Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Safari the only browser that passes the Acid2 standards test? Odd that they would put the effort in to make their browser standards compliant, then not bother making something like Photocasting standards compliant. Was this intentional, or did they just nerf it up?
But because Nintendo is making the controller, it's automatically going to reshape the gaming landscape. Such claims need to be taken with a rather large grain of salt - Virtual Boy, anyone?
...is information regarding the number of parents who are actually paying attention to the things their children are seeing on the net, rather than just using the computer as a babysitter. Why oh why does government insist on developing ways to help parents be lazier and less involved in their children's activities? Unfortunately in cases such as this, government refuses to put the blame where it belongs - on the stupid parents - because doing so does not help gather votes. Helping people be lazy, however, apparently does.
If they really want something worth buying, how about redesigning the typical television remote control? Granted, you could just use a wireless mouse to control things, but why not copy Nintendo's Revolution controller? Move the remote, and the on screen cursor follows. But it's also a typical universal remote, so you've got two devices in one. Might do a lot to bring non-techies into the HTPC world.
And it's a potential use for the Revolution controller that I actually like!
Google is not a software or hardware company
on
"St Lawrence of Google"
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Google is an advertising company marketing themselves through cool free software. They've found a niche, and it's a good one. The idea that they're going to start producing operating systems or desktops is asinine...although I'm sure they will continue to donate to innovative initiatives like MIT's $200 computer, as doing so is also an excellent form of advertising and allows them actively to "not be evil."
First, let me clarify that I said better writing, not good writing...Gamespot, on average, makes me cringe about three or four times less per article than Gamepro.
Oh, it was easy enough to figure out how to do most things basic users would try to do...it was just a bit intimidating. Getting someone to use something isn't about making it easy as much as it's making it look like something they might be able to figure out.
I can see them possibly having a database matching the IP of my television to the IP of my home computer...so in theory, if I Google a product, they'll be able to match those IP numbers. But let's say I don't Google the price of a new radio or whatever. Let's say I go straight to the manufacturer's website, or I go to Amazon or Best Buy. Google won't know what I'm looking for...unless they somehow cut a deal with those other companies, perhaps offering cheaper advertisements in exchange for information about which IP numbers were browsing which products.
On a happier note...does this mean that if I write myself a little script to Google Jennifer Garner every half hour or so, that I will only get commercials featuring Jennifer Garner? Cuz that would totally kick ass.
Intrigued with the broo-haha surrounding WMFs, I did a search for them on my machine. The only WMFs I found were Microsoft's clip art. Which begs the question: is there anyone out there who isn't Microsoft who commonly uses this file type?
Let's say there's an article about, oh, I don't know, cookies. At the end of that article, chances are there are links to the websites of a few cookie manufacturers. Why not start charging companies for the right to have links to their sites on article pages? Inobtrusive advertising. Sites that aren't used as a means of generating cash could still be linked for free, but there'd need to be some kind of screening process.
Why would I want to watch games when I can play them? Sure, I frequent sites like Gamespot to read about games, but usually only when I'm at work and thus have to settle for that weak semi-fix. On the rare occasion I'm not using the television to play games, sure, I'll watch a show like X-Play - but the majority of my TV usage does not involve actually watching television, which I'm willing to bet is the case with most other gamers. That makes targeting the gamer demographic with an entire channel a bad business model. I enjoy X-Play, but given the choice between watching it and playing a game...the game is going to win 75% of the time.
What I meant by my question about "easier" perhaps should've been rephrased as "more recognizable." People expect a controller to behave in a certain way, and they're comfortable with that experience.
So they think this controller will help them expand out of the typical group of video game consumers? I can just see someone like my 50 year old mother sitting down in front of a Revolution. "Wait, I have to move my arm too? F*ck that! I only needed two buttons to play Dr. Mario." Any game company worth their salt realizes that accessibility and ease of use lies not in the hardware, but the software. If they want to attract new audiences, well...maybe they need to follow in the footsteps of games like Katamari. Simple concept, simple controls.
