Good point. Slashdot would be awesome if every good post was followed by 3 people posting just "hell yeah!".
Annoying sarcasm aside, there's a chance/. will implement this. Take it, Tagging FAQ:
We're excited about this, and see huge potential for this system. From user feedback on articles, to comment moderation, the system is really limited only by your participation, and our database hardware!
I recall that for Luigi's Mansion they (pretty sure Miyamoto) went as far as saying that it was made by their less experienced directors (about as close to saying "sorry for the shitty game" as you're ever going to get). That doesn't really excuse a game for sucking, but then again LM was actually all right.
All right, I don't have any answers for you, and I'm not even a programmer (outside of QBasic games), but I thought I'd share this idea with how a programming spell-checker could work. It seems too simple so there's probably flaws with it, or someone would have done it by now, but anyway:
First, as normal, a syntax checker looks for issues when you enter a new line. If it sees what should be a variable* name, a little icon appears next to it which means "new". The programmer seems the icon and is satisfied as this is, indeed, the first time they used the variable.
Also at this point, the computer adds the variable to a variable list
Ok, so on subsequent uses of the variable, the computer looks it up on the list, sees it there, and so doesn't display the "new" icon.
And of course, if you see the new icon when you've used the variable already, then you either made a spelling mistake now, or you did when you first made the variable. Either way, it's brought to your attention (assuming you remember using the variable before). If you clear the line with the "new" icon, it's removed from your variable list automatically.
*Variable is used in this example, there can be other lists for other stuff such as sub-routine, function, constant, etc.
Most people buying a computer will use it for the Internet (browsing, email) and maybe for creating documents and managing finances. Yes, they could do this on a 10 year old machine. The only reason to upgrade, then, is for the new UI or because their old computer broke. In either case, they aren't really losing anything. They're gaining more cycles in their new computer, and they're getting an OS that uses those cycles. If their tasks don't change, their CPU power needs (over what the OS requires) probably haven't changed, either.
When you say it this way, it brings up a somewhat obvious (and likely tired) point: hardware companies rely on Microsoft to add as much bloat to their OSs as possible. If you're only using a computer for browsing and documents, then with a small OS it would probably take less than $300 to buy the hardware required today.
But with as OSs add bloat, you need a bigger machine, even if none of the cycle-burning features are ever used. This ensures that the price of a modern, casual-user's CPU hovers where it is, as opposed to decreasing as it used to.
Hell, there's a way for Nintendo to sell Wiis; bundle with a keyboard and mouse, make/outsource an office suite channel that can handle MS formats, improve the browser, and they could sell them as basic computers. Keep in mind that the Wii is not being sold at a loss.
The 360 could do the same thing of course, and then MS could sell MS Office on it. Does it even have a browser yet? But their hardware is actually more powerful like a modern computer (which is why it sells at a loss), so it's not as good an example. But still, for people who own a 360 anyway, it's a shame MS doesn't provide the option of buy a keyboard/mouse/MS Office/browser package.
Of course there's probably some complications I haven't considered, but am I crazy to think there would be some money in making a very small, user-friendly OS with an office suite, bundling it with cheap-to-manufacture hardware, and advertising it as a low-price computer for casual users?
Assuming no conspiracies that would work against such a thing, of course. Because MS and hardware companies wouldn't be engaged in that.
Oh God, it's a spelling nazi (sort of) attacking a joke post full of spelling errors.
This is why/.ers live in their parents basement. It's a survival instinct. Otherwise we'd jump out of a window and kill ourselves after reading posts like this.
Compounding this, most/. editors and readers hate Sony (with good reason), so any time they fuck up in any department (except maybe games), you can expect to see it on the front page.
So in effect they outsourced their battery production to Sony. They're still responsible for the final product and they have chosen to continue using Sony batteries after several have exploded.
I don't recall people having much patience for companies whose games used particularly bad DRM made by other companies, I think this falls in the same category. Similarly, If x outsources their tech support to shitty company y (to reduce costs), people will still blame x for providing shitty tech support.
That said, the vast majority of these Dell and Macbook batteries have not exploded.
Not to mention that you'll have to download that movie to avoid the inconvenient FBI Warnings / anti-downloading PSAs.
In the PS1's case (and probably newer consoles), anti-piracy technology made new games not work on chipped consoles. Oh, unless they were burned.
