3. Ugly graphics. IE7 is just clearly more beautiful. For that matter, FF1.5 is clearly more beautiful. I don't know who created these things (the 'home' icon in particular) but somebody really should have said 'thanks but no thanks.'
I have to disagree here. To me IE7 is ugly as sin. Clearly the phrase "clearly more beautiful" is a subjective call and a pretty thin basis for slamming Firefox.
4. Why change terminology? Extensions are now Add-Ons. Will they be plug-ins in the next release? BHOs after that? It took me 3 minutes after I upgraded to find the extension control panel.
Really? Took me two seconds. Know why? The menu item is in the same exact place and it's not much of a stretch to translate "Extensions" into "Add-ons". Was this really worth a whole bullet point of its own? Sounds more like petulant nit-picking to me.
5. More in-built functionality that I don't need. Like a phishing filter. This shouldn't be in IE, either, but DEFINITELY not in firefox.
Like someone else said, I have to disagree with this. Non-techies often don't know enough to check the destination of a link before clicking on it. Having the functionality in no way interferes with regular usage of the browser.
As for your other issues, they all seem to be related to poorly written add-ons and not directly to Firefox. If you want to complain about add-ons, then complain about the add-ons but don't blame Firefox for their shortcomings.
Mal: Well, look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir.
That is one of my favorites as well.:)
And, of course, there is this classic
Jayne: I'll be in my bunk.
It depends on what aspects you use to compare them. You take the most extreme points and show them as not comparable -which is true- but you neglected all that middle ground and overshot the argument while minimizing any possible similarities in the typical slashdottian "nothing to see here" manner. What president has ever favored policies that didn't support companies? That's not really what I was talking about and I thought I made that pretty clear. I was referring more to similarities between how those dictators rose to power, the changes they made in the state and the way it worked that ultimately then led the way to them becoming complete monsters. I will reiterate that, no, Bush is not THAT bad, but again there are some striking similarities to the way he does things and the way they did things. Similarities in speech and themes peppered throughout addresses to the citizens, the lockdown on freedoms for "the good of the people" such as the increasing security measures being rammed through everywhere, keeping people afraid by using key words such as "terror" and "evil" ALL THE TIME...essentially he's ruling through fear and misinformation and so, yes, I do see similarities here but, no, I don't expect him to start interring people in death camps any time soon.
Conversely, if you can't see the similarities between Stalin, Hitler and Bush, then you've also got issues.
No, Bush is nowhere near as bad as they were. I'm not trying to say that, but The Bush Regime's words and actions often remind me of those two aforementioned fascists and their policies.
That's about the only show I'll watch on Scifi anymore. That and Stargate Atlantis which I've found to be enjoyable thus far.
One thing that always gets me about the Sci-Fi Channel is the proliferance of horror/creature movies. To me, that's really not sci-fi. It's horror. So what the hell's it doing on the freaking Sci-Fi channel? Can someone explain to me what the hell "The Puppetmaster Vs. Demonic Toys" has to do with SCI-FI? They should think about renaming the channel "The Horrible Schlock Channel That Occasionally Plays Something Good".
I also watched Earthsea and I thought it was okay. Not great by any means and not even quite "good" but it was "okay". I should also mention that I haven't read the books. It struck me as I watched the two parts that it should have been *much* longer. Maybe as long as 3 or 4 parts because it felt rushed to me and there was a lot of room for expanding on things. Watching it in two parts felt a lot like a "wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am" and there really wasn't time for any tension to build or anything. Just when one obstacle or problem gets introduced and you just start going "uh-oh" it's already done with and the story moves on. That really bugged me. I think the series failed to engage the audience and make them care about the characters and the story to a large degree. There were moments but not much more than that. It was much more like "okay, so this happens. Then we go here. Then this happens." It just felt flat and I feel this probably should have had much more depth.
Anyway, the point is I was hoping for more out of it and even though I haven't read the books, I still think they dropped the ball on that one in a very big way. I'm interested to see what they do with Battlestar Galactica but I'm not holding my breath.
Hehehe. Yeah, I got a big kick out of that. My favorite was waiting for a hallway to fill up with five or six zombies and then send a saw-blade through all of 'em and watch the body parts fly! Fun, fun, fun.
I agree. When I saw the episode where Hammond retired and O'Neill got his promotion, I thought the show would be losing a significant amount of its character and that it was the beginning of the end. Off-world missions/episodes just aren't the same without O'Neill along.
Re:Er, doesn't this claim require external evidenc
on
Atlantis Found. Again.
·
· Score: 1
The way I understood it, God didn't write the Bible directly but rather sent messengers (angels) down to preach to the prophets who then immortalized the words of the messengers in the form of the books of the Bible. The prophets were human and thus fallible and so maybe (if we're going to buy into the whole "word of God" thing) that was the point of error. In this scenario, it could still be said that God did not err, but the human scribes did.
