Your kids agree with you probably because you're a good parent. Kudos to you on that; nothing wrong with it. No brainwashing required; you feel strongly on the subject, they subconsciously want to please you, and so they agree. Also, I never said kids won't like older movies; I like the classics too that I watched as a kid. The pattern of behavior I described doesn't fully realize itself until after one hits 30, I notice.
Possibly you are correct. My kids are rather unusual, very independent. I believe it comes from being raised by a single parent, and grandparents. However, there are lots of things they disagree with me on. No matter how hard I try, I cannot convince them to sit through Wrath of Khan in its entirety. And believe you me, I've tried.
It's not nostalgia, either. It's a genuine like of the stuff you saw as a young adult. Even your one-off example of Aliens actually proves my point - I was young when that came out and I think it was awesome (saw it before I saw Alien, too). But I was old enough already to read reviews, and I distinctly remember the reviews of the day - some of them, at least - complaining that they'd taken the masterfully suspenseful Alien, done a lame sequel to it and filled it with action sequences so that you wouldn't notice what a bad movie it was. And who wrote those reviews? Old people that enjoyed Alien a whole lot when it came out.
Battle: Los Angeles is bad, of course. But then again, there's a shitload of bad movies from the late 70's and early 80's that you and I have already forgotten. A tangential point to my original is that every decade produces some great movies and a ton of bad ones, and the older you are, the more likely you are to pooh-pooh even the good movies from the current decade.
You know, the more I consider it, and consider all the post '00 films I've watched, the more I'm agreeing with you. It's easy to forget the old crappy movies when there's so many new crappy movies to bitch about, especially when todays crappy movies are generally just a rehash of stuff I saw years ago.
I still stand by my point that there is less character development in current films, though. There are numerous films from years gone by that, no matter how terrible I perceived them to be, still managed some semblance of character development. Today's films seem devoid of it, save a few rare films. Then again, my awareness may be limited. I'm a typical nerd with very few interests in genres outside the typical nerd domain, so this apparent lack may just be a condition of the films I tend to enjoy.
I would also like to express my pleasure at how you treated my post as a respectful discussion, rather than just calling me names and whatnot. It's a rarity these days and I appreciate such adult discussion. That and being told I'm probably a good parent is nice. I get so little praise these days, I'll take it anywhere - even from strangers on the 'net.:)
I would love to see something like "Game of Thrones" in a movie theatre setting. But I wouldn't want the kids there.
Why not just watch the television series then?
"A Song of Ice and Fire", as the series is called ("A Game of Thrones" was the title of the first book and the aforementioned television series) is just too big to fit into an hour and a half film. Even a trilogy wouldn't work, as there's more to the story than just the first novel.
My partner and I can canoodle without offending anyone else.
Why on earth would you want to be hugging your business partner? Could make for an awkward time at the office.
Deliberately being obtuse I know, I just find it curious that people feel the need to use gender neutral pronouns in an age where most people don't give two hoots who others shag.
I agree with you completely. Love who you love and all that. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of folks out there who aren't so open minded.
I hate it when I look past the summary for insightful commentary on what Ebert said, and all I see for the next 1000 comments is old people complaining how movies were much better when they were in their childhood and possibly early 20's.
Of course, what decade that was totally depends on just HOW old the person commenting is. People never seem to realize that one universal constant - while you're growing up, you watch a bunch of stuff (and listen to a bunch of music), and some of it you think is pretty awesome. Then you get old, and you complain EVERYTHING now sucks. It's been true for decades, if not centuries.
I would just like to share that me (36) and my children (16 and 12) agree that about 75% of movies made after 2000 are absolute garbage compared to films from previous years. While there are standouts that are well scripted, well acted, and well filmed, they are few and far between.
My problem stems not from nostalgia for the good old days, mostly, but rather from the lack of characterization in modern films. Take, for example, the film Aliens. I can remember the characters, rattle off their names and personality quirks, and remember exactly how each one died.