Maybe these companies should give up on anti-piracy. It seems that most people are decent enough to pay for something that's worth the price of admission. I can't imagine that all of these measures have made enough money from would-be pirates to justify money lost from would-be consumers turned off by DRM, etc. Not to mention the money they had to spend to set up all that shit. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that they'd make more money and have a better brand image from simply chilling out and trying to sell worthy products.
There is no evidence for any sort of god. There never has been, there never will be.
I think it's amazing how you think that anything that can't be proven can't possibly be real. I don't have any witty comparisons or retorts to add. I just had to comment how amazing I thought that was.
Hmm, how about this:
Make your vote, then the selection you made is printed on a paper ballot. The paper ballot drops to a window where you can make sure it's right, then drops down into a bin with a bunch of other ballots.
Now how this would be as efficient than just voting with a paper ballot in the first place, I couldn't tell you.
I have to agree with that. Even better, establish better world trade policies and whatnot so more people live in tolerable conditions. Less people would want to be terrorists in the first place if first-world countries (and particularly the U.S.) were a little more benevolent. I'm not even talking about drastic "bleeding-heart" stuff, just something a little more reasonable than the current system.
Right now, the economy basically exploits people in poor countries. That can't be changed overnight, we rely on the cheap labour, but this can be gradually improved over time in exactly the way that it hasn't. For example, the money currently being spent on blowing up random civilians might be spent on some sort of subsidy to encourage tolerable work conditions at home and abroad? There's probably better examples than that, but you get the idea. Less money on bombs and more on necessities would probably discourage a few young men from deciding that terrorism is the way to go.
So between not paying attention to terrorists and making the world a better place, terrorism will slowly die without a single bullet being fired. That said, I'm not against torturing any terrorists they do come across, after they get they fair trial of course. Because if they didn't then more people would be encouraged to take up terrorism.
Well passenger screening is still needed if you want to try to avoid the violence altogether. But since anyone can pull out a knife or gun essentially anywhere outside of an airport, I'm still inclined to agree with your sentiments.
I dare you to try to make an OS that isn't strongly integrated with / dependent on an internet browser. It's as hard as making a toaster that can't wash dishes, but can somehow still toast bread.
First I think that that's a pretty cool variation of chess.
Second, I kind of agree that two in any direction would result in a fairly powerful attack. At least it sounds like it would be powerful to me and AC; I haven't really tried it at all. Maybe they can't attack until revealed? Or make it so you can only attack like a King?
Slashdot Mirror
A little piece of me just died.
Maybe I could sue the lawyers for undue hardship!
Annoying sarcasm aside, there's a chance
dada21 casts JOKE at Anonymous Coward
Woosh! The attack misses.
Headcase88 taunts from afar
Headcase88 equips flame shield
That's a common misconception. They actually make the hard drive run faster.
And if there's one thing that R&D isn't good for, it's improving upon an imperfection.
You must be new here.
I recall that for Luigi's Mansion they (pretty sure Miyamoto) went as far as saying that it was made by their less experienced directors (about as close to saying "sorry for the shitty game" as you're ever going to get). That doesn't really excuse a game for sucking, but then again LM was actually all right.
Parent is joking with GP but for those who are curious:
Red = long wavelength, low frequency
Blue = short wavelength, high frequency
All right, I don't have any answers for you, and I'm not even a programmer (outside of QBasic games), but I thought I'd share this idea with how a programming spell-checker could work. It seems too simple so there's probably flaws with it, or someone would have done it by now, but anyway:
First, as normal, a syntax checker looks for issues when you enter a new line. If it sees what should be a variable* name, a little icon appears next to it which means "new". The programmer seems the icon and is satisfied as this is, indeed, the first time they used the variable.
Also at this point, the computer adds the variable to a variable list
Ok, so on subsequent uses of the variable, the computer looks it up on the list, sees it there, and so doesn't display the "new" icon.
And of course, if you see the new icon when you've used the variable already, then you either made a spelling mistake now, or you did when you first made the variable. Either way, it's brought to your attention (assuming you remember using the variable before). If you clear the line with the "new" icon, it's removed from your variable list automatically.
*Variable is used in this example, there can be other lists for other stuff such as sub-routine, function, constant, etc.
But with as OSs add bloat, you need a bigger machine, even if none of the cycle-burning features are ever used. This ensures that the price of a modern, casual-user's CPU hovers where it is, as opposed to decreasing as it used to.
Hell, there's a way for Nintendo to sell Wiis; bundle with a keyboard and mouse, make/outsource an office suite channel that can handle MS formats, improve the browser, and they could sell them as basic computers. Keep in mind that the Wii is not being sold at a loss.