No, Alec Guiness wasn't the one replaced in the end of ROTJ it was Sebastian Shaw that was replaced by Hayden Christensen. Alec is still there to Yoda's left (your right).
I think this may have to do with "shrinkage" (theft) and with store profits in general. A store generally cannot re-sell an opened product (at least not as new) and they cannot return an opened product to their distributors and recoup their cost on the item. So, by making you select another item from the store, they are still keeping your money within the store. If they give you a full refund they've lost the cost of the game plus the profit they made off the sale. If they make you exchange instead, they don't entirely lose as the item you get in exchange doesn't cost them as much as just giving up the money to you outright would. If you buy a game that costs $50, the store probably only paid about $30 for it. If they give you a refund, they have lost not only your $50 but they've also effectively lost the $30 the game cost them in the first place since they can't re-sell it. Total loss = $80. If you exchange the game instead for an equally priced item, their total loss only turns out to be $10 (cost of the two games to the store, $60, less your $50 = $10). Then, if they put the "used" game on sale at a discount, they still manage to make a little bit of profit. Also, many stores prefer not to do refunds on non-defective merchandise because people will often steal an item and then attempt to return it to the store for a full refund which can cost the store quite a bit of money.
Since so many people are comparing Doom 3 to HL2, I have to wonder if Doom 3 being a bit of a disappointment might end up doing HL2 a favor by lowering expectations so that we will, as you say, be pleasantly surprised. I have a feeling that the game would have been great regardless, but I wonder if it'll seem that much better after the hype and subsequent let down of Doom 3.
I do have Doom 3 and I agree with your prognosis. It is fun to play sometimes, but I still haven't been able to bring myself to play it for more than an hour or two at a time. I'm just not getting immersed in it. Oh, I did at first but after a few days, the lustre wore off of it and now I just play it when I want to run around indiscriminately shooting things. It is a beautiful looking game but the gameplay experience could have been better.
From everything I've read about HL2 it seems to me that there will be a lot of value in its gameplay due to the interactivity of the environments and the breadth of things you'll be able to do. This to me is already a far cry from the "enter lab, get surprised -yet again- by a demon, shoot it, go through another door, find a pda, unlock door, enter another lab, shoot the demon, etc, etc" experience of Doom 3.
"There are, however, no plans to allow readers to discuss the documents on the Web site. "If we opened it up to that, it would simply become another one of the message boards that our detractors use to try and overwhelm us," Stowell said."
I never said my personal life did take priority over everyone else that paid to see the movie. If you notice, I did mention that we were turning our phones off anyway, we just found it odd that the signal didn't come through at all in the building. However, if someone wanted to keep their phone on, they could keep it on vibrate and then get up and leave the auditorium if they needed to answer the call. I fail to see how that would disturb other patrons any more than going to the bathroom or hitting the snack bar would. Incidentally, I happen to agree that people who yack on their phones or don't turn off their ringers during a movie should be drug out in the street and shot.
I went to a movie with a few friends last year at a fairly new theater complex that I hadn't been to before. After entering the theater and beginning to make our way to our auditorium, we all looked at our phones (we were going to turn them off) and noticed that we had no signal at all. Out of six people, not a single one of us had any signal at all. After the movie we left the auditorium but were still in the building and we still had no signal. As soon as we got outside, however, our phones suddenly came back to life and found their respective carriers. That struck us as a bit odd and made me wonder if they shouldn't be required to post a sign that says "cell phones will not work on these premises".
Re:Why I dislike Halo (and all modern console game
on
Halo 2 Goes Gold
·
· Score: 1
For me, yes, there is an advantage. I sit in front of a computer all day at work and by the end of the day my eyes are burning. The last thing I want to do is go home and park myself in front of my computer to play a game (even though I do sometimes). I find that playing games on my PS2 while sitting in my comfy chair about five feet away from my tv is much easier on my eyes and a much better way to relax than sitting in front of my 17" monitor in my not-so-comfy computer chair. But that's just me. YMMV.
The blurb is truly horribly written. I had to re-read it several times just to make sense out of the sentence fragments. Anyway, it would appear as though "Wall Street Meat" has already been reviewed and that they will review the latest book by the same author, "Running Money" soon. The -rather long- exerpt is from the "Running Money". Whoever let that blurb through needs a few more cups of coffee I think.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, champ.
You could have at least used a different nickname like "sport" or "sparky" or something.
This coming from the guy whose entire post can be summed-up as "I disagree."
Hardly. I merely responded to the points I thought invalid and/or erroneous. No need to get so defensive there, champ.
3. Ugly graphics. IE7 is just clearly more beautiful. For that matter, FF1.5 is clearly more beautiful. I don't know who created these things (the 'home' icon in particular) but somebody really should have said 'thanks but no thanks.'
