No shit; everyone assumes it's a time traveler from 2010 with 2010 technology just because the footage was discovered recently.
It's obviously a hearing aid, but from the perspective of "it might be a time traveler," for all we know it's someone from the year 30,000 with a radio that transmits and receives time-traveling transmissions.
Seems perfectly legitimate to me. In fact, I'm about to sue them because instead of returning the HTTP commands I'm lending to them, they are processing them and responding with web pages! My supply of HTTP commands is running low, and these thieves need to be brought to justice.
It's funny in Apple's case, because their mobile OS has been so successful that now it looks like they want to make their desktop OS more like it, instead of the other way around.
Publishers of blockbuster multiplayer games have completely stopped listening to their fans when it comes to stuff like removing dedicated servers or LAN play, because they no that no one is going to want to be the one that didn't get the awesome new game on launch day and lose out on playing during the hot couple of months after the game has released, putting themselves behind their friends in skill/experience levels.
"Boycott" has been redefined to mean "idle complaint" - sure, there are some people that will refuse to buy, but most "boycotters" end up reading all the reviews over and over again, trying to stifle their excitement and convince themselves it's not all that great. Then, they decide it's a good time to rediscover their old game library, twiddling through the first few minutes of some old games they have just to be frustrated and disappointed that the magic is gone. They hear from a friend or two who wonders why they aren't playing Multiplayer Awesomeness 3. They listen to the stories about how you can pilot jetskis with machine guns and fly planes into each other and stare longingly at screenshots, pretending that the game is unfolding in front of them. They run a few benchmarks, confirming that yes, their PC is more than capable of running the game and damn I bet it would look so awesome on my machine. By the next morning, they're wondering why LAN play or dedicated servers are really that big of a deal anyways when the game is so awesome, and by lunchtime the game's almost done installing.
KeePass, or any password organizer, is great for any kind of key/value information: credit card numbers, software license keys, driver's license number, combination lock passwords, etc.
Because the open source community would make an store that looks like this. They know that most people using Windows or OSX wouldn't use it until it looked something more like this, and that just isn't going to happen.
If it's a secret and needs to remain so, you don't share it with your 20 closest Facebook friends on the Internet
You are absolutely right, but I'd go further and say "If it's a secret and needs to remain so, you don't put it on Facebook." Even if you don't share it with anyone, Facebook is a public website run by a company that makes absolutely no guarantees and enters into no contracts with you to ensure that your information is private or protected. You have no reasonable expectation that Facebook will keep your secret safe.
Putting something on Facebook is the equivalent of leaving it lying on the sidewalk. Setting privacy controls is like leaving a note that says "please don't touch or take this."
The twisty d-pad is cute, but largely strikes me as a way of getting around Nintendo's killer patent on the golden standard. I can't imagine who would want to use the disc, except for perhaps fighting games.
Play&Charge sucks, I hate having to mess around with dongly wires and other crap to use my controller just get rechargeable batteries.
The odds of that happening in 30 days are much slimmer.
The odds of it ever happening with software that won't ever define a major part of your life or career in the way that something like Photoshop can are about nil.
Worry about us more than you worry about the people who aren't interested in paying for your product.
I believe that they worry about you as least as much as they people who aren't interested in paying. If they give up the fight, essentially making the game easily available for free, they are worried that there will be a lot of people who have no problem paying for the game that also suddenly have no problem not paying for it, because it's just as convenient.
Despite what most people here say about the convenience of piracy, people who don't care about technology and don't know how to torrent stuff find it much more convenient to buy a box from a store shelf, put a disc in the slot and accept the DRM that comes with the game.
No, it's a feature, just like if you were to have a button on the outside of the phone that destroys the phone if you press it. Here, attempting to mod the phone is "pressing the button".
The company is free to put in such a feature. It's up to you as the consumer not to buy the product if you don't like it.
But, what real functionality have we've received as a result of the bloat?
From a developer's point of view, the availability of more resources has improved our ability to abstract stuff away and work with high-level concepts.
From a usability point of view, the availability of more resources has allows for caching of lots of stuff in memory for faster response, and working with lots of data at once. We kind of take it for granted now that we can throw around playlists with zillions of songs or albums with thousands of photos with ease.