Now take Battle: Los Angeles. I watched it. I can't remember a damned thing about it or any of the characters, except that the butt-chin guy who played Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight was in it. His little squad of characters may as well have been named Disposable Latin Guy, Disposable Black Guy, Disposable White Guy. Completely unmemorable.
Many films come across this way to me now. It's all in the effects and the action, nothing to make the characters stand out at all. And if I don't care about the characters, then why care about the story?
And as I said, my kids agree with me on this - a rare occurance at best with my boys. Believe it or not, they came to their own conclusions on this, no brainwashing required.
I guess I have to ask the question, why do people always feel the need to upgrade the OS on their phones. What exactly does the new version of Android provide in the area of functionality that the current 2.3 build? I ask because my current Android 2.3 provides all business and personal needs that I currently require.
Speaking anecdotally, my SGS has issues turning wifi on, has hard locked on occasion, and doesn't have the best battery life. I've also replace TouchWiz with another launcher (but need to keep TW in order to use Kies) which duplicates the functionality of the stock ICS launcher.
I do not use the Samsung apps, nor do I use any of the crap my carrier (Bell Canada) puts on the phone. I rooted it specifically so I could remove all that garbage. A plain ICS on my SGS would eliminate the need for several apps that copy the style of the stock apps. Besides, I am the consumer, the device is a little over a year old (I bought it a few days after Bell launched the SGS), and it's what I want, dammit. I figure I'll eventually switch to CyanogenMod or another 3rd party ICS release once they iron out all the bugs. I believe I am past my warranty period anyway.
I picked up the 250 GB slim model just after Christmas this year for $199 CDN. No game bundle or other extras, but it was still $100 less than the normal price. I haven't seen the Xbox (with a hard drive, not the crappy 4 GB model) for a reduced price since, however.
Re:Doesn't everyone run in classic?
on
The Condescending UI
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Visual Studio on one monitor, Doctor Who on the other. I could code for hours / days like that. But we're out of Doctor Who...
Me too! Christmas special soon!
Though I am equally as likely to be watching old school Who, which I maintain was superior to new. I feel the shoestring budget and serialized storytelling made a better show.
Indeed. I recently switched to classic with 7, and with a few exceptions I prefer it over the Aero appearance. On XP, it was the first thing I did upon a new install. Even my father, who is the stereotypical older, not quite computer illiterate person runs XP with the classic theme.
The only things that I miss is how I cannot click on the icons the Alt-Tab task switcher displays and Aero peek.
I might have stuck with Aero if it could handle changing the window title bar size (making it smaller), but for whatever Microsoft reason it affects the notification area icons; they become annoyingly blurry.
Closer to two decades.... 128MB RAM machines would have been around at the launch of Windows 95.
Hardly. The first machine I ran Windows 95 on, circa 1996 was a Pentium 200 MMX with a whopping 32 MB of RAM. I have issues of Maximum PC from 2000 where most mid range systems were advertising 128 MB.
95 didn't run on DOS. It kind of used DOS as a bootloader, but used its own drivers and kernel once loaded.
This is not entirely accurate. In the early days of 9x there was still a considerable amount of DOS cruft running under the hood that Windows continued to use. Sound and optical drives frequently loaded drivers before Windows, and would not function without them.
An unfortunate effect from Microsoft's desire to maintain backwards compatibility with DOS and the way Windows handled V86 mode often left even more cruft loading in config.sys. Strangely, I have fond memories of struggling to optimize the pre-Windows environment to squeeze as much RAM and performance out of it while trying to maintain some semblance of stability. I think it was the challenge that made it fun.
Bethesda has treated PC gamers very well with the Fall Out and Elder Scrolls games.
If by "very well" you meant "released buggy games and a few patches that fixed a small percentage of those bugs, and then left it to the community of players to fix everything else" then yes, you are correct.
This mod is a joint effort to fix the vast amount of bugs currently existing in Oblivion v1.2.0.416, fixing over 2,200 bugs so far!
For another example, there was the Fallout 3 1.4 patch, issued three months after the previous patch, with folks complaining left and right about how buggy the game was (it would throw up an error on Windows when exiting the game... they couldn't even get their "quit program" routine to not crash!).
