if not thousands--of lame and decidedly forgettable bad games (I'm sorry I can give any names because, well, I guess they were really that forgettable).
I'm sure that 20 years from now will show that, likewise, a few of the modern games will indeed pass the test of time.
Wouldn't the "User Interface" to a car include things like automatic or manual transmission, powered steering, overdrive, powered breaks, and dashboard control panel? All those factors are how the user interacts with the vehicle while driving; the interface between the user and the machine. You know, the User Interface.
See? this is why you can't use car analogies when talking about computers.
Actually, a lot of us are bashing both MS and Google by criticizing the merits and practicality of process-per-tab/page architecture. Pointing out that it is an old idea just adds to the argument that perhaps it was discarded or obsoleted originally for a reason.
But of course, what's old is new. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. (damn! can't use unicode in Slashdot??)
As has been mentioned before, this *is* how browsers started. Back in the Stone Age, when the first browsers were created, they were specialized applications that could view one site at a time. In order for you to open multiple pages, you had to start multiple instances of the application, thus multiple processes.
Eventually, it was deemed more efficient to allow a single process to open multiple pages using multiple threads. So, again, this is nothing new, just a reversal to old ideas whose merits are debatable.
Her article concludes that "[i]n essence, the first principle of the automated payment is this: If you simply set it and forget it, you'll probably regret it."
However, that is precisely the opposite of the point of her original article, that automatic online payments are so easy and convenient that you no longer have to remember to do them, nor use up any of your precious time on them.
Writing cheques by hand (or even paying online manually) may take some effort and discipline, but ultimately keeps you aware of your current financial situation. Moreover, if it ever happened that a mistake was made, you are more likely to notice an anomaly on your next payment cycle, presumably before any harm occurred.
So, whether the author wants to admit it or not, her original observation that automatic bill pay is the best method to handle your recurring expenses, was wrong; and most of the arguments to support this assertion (e.g. security, convenience, time) are invalidated in practice by the inherent precariousness of abdicating what should be a very personal (and important) responsibility.
Fine. Now, chill out, here's my fix:
/ *
* Rev. #1138 - 08/29/2008
* DESC: Need to add one to not brake the intarnetS!
*/
int idx;// idx = CURRENT_INDEX + 1;
idx = CURRENT_INDEX + 2;// do nnot braek!!!!1one
return = _cache[i];
>> Google's style of advertising is the ONLY advertising I'm interested in seeing, precisely BECAUSE it tracks me and specifically targets me.
Then I guess you'll be one person who will not block the tracking code when using this new feature. You may even decline to use the "InPrivate(tm)" feature. I'm sure there will be many others who will do the same.
I, on the other hand, rather not receive any advertising at all and traverse the web anonymously; so I shall be blocking any code that attempts to track or monitor my browsing habits. If this means missing out on some free content, then so be it.
This trojan, called Asprox or Danmec, has been around for a few years. It was originally intended as a Spam distribution system but I believe that sometime in 2007 an SQL Injection tool was installed via its botnet. It has been doing the rounds every so often on the Internet since at least January.
>> I mean, if left to his own devices next thing you know he'll have a camp Vader screaming 'noooooooooo' at the sky or something. Oh hang on....
My parents sent me to Camp Vader when I was a kid. That was really not cool. I still have the scars.
However, there was this fat kid who learned how to use the lightsaber... We would all laughed at him and beat him up when our Sith Councelors weren't around.
>> "Why is everyone getting paranoid about Google but noone cares that the government is stripping you naked every time you get close to an airport or the like? There the issues are!"
You are wrong. Most of us whom are paranoid about Google are also deeply paranoid about what the government is doing at the airports and everywhere else. However, this is a comment thread concerning Google, so talking about government intrusion seems out of place.
The worse, however, is when Google's interests coincide with the government's, as in the desire to own and control vast amounts of data on the people's behaviour. That's more than creepy, it's dangerous.
>> Perhaps because of this, Apple does owe some more details of Jobs personal status to its investors.
Perhaps he does. But would you agree that this would be a moral obligation rather than a legal one? And if so, would you further agree that he has a legal right to abdicate such obligation? After all, being a jerk that renegues on his responsibilities is not strictly illegal.