The 360 could do the same thing of course, and then MS could sell MS Office on it. Does it even have a browser yet? But their hardware is actually more powerful like a modern computer (which is why it sells at a loss), so it's not as good an example. But still, for people who own a 360 anyway, it's a shame MS doesn't provide the option of buy a keyboard/mouse/MS Office/browser package.
Of course there's probably some complications I haven't considered, but am I crazy to think there would be some money in making a very small, user-friendly OS with an office suite, bundling it with cheap-to-manufacture hardware, and advertising it as a low-price computer for casual users?
Assuming no conspiracies that would work against such a thing, of course. Because MS and hardware companies wouldn't be engaged in that.
But the title bars in Vista are made of realistic-looking frosted glass. How the hell can one be productive without that?!
Oh God, it's a spelling nazi (sort of) attacking a joke post full of spelling errors. This is why /.ers live in their parents basement. It's a survival instinct. Otherwise we'd jump out of a window and kill ourselves after reading posts like this.
Compounding this, most /. editors and readers hate Sony (with good reason), so any time they fuck up in any department (except maybe games), you can expect to see it on the front page.
So in effect they outsourced their battery production to Sony. They're still responsible for the final product and they have chosen to continue using Sony batteries after several have exploded.
I don't recall people having much patience for companies whose games used particularly bad DRM made by other companies, I think this falls in the same category. Similarly, If x outsources their tech support to shitty company y (to reduce costs), people will still blame x for providing shitty tech support.
That said, the vast majority of these Dell and Macbook batteries have not exploded.
"So yeah, the battery is powered by sugar"
"Cool. *spills Coke all over the battery* Oops, sorry about that, but hey *chuckle* I just powered up your battery!"
"Um, no, you broke it."
Not to mention that you'll have to download that movie to avoid the inconvenient FBI Warnings / anti-downloading PSAs.
In the PS1's case (and probably newer consoles), anti-piracy technology made new games not work on chipped consoles. Oh, unless they were burned.
Maybe these companies should give up on anti-piracy. It seems that most people are decent enough to pay for something that's worth the price of admission. I can't imagine that all of these measures have made enough money from would-be pirates to justify money lost from would-be consumers turned off by DRM, etc. Not to mention the money they had to spend to set up all that shit. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that they'd make more money and have a better brand image from simply chilling out and trying to sell worthy products.
By your logic, it's also a fact that God does exist (spare me your paradoxes, they won't hold up in intergalactic science court).
I don't know why people always criticize Windows stability. I've never had a
Blatant inaccuracies notwithstanding, vgchartz.com says there is a split, between 360 and Wii.
Hmm, how about this: Make your vote, then the selection you made is printed on a paper ballot. The paper ballot drops to a window where you can make sure it's right, then drops down into a bin with a bunch of other ballots.
Now how this would be as efficient than just voting with a paper ballot in the first place, I couldn't tell you.
I have to agree with that. Even better, establish better world trade policies and whatnot so more people live in tolerable conditions. Less people would want to be terrorists in the first place if first-world countries (and particularly the U.S.) were a little more benevolent. I'm not even talking about drastic "bleeding-heart" stuff, just something a little more reasonable than the current system.
Right now, the economy basically exploits people in poor countries. That can't be changed overnight, we rely on the cheap labour, but this can be gradually improved over time in exactly the way that it hasn't. For example, the money currently being spent on blowing up random civilians might be spent on some sort of subsidy to encourage tolerable work conditions at home and abroad? There's probably better examples than that, but you get the idea. Less money on bombs and more on necessities would probably discourage a few young men from deciding that terrorism is the way to go.
So between not paying attention to terrorists and making the world a better place, terrorism will slowly die without a single bullet being fired. That said, I'm not against torturing any terrorists they do come across, after they get they fair trial of course. Because if they didn't then more people would be encouraged to take up terrorism.
My $0.02.
Well passenger screening is still needed if you want to try to avoid the violence altogether. But since anyone can pull out a knife or gun essentially anywhere outside of an airport, I'm still inclined to agree with your sentiments.
I dare you to try to make an OS that isn't strongly integrated with / dependent on an internet browser. It's as hard as making a toaster that can't wash dishes, but can somehow still toast bread.
First I think that that's a pretty cool variation of chess.
Second, I kind of agree that two in any direction would result in a fairly powerful attack. At least it sounds like it would be powerful to me and AC; I haven't really tried it at all. Maybe they can't attack until revealed? Or make it so you can only attack like a King?