I have to disagree here. To me IE7 is ugly as sin. Clearly the phrase "clearly more beautiful" is a subjective call and a pretty thin basis for slamming Firefox.
4. Why change terminology? Extensions are now Add-Ons. Will they be plug-ins in the next release? BHOs after that? It took me 3 minutes after I upgraded to find the extension control panel.
Really? Took me two seconds. Know why? The menu item is in the same exact place and it's not much of a stretch to translate "Extensions" into "Add-ons". Was this really worth a whole bullet point of its own? Sounds more like petulant nit-picking to me.
5. More in-built functionality that I don't need. Like a phishing filter. This shouldn't be in IE, either, but DEFINITELY not in firefox.
Like someone else said, I have to disagree with this. Non-techies often don't know enough to check the destination of a link before clicking on it. Having the functionality in no way interferes with regular usage of the browser.
As for your other issues, they all seem to be related to poorly written add-ons and not directly to Firefox. If you want to complain about add-ons, then complain about the add-ons but don't blame Firefox for their shortcomings.
Argh. Fixed formatting.
:)
Mal: Well, look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir.
That is one of my favorites as well.
And, of course, there is this classic
Jayne: I'll be in my bunk.
Mal: Well, look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us? Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir. That is one of my favorites as well. :)
And, of course, there is this classic
Jayne: I'll be in my bunk.
It depends on what aspects you use to compare them. You take the most extreme points and show them as not comparable -which is true- but you neglected all that middle ground and overshot the argument while minimizing any possible similarities in the typical slashdottian "nothing to see here" manner. What president has ever favored policies that didn't support companies? That's not really what I was talking about and I thought I made that pretty clear. I was referring more to similarities between how those dictators rose to power, the changes they made in the state and the way it worked that ultimately then led the way to them becoming complete monsters. I will reiterate that, no, Bush is not THAT bad, but again there are some striking similarities to the way he does things and the way they did things. Similarities in speech and themes peppered throughout addresses to the citizens, the lockdown on freedoms for "the good of the people" such as the increasing security measures being rammed through everywhere, keeping people afraid by using key words such as "terror" and "evil" ALL THE TIME...essentially he's ruling through fear and misinformation and so, yes, I do see similarities here but, no, I don't expect him to start interring people in death camps any time soon.
Conversely, if you can't see the similarities between Stalin, Hitler and Bush, then you've also got issues.
No, Bush is nowhere near as bad as they were. I'm not trying to say that, but The Bush Regime's words and actions often remind me of those two aforementioned fascists and their policies.
Ah. Thanks for clearing that up...now suddenly wishing I hadn't asked. ;p
What the hell do hot grits have to do with anything?
I'm guessing it must be some obscure reference from the story (which I've never read) but thought I'd ask...
Indeed. I think it'd be better to perhaps compare Paint.NET to Inkscape which is also a free drawing program.
That's about the only show I'll watch on Scifi anymore. That and Stargate Atlantis which I've found to be enjoyable thus far.
One thing that always gets me about the Sci-Fi Channel is the proliferance of horror/creature movies. To me, that's really not sci-fi. It's horror. So what the hell's it doing on the freaking Sci-Fi channel? Can someone explain to me what the hell "The Puppetmaster Vs. Demonic Toys" has to do with SCI-FI? They should think about renaming the channel "The Horrible Schlock Channel That Occasionally Plays Something Good".
I also watched Earthsea and I thought it was okay. Not great by any means and not even quite "good" but it was "okay". I should also mention that I haven't read the books. It struck me as I watched the two parts that it should have been *much* longer. Maybe as long as 3 or 4 parts because it felt rushed to me and there was a lot of room for expanding on things. Watching it in two parts felt a lot like a "wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am" and there really wasn't time for any tension to build or anything. Just when one obstacle or problem gets introduced and you just start going "uh-oh" it's already done with and the story moves on. That really bugged me. I think the series failed to engage the audience and make them care about the characters and the story to a large degree. There were moments but not much more than that. It was much more like "okay, so this happens. Then we go here. Then this happens." It just felt flat and I feel this probably should have had much more depth.
Anyway, the point is I was hoping for more out of it and even though I haven't read the books, I still think they dropped the ball on that one in a very big way. I'm interested to see what they do with Battlestar Galactica but I'm not holding my breath.
That really won't help you unless it can somehow change your license plate too since that's what the cameras I've heard of are actually aiming for.
Ugh, that was a terrible movie. It's a shame that was to be Raul Julia's last big-screen appearance before he died.
the gravity gun+sawblade is your new best friend
Hehehe. Yeah, I got a big kick out of that. My favorite was waiting for a hallway to fill up with five or six zombies and then send a saw-blade through all of 'em and watch the body parts fly! Fun, fun, fun.