And lastly, would you agree that investors then have the right to lose faith in his direction and the future of the company, and sell their stock as a response to this?
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine that one of the biggest hurdles is the process management, which in Windows is a bit of a mess and tied very closely to the Win32 API, and thus the OS.
-dZ.
Actually, in my experience, those who claim that "language word usages and spellings are continually changing" in defense of a typo, are the ones who can't spell.
-dZ.
>> See, the human population doesn't entirely consist of frothing Mac/Jobs fanbois.
No, but I'd bet that the majority of people would be more impressed with the shiny boxes found inside the trendy store with the cool looking guys, than with the ones sitting on a pull-cart in the middle of the walkway, manned by a bored looking bloke payed minimum wage.
-dZ.
And the products would, you know, not suck.
-dZ.
My father's name is Frankenstein you insensitive clod!
There, fixed it for you.
-dZ.
Idunno. Your dad never talks about rock n' roll with me.
-dZ.
>> But I think you'll be one of a select few.
You can count me in that select few, also. Yay!
I loved God Of War and thought pretty much the same as the grandparent poster.
Kids nowdays. Sheesh.
And get off my lawn!
-dZ.
I don't know about that. There's this game, whose name I've forgotten, where you man a submarine and have to go around the water avoiding getting shot down by other subs and picking up stray scuba-divers, before surfacing to replenish your air supply. I love that game and still play it often (on a PS2 emulator).
I play that game purely for its gameplay, not for any nostalgic value. I never owned an Atari VCS/2600 when I was young (though I had an Intellivision), and don't even remember this particular game from back then. I'll admit that there are many games that do not stand the test of time, but some of them do purely on their merits of fun.
Now, on the Intellivision, some of my favorite games that I played endlessly when I was a child do seem rather lame nowadays (I'm looking at you Star Strike). However, there are some that I still enjoy playing very much nowadays; and some of these (like the Atari example above) I never owned nor played when I was young, so they have practically no nostalgic value to me.
-dZ.
Try playing Warcraft III. I do every so often and can say that it truly is a great game. Talk about a classic. Most of the issues you mentioned (damn, I remember those!) have been fixed in Warcraft III, and it brings along better graphics, music, and mechanics. There's even better AI and path-finding algorithms for your peons, so they (almost) never get stuck when encountering a tree or rock on their path, when you send them somewhere.
The only things I miss from Warcraft II are the boats. You don't get to build shipyards and boats to transport your human troops. Oh well.
-dZ.
Not only caused by crappy clones, but by an insanely huge amount of ill-conceived, therefore crappy, games. I love a lot of those old Classics from the 80s, which I played endlessly in my youth; but what most people tend to forget about the 80s is that, just like now, for every one classic Pac-Man or Galaga or Donkey Kong, there were hundreds--if not thousands--of lame and decidedly forgettable bad games (I'm sorry I can give any names because, well, I guess they were really that forgettable).
I'm sure that 20 years from now will show that, likewise, a few of the modern games will indeed pass the test of time.
-dZ.
Wouldn't the "User Interface" to a car include things like automatic or manual transmission, powered steering, overdrive, powered breaks, and dashboard control panel? All those factors are how the user interacts with the vehicle while driving; the interface between the user and the machine. You know, the User Interface.
See? this is why you can't use car analogies when talking about computers.
-dZ.
Actually, a lot of us are bashing both MS and Google by criticizing the merits and practicality of process-per-tab/page architecture. Pointing out that it is an old idea just adds to the argument that perhaps it was discarded or obsoleted originally for a reason.
But of course, what's old is new. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. (damn! can't use unicode in Slashdot??)
-dZ.
As has been mentioned before, this *is* how browsers started. Back in the Stone Age, when the first browsers were created, they were specialized applications that could view one site at a time. In order for you to open multiple pages, you had to start multiple instances of the application, thus multiple processes.
Eventually, it was deemed more efficient to allow a single process to open multiple pages using multiple threads. So, again, this is nothing new, just a reversal to old ideas whose merits are debatable.