That fishing game idea was probably the first possible implementation of the controller I've heard of that I like, other than the obvious first person shooter implementation, so kudos for that. But I still think people have the idea of what a video game is so ingrained in their head that they'll be extremely reluctant to pick this up because they'll dismiss it as a gimmick.
I still don't see how the Revolution controller is more accessible and intuitive than an ordinary controller. You've got a whole new set of movements to learn on top of the existing stick/pad with several buttons layout. And accessible? What about people with limited arm movements? People are used to the way current controllers work; what exactly makes this one "easier?"
The publishing industry can't swoop down out of the ether to erase the words printed on a page, and the content itself is usually lightyears above the visual crap Hollywood has been pushing lately. Plus, it hurts the MPAA and television in the one place they actually care about: their wallets.
I (foolishly) purchased a stripped down educator's copy of Office when I bought my iBook a few months ago, and Word has all ready corrupted five documents, screwing the formatting and replacing the quotation marks with funky looking i's. I used to run OpenOffice when I had a pc, and despite it's slow load times (which, really, who cares if you have to wait an extra second and a half), it was an excellent piece of software. Might be time to go through the trouble of installing X11...
So how smart is this software really? Do certain words trigger it to adjust a combined "opinion score" for a product or company?
If so, what's to stop a competitor from creating a series of blogs that say nothing but "I hate IBM's (insert new product here)" to make it appear as if it's received a negative response from consumers?
But this is not an iPod phone. This is a phone with iTunes - big difference. If they had made an iPod with phone capabilities, there's no way it would've flopped. Heck, I'd be stanind in line for it the day it came it out.
What is wrong with a company investing profits from one product in another product it produces? All they're doing is keeping alive a product they think might one day be successful but just needs a little more time.
...all Microsoft asks is for regulations requiring all states use their proprietary Office file formats. Massachusetts rebels, with the "Boston Office Party" dumping thousands of install discs into the harbor while disguised as Apple store employees.
Slashdot Mirror
...and wait until you've actually tried all three systems. That's the only way to know for sure which ones are any good.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Safari the only browser that passes the Acid2 standards test? Odd that they would put the effort in to make their browser standards compliant, then not bother making something like Photocasting standards compliant. Was this intentional, or did they just nerf it up?
But because Nintendo is making the controller, it's automatically going to reshape the gaming landscape. Such claims need to be taken with a rather large grain of salt - Virtual Boy, anyone?
...is information regarding the number of parents who are actually paying attention to the things their children are seeing on the net, rather than just using the computer as a babysitter. Why oh why does government insist on developing ways to help parents be lazier and less involved in their children's activities? Unfortunately in cases such as this, government refuses to put the blame where it belongs - on the stupid parents - because doing so does not help gather votes. Helping people be lazy, however, apparently does.
Nothing washes away a day of Windows being stupid and users being oblivious like one part gin plus one part tonic. Lime optional.
Cases? Wow.
If they really want something worth buying, how about redesigning the typical television remote control? Granted, you could just use a wireless mouse to control things, but why not copy Nintendo's Revolution controller? Move the remote, and the on screen cursor follows. But it's also a typical universal remote, so you've got two devices in one. Might do a lot to bring non-techies into the HTPC world.
And it's a potential use for the Revolution controller that I actually like!
Google is an advertising company marketing themselves through cool free software. They've found a niche, and it's a good one. The idea that they're going to start producing operating systems or desktops is asinine...although I'm sure they will continue to donate to innovative initiatives like MIT's $200 computer, as doing so is also an excellent form of advertising and allows them actively to "not be evil."
First, let me clarify that I said better writing, not good writing...Gamespot, on average, makes me cringe about three or four times less per article than Gamepro.
Oh, it was easy enough to figure out how to do most things basic users would try to do...it was just a bit intimidating. Getting someone to use something isn't about making it easy as much as it's making it look like something they might be able to figure out.