Re:The Internet as mass appetites
on
The End of Free
·
· Score: 1
Nail on the head. 20 or 30 years ago, "information" meant something on a banker's spreadsheet or in a physicist's journal. Now it's literally everything that doesn't have a physical presence - music, TV shows, video games, your "social graph," stored preferences, conversations and connections with your friends. Why wasn't it "information" before, but now it is? Because we now have the ability to store it, transfer it and use it almost whenever and wherever we want for little cost in both time and money, regardless of size or format. Many businesses don't just run on information - the information *is* their business.
Information may want to be free, but the people who generate, organize and present that information want to be paid.
And most people don't need or want it. That's the point of all of this. I'm in the same boat as you, as I love my desktop rig, but for a lot of people there's no point in giving up mobility for attributes they don't care about.
Desktops will always live on for the people that need them, but the market is discovering that a lot of people don't, including many people that really thought they did.
I understand the original gripe about not allowing punctuation in a name. However, the author of the linked article goes overboard.
Everything relies on assumptions, especially computer systems. The blog author assumed I could read English and had a browser that could navigate hyperlinks (to anyone who wants to respond "well you didn't have to read it" - well, no one has to do anything. The author of the original linked article didn't have to use the system that wouldn't take his name.). It's only an assumption that my telephone has digits 0-9 on the keypad. It's only an assumption that my computer monitor is rectangular. It's only an assumption that I live on Earth.
Any design of any system relies on assumptions. We try to pick good ones. "Names don't have any punctuation" is probably a bad assumption, but "People have names" is probably OK. Of course, it's all a value judgement, but if you find that "people have names" to be too broad of an assumption, have fun designing the rest of your system. I hope the author hasn't designed any systems that assume I use base-10 numerals, or that I don't use script that flows from the bottom to the top of a page on oddly-numbered dates.
This just in... stupid people aren't happy when they realize they're stupid. Full story at 11.
Emotion: 100%, Awesomeness: 0%
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
The simple explanation to the ending is, in my mind, the right one. "Sideways" was the afterlife - there's no sense of time, and the characters all eventually "awaken," remember their real lives, and reunite to take the final journey. Everything that happened on the island was science-fictiony, but it was real. The bomb didn't trigger the flash-sideways, it was always there and we just hadn't seen it yet. The bomb didn't even explode in the traditional sense, it just triggered a time-travelling incident (which, again, really happened - it's a sci-fi show).
The ending hit an emotional high note - if you had anything invested in the human drama of the characters at all, you're lying if you say that wasn't cathartic to see them all reunite in the afterlife, dressed to the nines, rejoicing and ready to take the final step. However, the good-vs-evil storyline, even though it only really appeared this season, ended up living fully on the island, and so we got a lame little tussle and an ignominious kick-off-the-cliff of the unnamed and unexplained "bad guy." With a few tweaks throughout the season and a rewrite of the last half of the finale, it could have been epic.
When not-Locke said "you're too late" before being killed, and then Locke woke up in the hospital after surgery and said "... it worked," I thought "Oh hell yes, this is it. He never had to *physically* escape - he's transplanted his malevolence into John's body in the other reality." If they had put a little more writing into the purpose of the island and making Mr. Black the devil/evil incarnate, they could have moved the "this is the afterlife" reveal and a few other events to the middle of the finale, and we would have had a hell of a final hour with the special-effects-laden showdown the fans were denied: the devil has escaped his prison and is just this side of breaking into heaven, and Jack, who could have retained his protectorship into the afterlife to chase him, has to stop him. We get to see Mr. Black shape-shift and retake his original body, see John re-inherit his body, Mr. Black becomes the smoke on-camera, big battle with Jack, the other characters still have their emotional reuniting and then are there with dear old dad and even Jacob to cheer Jack on. Jack wins and is horribly wounded, but hey, it's the afterlife, and they still all get to go to heaven.
What is this obsession with striking it rich? Why do we look down upon people making a "reasonable" amount from their efforts because other entities with questionable business ethics make more money?
It's not about striking it rich, it's about making the companies who have struck it rich with less good-natured business models consider this method of distribution, or something like it, as an option.
I may be generalizing a bit much, but it appears that the "pay what you want" model has engendered a lot of goodwill. People like it, and want more game producers to use it. We're lamenting the fact that that's not going to happen when it's celebrating $1 million as a milestone when that's what the big publishers make in a fraction of the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Apple 1976-2010
I'm going to have to ask you to step back into the Free Speech Zone before making any more comments like that.
No shit; everyone assumes it's a time traveler from 2010 with 2010 technology just because the footage was discovered recently.
It's obviously a hearing aid, but from the perspective of "it might be a time traveler," for all we know it's someone from the year 30,000 with a radio that transmits and receives time-traveling transmissions.