-dZ.
Her article concludes that "[i]n essence, the first principle of the automated payment is this: If you simply set it and forget it, you'll probably regret it."
However, that is precisely the opposite of the point of her original article, that automatic online payments are so easy and convenient that you no longer have to remember to do them, nor use up any of your precious time on them.
Writing cheques by hand (or even paying online manually) may take some effort and discipline, but ultimately keeps you aware of your current financial situation. Moreover, if it ever happened that a mistake was made, you are more likely to notice an anomaly on your next payment cycle, presumably before any harm occurred.
So, whether the author wants to admit it or not, her original observation that automatic bill pay is the best method to handle your recurring expenses, was wrong; and most of the arguments to support this assertion (e.g. security, convenience, time) are invalidated in practice by the inherent precariousness of abdicating what should be a very personal (and important) responsibility.
-dZ.
Fine. Now, chill out, here's my fix:
// idx = CURRENT_INDEX + 1; // do nnot braek!!!!1one
/ *
* Rev. #1138 - 08/29/2008
* DESC: Need to add one to not brake the intarnetS!
*/
int idx;
idx = CURRENT_INDEX + 2;
return = _cache[i];
And don't do it again!
-dZ.
>> Google's style of advertising is the ONLY advertising I'm interested in seeing, precisely BECAUSE it tracks me and specifically targets me.
Then I guess you'll be one person who will not block the tracking code when using this new feature. You may even decline to use the "InPrivate(tm)" feature. I'm sure there will be many others who will do the same.
I, on the other hand, rather not receive any advertising at all and traverse the web anonymously; so I shall be blocking any code that attempts to track or monitor my browsing habits. If this means missing out on some free content, then so be it.
There. Isn't it nice to have a choice?
-dZ.
This trojan, called Asprox or Danmec, has been around for a few years. It was originally intended as a Spam distribution system but I believe that sometime in 2007 an SQL Injection tool was installed via its botnet. It has been doing the rounds every so often on the Internet since at least January.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1122
http://www.secureworks.com/research/threats/danmecasprox/?threat=danmecasprox
-dZ.
So what you're saying is that...
Those who would give up their Essential Data to purchase Temporary Convenience, deserve neither Data nor Convenience.
-dZ.
>> I mean, if left to his own devices next thing you know he'll have a camp Vader screaming 'noooooooooo' at the sky or something. Oh hang on....
My parents sent me to Camp Vader when I was a kid. That was really not cool. I still have the scars.
However, there was this fat kid who learned how to use the lightsaber... We would all laughed at him and beat him up when our Sith Councelors weren't around.
-dZ.
Of course, they have to give it a cutesy, buzzworthy name.
-dZ.
>> "Why is everyone getting paranoid about Google but noone cares that the government is stripping you naked every time you get close to an airport or the like? There the issues are!"
You are wrong. Most of us whom are paranoid about Google are also deeply paranoid about what the government is doing at the airports and everywhere else. However, this is a comment thread concerning Google, so talking about government intrusion seems out of place.
The worse, however, is when Google's interests coincide with the government's, as in the desire to own and control vast amounts of data on the people's behaviour. That's more than creepy, it's dangerous.
-dZ.
I'm not scared: I know how to play Tic-Tac-Toe
-dZ.
>> Perhaps because of this, Apple does owe some more details of Jobs personal status to its investors.
Perhaps he does. But would you agree that this would be a moral obligation rather than a legal one? And if so, would you further agree that he has a legal right to abdicate such obligation? After all, being a jerk that renegues on his responsibilities is not strictly illegal.
And lastly, would you agree that investors then have the right to lose faith in his direction and the future of the company, and sell their stock as a response to this?
I fail to see the problem with any of it.
-dZ.
Surely it wouldn't be "Cancel". It would probably be something like:
[Do you want to die] [Do you want to live]
Now, Bill Gates, he would have "Cancel"; along with "Yes" and "No" and some confusing introductory message.
-dZ.
I always thought that was the point of him winning, evidenced by the current situation.
Oh wait, did you mean "lead" as in direct, command, conduce, preceed, spearhead?
-dZ.