I agree. When I saw the episode where Hammond retired and O'Neill got his promotion, I thought the show would be losing a significant amount of its character and that it was the beginning of the end. Off-world missions/episodes just aren't the same without O'Neill along.
The way I understood it, God didn't write the Bible directly but rather sent messengers (angels) down to preach to the prophets who then immortalized the words of the messengers in the form of the books of the Bible. The prophets were human and thus fallible and so maybe (if we're going to buy into the whole "word of God" thing) that was the point of error. In this scenario, it could still be said that God did not err, but the human scribes did.
No, Alec Guiness wasn't the one replaced in the end of ROTJ it was Sebastian Shaw that was replaced by Hayden Christensen. Alec is still there to Yoda's left (your right).
I think this may have to do with "shrinkage" (theft) and with store profits in general. A store generally cannot re-sell an opened product (at least not as new) and they cannot return an opened product to their distributors and recoup their cost on the item. So, by making you select another item from the store, they are still keeping your money within the store. If they give you a full refund they've lost the cost of the game plus the profit they made off the sale. If they make you exchange instead, they don't entirely lose as the item you get in exchange doesn't cost them as much as just giving up the money to you outright would. If you buy a game that costs $50, the store probably only paid about $30 for it. If they give you a refund, they have lost not only your $50 but they've also effectively lost the $30 the game cost them in the first place since they can't re-sell it. Total loss = $80. If you exchange the game instead for an equally priced item, their total loss only turns out to be $10 (cost of the two games to the store, $60, less your $50 = $10). Then, if they put the "used" game on sale at a discount, they still manage to make a little bit of profit. Also, many stores prefer not to do refunds on non-defective merchandise because people will often steal an item and then attempt to return it to the store for a full refund which can cost the store quite a bit of money.
Since so many people are comparing Doom 3 to HL2, I have to wonder if Doom 3 being a bit of a disappointment might end up doing HL2 a favor by lowering expectations so that we will, as you say, be pleasantly surprised. I have a feeling that the game would have been great regardless, but I wonder if it'll seem that much better after the hype and subsequent let down of Doom 3.
I do have Doom 3 and I agree with your prognosis. It is fun to play sometimes, but I still haven't been able to bring myself to play it for more than an hour or two at a time. I'm just not getting immersed in it. Oh, I did at first but after a few days, the lustre wore off of it and now I just play it when I want to run around indiscriminately shooting things. It is a beautiful looking game but the gameplay experience could have been better.
From everything I've read about HL2 it seems to me that there will be a lot of value in its gameplay due to the interactivity of the environments and the breadth of things you'll be able to do. This to me is already a far cry from the "enter lab, get surprised -yet again- by a demon, shoot it, go through another door, find a pda, unlock door, enter another lab, shoot the demon, etc, etc" experience of Doom 3.
According to the article:
"There are, however, no plans to allow readers to discuss the documents on the Web site. "If we opened it up to that, it would simply become another one of the message boards that our detractors use to try and overwhelm us," Stowell said."
So there will be no comments allowed on the site.
I never said my personal life did take priority over everyone else that paid to see the movie. If you notice, I did mention that we were turning our phones off anyway, we just found it odd that the signal didn't come through at all in the building. However, if someone wanted to keep their phone on, they could keep it on vibrate and then get up and leave the auditorium if they needed to answer the call. I fail to see how that would disturb other patrons any more than going to the bathroom or hitting the snack bar would. Incidentally, I happen to agree that people who yack on their phones or don't turn off their ringers during a movie should be drug out in the street and shot.
I went to a movie with a few friends last year at a fairly new theater complex that I hadn't been to before. After entering the theater and beginning to make our way to our auditorium, we all looked at our phones (we were going to turn them off) and noticed that we had no signal at all. Out of six people, not a single one of us had any signal at all. After the movie we left the auditorium but were still in the building and we still had no signal. As soon as we got outside, however, our phones suddenly came back to life and found their respective carriers. That struck us as a bit odd and made me wonder if they shouldn't be required to post a sign that says "cell phones will not work on these premises".
For me, yes, there is an advantage. I sit in front of a computer all day at work and by the end of the day my eyes are burning. The last thing I want to do is go home and park myself in front of my computer to play a game (even though I do sometimes). I find that playing games on my PS2 while sitting in my comfy chair about five feet away from my tv is much easier on my eyes and a much better way to relax than sitting in front of my 17" monitor in my not-so-comfy computer chair. But that's just me. YMMV.
Minor nit, but I think you probably mean "epilogue" or "afterword" and not "prologue" as that would typically go before the first chapter of a book.
The blurb is truly horribly written. I had to re-read it several times just to make sense out of the sentence fragments. Anyway, it would appear as though "Wall Street Meat" has already been reviewed and that they will review the latest book by the same author, "Running Money" soon. The -rather long- exerpt is from the "Running Money". Whoever let that blurb through needs a few more cups of coffee I think.