Seems perfectly legitimate to me. In fact, I'm about to sue them because instead of returning the HTTP commands I'm lending to them, they are processing them and responding with web pages! My supply of HTTP commands is running low, and these thieves need to be brought to justice.
It's funny in Apple's case, because their mobile OS has been so successful that now it looks like they want to make their desktop OS more like it, instead of the other way around.
This is becoming an internet tradition
Publishers of blockbuster multiplayer games have completely stopped listening to their fans when it comes to stuff like removing dedicated servers or LAN play, because they no that no one is going to want to be the one that didn't get the awesome new game on launch day and lose out on playing during the hot couple of months after the game has released, putting themselves behind their friends in skill/experience levels.
"Boycott" has been redefined to mean "idle complaint" - sure, there are some people that will refuse to buy, but most "boycotters" end up reading all the reviews over and over again, trying to stifle their excitement and convince themselves it's not all that great. Then, they decide it's a good time to rediscover their old game library, twiddling through the first few minutes of some old games they have just to be frustrated and disappointed that the magic is gone. They hear from a friend or two who wonders why they aren't playing Multiplayer Awesomeness 3. They listen to the stories about how you can pilot jetskis with machine guns and fly planes into each other and stare longingly at screenshots, pretending that the game is unfolding in front of them. They run a few benchmarks, confirming that yes, their PC is more than capable of running the game and damn I bet it would look so awesome on my machine. By the next morning, they're wondering why LAN play or dedicated servers are really that big of a deal anyways when the game is so awesome, and by lunchtime the game's almost done installing.
KeePass, or any password organizer, is great for any kind of key/value information: credit card numbers, software license keys, driver's license number, combination lock passwords, etc.
Because the open source community would make an store that looks like this. They know that most people using Windows or OSX wouldn't use it until it looked something more like this, and that just isn't going to happen.
I remember when "FUD" didn't mean anything, and we used subtle and precise words to explain things rather than catchphrases. :-)
Keyframes, interpolation, rerendering, not building physical models - what you are describing is not stop-motion animation.
If it's a secret and needs to remain so, you don't share it with your 20 closest Facebook friends on the Internet
You are absolutely right, but I'd go further and say "If it's a secret and needs to remain so, you don't put it on Facebook." Even if you don't share it with anyone, Facebook is a public website run by a company that makes absolutely no guarantees and enters into no contracts with you to ensure that your information is private or protected. You have no reasonable expectation that Facebook will keep your secret safe.
Putting something on Facebook is the equivalent of leaving it lying on the sidewalk. Setting privacy controls is like leaving a note that says "please don't touch or take this."
Getting rid of the colors on the buttons seems baseless. I can't tell you how many times...
Me: "Press A" ::moving thumbs, squinting:: "... huh?"
Her:
Me: "Green."
The twisty d-pad is cute, but largely strikes me as a way of getting around Nintendo's killer patent on the golden standard. I can't imagine who would want to use the disc, except for perhaps fighting games.
Play&Charge sucks, I hate having to mess around with dongly wires and other crap to use my controller just get rechargeable batteries.
The odds of that happening in 30 days are much slimmer.
The odds of it ever happening with software that won't ever define a major part of your life or career in the way that something like Photoshop can are about nil.
That would be... a lot of people.
Worry about us more than you worry about the people who aren't interested in paying for your product.
I believe that they worry about you as least as much as they people who aren't interested in paying. If they give up the fight, essentially making the game easily available for free, they are worried that there will be a lot of people who have no problem paying for the game that also suddenly have no problem not paying for it, because it's just as convenient.
Despite what most people here say about the convenience of piracy, people who don't care about technology and don't know how to torrent stuff find it much more convenient to buy a box from a store shelf, put a disc in the slot and accept the DRM that comes with the game.
No, it's a feature, just like if you were to have a button on the outside of the phone that destroys the phone if you press it. Here, attempting to mod the phone is "pressing the button".
The company is free to put in such a feature. It's up to you as the consumer not to buy the product if you don't like it.
Kinectimals
But, what real functionality have we've received as a result of the bloat?
From a developer's point of view, the availability of more resources has improved our ability to abstract stuff away and work with high-level concepts.
From a usability point of view, the availability of more resources has allows for caching of lots of stuff in memory for faster response, and working with lots of data at once. We kind of take it for granted now that we can throw around playlists with zillions of songs or albums with thousands of photos with ease.