The patch does not actually fix any known bugs. The only new features are: - New achievements for The Pitt - Support for multiple add-ons (Gamers in Asia can now play Operation: Anchorage, unlike before).
Releasing API's to allow fan made mods to their games are one of the reasons I enjoy playing them.
They don't release an API, or you misunderstand what an API is - they release a "construction kit". Some might think I am splitting hairs, but they have never put out anything that lets you communicate directly with the internals of the game engine, a "programming interface" if you will.
Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Bethesda's games - Skyrim on day 1, Fallout (and New Vegas, different people I know) collector's editions (PC and XBOX). But I am also not blind to how poor their code seems to be and how little they really support and fix their games. When equipping an item causes the game to crash, something is seriously wrong (Morrowind did that to me all the time).
We know that many companies find the GPL so unacceptable that they won't use Linux for that reason. In this regard we might become a small BSD-licensed Linux replacement.
We think NetBSD is a mature stable system. Linux is not nearly as well written and is changing all the time.
If AT&T had not brought suit (or better yet, bought BSDI), Linux would never have become popular at all and BSD would dominate the world.
Many companies refuse to make major investments in modifying Linux to suit their needs if they have to give the code to their competitors.
Clearly some companies are willing to do this but I also know of quite a few companies that refuse to use Linux for this reason.
No, Linux "succeeded" because BSD was frozen out of the market by AT&T at a crucial time. That's just dumb luck.
Yes, I think Linux succeeded against BSD, which was a stable mature system at the time simply because BSDI got stuck in a lawsuit and was effectively stopped for several years.
I have seen reports on market share in the embedded world. Linux isn't winning it at all. About 30% have no operating system and another 30% have a home-brew operating system.
Last, but certainly not least,
Finaly what are your dream for MINIX? Take over the world? I am too modest for that.
Is he trolling nerds the world around, or is he seriously still this butthurt over Linux's success?
Tanenbaum's a troll, and Minix is irrelevant. Nothing to see here, move along.
Of course, I already own both that and Firefly on DVD, so the whole streaming thing is moot for me.
As it is, I am not a fan of streaming media from the net. My ISP (Rogers) charges a not inconsiderable amount for a, in my opinion, pitiable bandwidth quota. Their overage charge is even worse. I would rather purchase the physical media and watch whenever I please, as often as I please.
8) Release source as Public Domain, where anyone can do anything with it. Granted, it's not as popular as it was 30 years ago, but there's still a lot of interesting PD code floating around the net.
Yes, LOTRO has made considerably more money after going FtP. I'm a lifetime VIP ($200 at launch), and they've also treated us well, to boot. We get 500 "Turbine Points" for free every month, access to all original launch content and a bunch of other in-game benefits. We do still have to buy the expansions when they come out, but that's fine by me. My son also plays, and I've not begrudged spending a couple bucks here and there to grant him access to additional content and features. Considering his short attention span when it comes to gaming, LOTRO has certainly earned its money (he bounces back and forth between Xbox, LOTRO and Starcraft 2... and soon he'll be throwing Diablo 3 into the mix).
For some games (read: bad games) though, it is a death knell. I've been dabbling with DC Universe Online, which went free earlier this month, and I don't see it lasting very long unless they do something innovative with it. It's fun to fly around (or superspeed), and the writing is fairly well done, but it's still stupidly buggy almost a year after launch, and there've been various other issues since it switched to FtP.
I haven't tried Champions yet, and found City of Heroes to be a lacklustre throwback to EverQuest style gameplay. There's still a ton of other games out there, and I'll surely try them eventually just because. I am looking forward to The Old Republic, though. Hopefully it'll be good, and worth my $15 a month.
Is your intelligence so low that you don't understand that if you can't get the source, it's not Open Source? Google created an entirely not-Open-Source version of Android, and here you are to pat them on the back for it. It's almost like you're some kind of shill, but I suspect you're actually just stupid. You have so much invested in the idea that Google is the Good Witch that you refuse to accept that they have lied, engaged in fraud, et cetera. This isn't Oz and this isn't some naked titty wannabe wicca party, this is the real world, and there is no Good Witch. Just another corporation.