Nail on the head. 20 or 30 years ago, "information" meant something on a banker's spreadsheet or in a physicist's journal. Now it's literally everything that doesn't have a physical presence - music, TV shows, video games, your "social graph," stored preferences, conversations and connections with your friends. Why wasn't it "information" before, but now it is? Because we now have the ability to store it, transfer it and use it almost whenever and wherever we want for little cost in both time and money, regardless of size or format. Many businesses don't just run on information - the information *is* their business.
Information may want to be free, but the people who generate, organize and present that information want to be paid.
And most people don't need or want it. That's the point of all of this. I'm in the same boat as you, as I love my desktop rig, but for a lot of people there's no point in giving up mobility for attributes they don't care about.
Desktops will always live on for the people that need them, but the market is discovering that a lot of people don't, including many people that really thought they did.
I understand the original gripe about not allowing punctuation in a name. However, the author of the linked article goes overboard.
Everything relies on assumptions, especially computer systems. The blog author assumed I could read English and had a browser that could navigate hyperlinks (to anyone who wants to respond "well you didn't have to read it" - well, no one has to do anything. The author of the original linked article didn't have to use the system that wouldn't take his name.). It's only an assumption that my telephone has digits 0-9 on the keypad. It's only an assumption that my computer monitor is rectangular. It's only an assumption that I live on Earth.
Any design of any system relies on assumptions. We try to pick good ones. "Names don't have any punctuation" is probably a bad assumption, but "People have names" is probably OK. Of course, it's all a value judgement, but if you find that "people have names" to be too broad of an assumption, have fun designing the rest of your system. I hope the author hasn't designed any systems that assume I use base-10 numerals, or that I don't use script that flows from the bottom to the top of a page on oddly-numbered dates.
A lot of things happen in police encounters and sometimes a camera can have a chilling effect on the proceedings.
Funny, coming from a cop. A camera's "chilling effect on proceedings" pales in comparison to a police officer's.
This just in... stupid people aren't happy when they realize they're stupid. Full story at 11.
The simple explanation to the ending is, in my mind, the right one. "Sideways" was the afterlife - there's no sense of time, and the characters all eventually "awaken," remember their real lives, and reunite to take the final journey. Everything that happened on the island was science-fictiony, but it was real. The bomb didn't trigger the flash-sideways, it was always there and we just hadn't seen it yet. The bomb didn't even explode in the traditional sense, it just triggered a time-travelling incident (which, again, really happened - it's a sci-fi show).
The ending hit an emotional high note - if you had anything invested in the human drama of the characters at all, you're lying if you say that wasn't cathartic to see them all reunite in the afterlife, dressed to the nines, rejoicing and ready to take the final step. However, the good-vs-evil storyline, even though it only really appeared this season, ended up living fully on the island, and so we got a lame little tussle and an ignominious kick-off-the-cliff of the unnamed and unexplained "bad guy." With a few tweaks throughout the season and a rewrite of the last half of the finale, it could have been epic.
When not-Locke said "you're too late" before being killed, and then Locke woke up in the hospital after surgery and said "... it worked," I thought "Oh hell yes, this is it. He never had to *physically* escape - he's transplanted his malevolence into John's body in the other reality." If they had put a little more writing into the purpose of the island and making Mr. Black the devil/evil incarnate, they could have moved the "this is the afterlife" reveal and a few other events to the middle of the finale, and we would have had a hell of a final hour with the special-effects-laden showdown the fans were denied: the devil has escaped his prison and is just this side of breaking into heaven, and Jack, who could have retained his protectorship into the afterlife to chase him, has to stop him. We get to see Mr. Black shape-shift and retake his original body, see John re-inherit his body, Mr. Black becomes the smoke on-camera, big battle with Jack, the other characters still have their emotional reuniting and then are there with dear old dad and even Jacob to cheer Jack on. Jack wins and is horribly wounded, but hey, it's the afterlife, and they still all get to go to heaven.
What is this obsession with striking it rich? Why do we look down upon people making a "reasonable" amount from their efforts because other entities with questionable business ethics make more money?
It's not about striking it rich, it's about making the companies who have struck it rich with less good-natured business models consider this method of distribution, or something like it, as an option.
I may be generalizing a bit much, but it appears that the "pay what you want" model has engendered a lot of goodwill. People like it, and want more game producers to use it. We're lamenting the fact that that's not going to happen when it's celebrating $1 million as a milestone when that's what the big publishers make in a fraction of the time.