Is your intelligence so low that you cannot understand that Google plainly said "NO HONEYCOMB SOURCE" and gave their reason for it? Google is not the only company developing "open source" but not always/entirely releasing the code (VirtualBox comes to mind with their extension pack).
It's almost like you're some one of those morons who calls anyone who points out the idiocy of you and your ilk a shill because you've really got nothing else, but I suspect you're just stupid.
I don't claim to be a genius, but apparently my comprehension skills are superior. Nor am I a shill, and you have no idea what I think of Google beyond my repeating what they said without embellishment or praise. How you got an insightful rating for such a moronic comment is, however, beyond my comprehension. Further proof of the average Slashdot reader's declining intelligence. Perhaps I can score higher on my posts if I throw in baseless ignorant remarks, call people shills, and just to fit in with today's crowd add "lol i troll u".
I can't believe Slashdots readers are really as stupid as the last few posts about the Android source are making them appear to be.
Google was clear that Honeycomb's code was not going to be released because they did not want people attempting to shoehorn what was effectively a tablet OS on to mobile phones. End of story.
Google has also been clear that the ICS code will be released after the devices that are shipping with it roll out, which none have yet. Also end of story.
Really, has the intelligence of the average Slashdot reader fallen so low that these two simplistic statements have been rendered incomprehensible?
Slashdot Mirror
And think of the possibilities! No more working out just to get that desert out of your system. Just calculate pi and that pie is gone.
Or... just stop eating dirt. Most of us managed that by age 5 or so. Though I do sometimes miss a good old mud pie.
s/desert/dessert/
Your kids agree with you probably because you're a good parent. Kudos to you on that; nothing wrong with it. No brainwashing required; you feel strongly on the subject, they subconsciously want to please you, and so they agree. Also, I never said kids won't like older movies; I like the classics too that I watched as a kid. The pattern of behavior I described doesn't fully realize itself until after one hits 30, I notice.
Possibly you are correct. My kids are rather unusual, very independent. I believe it comes from being raised by a single parent, and grandparents. However, there are lots of things they disagree with me on. No matter how hard I try, I cannot convince them to sit through Wrath of Khan in its entirety. And believe you me, I've tried.
It's not nostalgia, either. It's a genuine like of the stuff you saw as a young adult. Even your one-off example of Aliens actually proves my point - I was young when that came out and I think it was awesome (saw it before I saw Alien, too). But I was old enough already to read reviews, and I distinctly remember the reviews of the day - some of them, at least - complaining that they'd taken the masterfully suspenseful Alien, done a lame sequel to it and filled it with action sequences so that you wouldn't notice what a bad movie it was. And who wrote those reviews? Old people that enjoyed Alien a whole lot when it came out.
Battle: Los Angeles is bad, of course. But then again, there's a shitload of bad movies from the late 70's and early 80's that you and I have already forgotten. A tangential point to my original is that every decade produces some great movies and a ton of bad ones, and the older you are, the more likely you are to pooh-pooh even the good movies from the current decade.
You know, the more I consider it, and consider all the post '00 films I've watched, the more I'm agreeing with you. It's easy to forget the old crappy movies when there's so many new crappy movies to bitch about, especially when todays crappy movies are generally just a rehash of stuff I saw years ago.
I still stand by my point that there is less character development in current films, though. There are numerous films from years gone by that, no matter how terrible I perceived them to be, still managed some semblance of character development. Today's films seem devoid of it, save a few rare films. Then again, my awareness may be limited. I'm a typical nerd with very few interests in genres outside the typical nerd domain, so this apparent lack may just be a condition of the films I tend to enjoy.
I would also like to express my pleasure at how you treated my post as a respectful discussion, rather than just calling me names and whatnot. It's a rarity these days and I appreciate such adult discussion. That and being told I'm probably a good parent is nice. I get so little praise these days, I'll take it anywhere - even from strangers on the 'net. :)
I would love to see something like "Game of Thrones" in a movie theatre setting. But I wouldn't want the kids there.
Why not just watch the television series then?
"A Song of Ice and Fire", as the series is called ("A Game of Thrones" was the title of the first book and the aforementioned television series) is just too big to fit into an hour and a half film. Even a trilogy wouldn't work, as there's more to the story than just the first novel.
My partner and I can canoodle without offending anyone else.
Why on earth would you want to be hugging your business partner? Could make for an awkward time at the office.
Deliberately being obtuse I know, I just find it curious that people feel the need to use gender neutral pronouns in an age where most people don't give two hoots who others shag.
I agree with you completely. Love who you love and all that. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of folks out there who aren't so open minded.
I hate it when I look past the summary for insightful commentary on what Ebert said, and all I see for the next 1000 comments is old people complaining how movies were much better when they were in their childhood and possibly early 20's.
Of course, what decade that was totally depends on just HOW old the person commenting is. People never seem to realize that one universal constant - while you're growing up, you watch a bunch of stuff (and listen to a bunch of music), and some of it you think is pretty awesome. Then you get old, and you complain EVERYTHING now sucks. It's been true for decades, if not centuries.
I would just like to share that me (36) and my children (16 and 12) agree that about 75% of movies made after 2000 are absolute garbage compared to films from previous years. While there are standouts that are well scripted, well acted, and well filmed, they are few and far between.
My problem stems not from nostalgia for the good old days, mostly, but rather from the lack of characterization in modern films. Take, for example, the film Aliens. I can remember the characters, rattle off their names and personality quirks, and remember exactly how each one died.
Now take Battle: Los Angeles. I watched it. I can't remember a damned thing about it or any of the characters, except that the butt-chin guy who played Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight was in it. His little squad of characters may as well have been named Disposable Latin Guy, Disposable Black Guy, Disposable White Guy. Completely unmemorable.
Many films come across this way to me now. It's all in the effects and the action, nothing to make the characters stand out at all. And if I don't care about the characters, then why care about the story?
And as I said, my kids agree with me on this - a rare occurance at best with my boys. Believe it or not, they came to their own conclusions on this, no brainwashing required.
I guess I have to ask the question, why do people always feel the need to upgrade the OS on their phones. What exactly does the new version of Android provide in the area of functionality that the current 2.3 build? I ask because my current Android 2.3 provides all business and personal needs that I currently require.
Speaking anecdotally, my SGS has issues turning wifi on, has hard locked on occasion, and doesn't have the best battery life. I've also replace TouchWiz with another launcher (but need to keep TW in order to use Kies) which duplicates the functionality of the stock ICS launcher.
I do not use the Samsung apps, nor do I use any of the crap my carrier (Bell Canada) puts on the phone. I rooted it specifically so I could remove all that garbage. A plain ICS on my SGS would eliminate the need for several apps that copy the style of the stock apps. Besides, I am the consumer, the device is a little over a year old (I bought it a few days after Bell launched the SGS), and it's what I want, dammit. I figure I'll eventually switch to CyanogenMod or another 3rd party ICS release once they iron out all the bugs. I believe I am past my warranty period anyway.
I'd mod you up had I the points. I abstained from our most recent election (I am Canadian) for this very same reason.
In politics there is rarely a lesser evil.
I picked up the 250 GB slim model just after Christmas this year for $199 CDN. No game bundle or other extras, but it was still $100 less than the normal price. I haven't seen the Xbox (with a hard drive, not the crappy 4 GB model) for a reduced price since, however.
Visual Studio on one monitor, Doctor Who on the other. I could code for hours / days like that. But we're out of Doctor Who...
Me too! Christmas special soon!
Though I am equally as likely to be watching old school Who, which I maintain was superior to new. I feel the shoestring budget and serialized storytelling made a better show.
Indeed. I recently switched to classic with 7, and with a few exceptions I prefer it over the Aero appearance. On XP, it was the first thing I did upon a new install. Even my father, who is the stereotypical older, not quite computer illiterate person runs XP with the classic theme.
The only things that I miss is how I cannot click on the icons the Alt-Tab task switcher displays and Aero peek.
I might have stuck with Aero if it could handle changing the window title bar size (making it smaller), but for whatever Microsoft reason it affects the notification area icons; they become annoyingly blurry.
I'll wait for the Asus Eee Pad Transformer Megatron, that'll be totally badass!
How long before Hasbro decides it's lawsuit time?
Closer to two decades.... 128MB RAM machines would have been around at the launch of Windows 95.
Hardly. The first machine I ran Windows 95 on, circa 1996 was a Pentium 200 MMX with a whopping 32 MB of RAM. I have issues of Maximum PC from 2000 where most mid range systems were advertising 128 MB.
95 didn't run on DOS. It kind of used DOS as a bootloader, but used its own drivers and kernel once loaded.
This is not entirely accurate. In the early days of 9x there was still a considerable amount of DOS cruft running under the hood that Windows continued to use. Sound and optical drives frequently loaded drivers before Windows, and would not function without them.
An unfortunate effect from Microsoft's desire to maintain backwards compatibility with DOS and the way Windows handled V86 mode often left even more cruft loading in config.sys. Strangely, I have fond memories of struggling to optimize the pre-Windows environment to squeeze as much RAM and performance out of it while trying to maintain some semblance of stability. I think it was the challenge that made it fun.
Bethesda has treated PC gamers very well with the Fall Out and Elder Scrolls games.
If by "very well" you meant "released buggy games and a few patches that fixed a small percentage of those bugs, and then left it to the community of players to fix everything else" then yes, you are correct.
For example, there is the Unofficial Oblivion Patch
This mod is a joint effort to fix the vast amount of bugs currently existing in Oblivion v1.2.0.416, fixing over 2,200 bugs so far!
For another example, there was the Fallout 3 1.4 patch, issued three months after the previous patch, with folks complaining left and right about how buggy the game was (it would throw up an error on Windows when exiting the game... they couldn't even get their "quit program" routine to not crash!).
The patch does not actually fix any known bugs. The only new features are:
- New achievements for The Pitt
- Support for multiple add-ons (Gamers in Asia can now play Operation: Anchorage, unlike before).
Releasing API's to allow fan made mods to their games are one of the reasons I enjoy playing them.
They don't release an API, or you misunderstand what an API is - they release a "construction kit". Some might think I am splitting hairs, but they have never put out anything that lets you communicate directly with the internals of the game engine, a "programming interface" if you will.
Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Bethesda's games - Skyrim on day 1, Fallout (and New Vegas, different people I know) collector's editions (PC and XBOX). But I am also not blind to how poor their code seems to be and how little they really support and fix their games. When equipping an item causes the game to crash, something is seriously wrong (Morrowind did that to me all the time).
We know that many companies find the GPL so unacceptable that they won't use Linux for that reason. In this regard we might become a small BSD-licensed Linux replacement.
We think NetBSD is a mature stable system. Linux is not nearly as well written and is changing all the time.
If AT&T had not brought suit (or better yet, bought BSDI), Linux would never have become popular at all and BSD would dominate the world.
Many companies refuse to make major investments in modifying Linux to suit their needs if they have to give the code to their competitors.
Clearly some companies are willing to do this but I also know of quite a few companies that refuse to use Linux for this reason.
No, Linux "succeeded" because BSD was frozen out of the market by AT&T at a crucial time. That's just dumb luck.
Yes, I think Linux succeeded against BSD, which was a stable mature system at the time simply because BSDI got stuck in a lawsuit and was effectively stopped for several years.
I have seen reports on market share in the embedded world. Linux isn't winning it at all. About 30% have no operating system and another 30% have a home-brew operating system.
Last, but certainly not least,
Finaly what are your dream for MINIX? Take over the world?
I am too modest for that.
Is he trolling nerds the world around, or is he seriously still this butthurt over Linux's success?
Tanenbaum's a troll, and Minix is irrelevant. Nothing to see here, move along.
Farscape was better.
Of course, I already own both that and Firefly on DVD, so the whole streaming thing is moot for me.
As it is, I am not a fan of streaming media from the net. My ISP (Rogers) charges a not inconsiderable amount for a, in my opinion, pitiable bandwidth quota. Their overage charge is even worse. I would rather purchase the physical media and watch whenever I please, as often as I please.
I was waiting for the inevitable chair throwing reference and you sir did not disappoint.
You missed one.
8) Release source as Public Domain, where anyone can do anything with it. Granted, it's not as popular as it was 30 years ago, but there's still a lot of interesting PD code floating around the net.
Yes, LOTRO has made considerably more money after going FtP. I'm a lifetime VIP ($200 at launch), and they've also treated us well, to boot. We get 500 "Turbine Points" for free every month, access to all original launch content and a bunch of other in-game benefits. We do still have to buy the expansions when they come out, but that's fine by me. My son also plays, and I've not begrudged spending a couple bucks here and there to grant him access to additional content and features. Considering his short attention span when it comes to gaming, LOTRO has certainly earned its money (he bounces back and forth between Xbox, LOTRO and Starcraft 2... and soon he'll be throwing Diablo 3 into the mix).
For some games (read: bad games) though, it is a death knell. I've been dabbling with DC Universe Online, which went free earlier this month, and I don't see it lasting very long unless they do something innovative with it. It's fun to fly around (or superspeed), and the writing is fairly well done, but it's still stupidly buggy almost a year after launch, and there've been various other issues since it switched to FtP.
I haven't tried Champions yet, and found City of Heroes to be a lacklustre throwback to EverQuest style gameplay. There's still a ton of other games out there, and I'll surely try them eventually just because. I am looking forward to The Old Republic, though. Hopefully it'll be good, and worth my $15 a month.
Add me too!
(Thank you parent for the wonderfully nostalgic flashback to 1990's Usenet, intentional or otherwise).
A communications disruption can mean only one thing...
invasion.
I don't know what's worse, that I knew what you were quoting, or that you dared quote such a horrible piece of [expletive deleted] on Slashdot.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOUR FACE?
How about we just use James Earl Jones for everything? I think I'd be fine with that...
Only if he does it as Darth Vader. That'd be sweet.
Yeah, Daniel Tosh had the kid on Tosh.0 (along with Michael Winslow). He eventually admitted it was staged.
Is your intelligence so low that you don't understand that if you can't get the source, it's not Open Source? Google created an entirely not-Open-Source version of Android, and here you are to pat them on the back for it. It's almost like you're some kind of shill, but I suspect you're actually just stupid. You have so much invested in the idea that Google is the Good Witch that you refuse to accept that they have lied, engaged in fraud, et cetera. This isn't Oz and this isn't some naked titty wannabe wicca party, this is the real world, and there is no Good Witch. Just another corporation.
Is your intelligence so low that you cannot understand that Google plainly said "NO HONEYCOMB SOURCE" and gave their reason for it? Google is not the only company developing "open source" but not always/entirely releasing the code (VirtualBox comes to mind with their extension pack).
It's almost like you're some one of those morons who calls anyone who points out the idiocy of you and your ilk a shill because you've really got nothing else, but I suspect you're just stupid.
I don't claim to be a genius, but apparently my comprehension skills are superior. Nor am I a shill, and you have no idea what I think of Google beyond my repeating what they said without embellishment or praise. How you got an insightful rating for such a moronic comment is, however, beyond my comprehension. Further proof of the average Slashdot reader's declining intelligence. Perhaps I can score higher on my posts if I throw in baseless ignorant remarks, call people shills, and just to fit in with today's crowd add "lol i troll u".
I can't believe Slashdots readers are really as stupid as the last few posts about the Android source are making them appear to be.
Google was clear that Honeycomb's code was not going to be released because they did not want people attempting to shoehorn what was effectively a tablet OS on to mobile phones. End of story.
Google has also been clear that the ICS code will be released after the devices that are shipping with it roll out, which none have yet. Also end of story.
Really, has the intelligence of the average Slashdot reader fallen so low that these two simplistic statements have been rendered incomprehensible?