I can see them possibly having a database matching the IP of my television to the IP of my home computer...so in theory, if I Google a product, they'll be able to match those IP numbers. But let's say I don't Google the price of a new radio or whatever. Let's say I go straight to the manufacturer's website, or I go to Amazon or Best Buy. Google won't know what I'm looking for...unless they somehow cut a deal with those other companies, perhaps offering cheaper advertisements in exchange for information about which IP numbers were browsing which products. On a happier note...does this mean that if I write myself a little script to Google Jennifer Garner every half hour or so, that I will only get commercials featuring Jennifer Garner? Cuz that would totally kick ass.
Intrigued with the broo-haha surrounding WMFs, I did a search for them on my machine. The only WMFs I found were Microsoft's clip art. Which begs the question: is there anyone out there who isn't Microsoft who commonly uses this file type?
Let's say there's an article about, oh, I don't know, cookies. At the end of that article, chances are there are links to the websites of a few cookie manufacturers. Why not start charging companies for the right to have links to their sites on article pages? Inobtrusive advertising. Sites that aren't used as a means of generating cash could still be linked for free, but there'd need to be some kind of screening process.
Why would I want to watch games when I can play them? Sure, I frequent sites like Gamespot to read about games, but usually only when I'm at work and thus have to settle for that weak semi-fix. On the rare occasion I'm not using the television to play games, sure, I'll watch a show like X-Play - but the majority of my TV usage does not involve actually watching television, which I'm willing to bet is the case with most other gamers. That makes targeting the gamer demographic with an entire channel a bad business model. I enjoy X-Play, but given the choice between watching it and playing a game...the game is going to win 75% of the time.
What I meant by my question about "easier" perhaps should've been rephrased as "more recognizable." People expect a controller to behave in a certain way, and they're comfortable with that experience.
So they think this controller will help them expand out of the typical group of video game consumers? I can just see someone like my 50 year old mother sitting down in front of a Revolution. "Wait, I have to move my arm too? F*ck that! I only needed two buttons to play Dr. Mario." Any game company worth their salt realizes that accessibility and ease of use lies not in the hardware, but the software. If they want to attract new audiences, well...maybe they need to follow in the footsteps of games like Katamari. Simple concept, simple controls.
That fishing game idea was probably the first possible implementation of the controller I've heard of that I like, other than the obvious first person shooter implementation, so kudos for that. But I still think people have the idea of what a video game is so ingrained in their head that they'll be extremely reluctant to pick this up because they'll dismiss it as a gimmick.
I still don't see how the Revolution controller is more accessible and intuitive than an ordinary controller. You've got a whole new set of movements to learn on top of the existing stick/pad with several buttons layout. And accessible? What about people with limited arm movements? People are used to the way current controllers work; what exactly makes this one "easier?"
The publishing industry can't swoop down out of the ether to erase the words printed on a page, and the content itself is usually lightyears above the visual crap Hollywood has been pushing lately. Plus, it hurts the MPAA and television in the one place they actually care about: their wallets.
Good job it wasn't 1% or we'd be back to the days of the Great Depression with music execs throwing themselves out of windows.
Methinks that might make a lot of people smile.
Where's the astronaut with the dousing rods?
Now that would be innovative.
I (foolishly) purchased a stripped down educator's copy of Office when I bought my iBook a few months ago, and Word has all ready corrupted five documents, screwing the formatting and replacing the quotation marks with funky looking i's. I used to run OpenOffice when I had a pc, and despite it's slow load times (which, really, who cares if you have to wait an extra second and a half), it was an excellent piece of software. Might be time to go through the trouble of installing X11...
So how smart is this software really? Do certain words trigger it to adjust a combined "opinion score" for a product or company? If so, what's to stop a competitor from creating a series of blogs that say nothing but "I hate IBM's (insert new product here)" to make it appear as if it's received a negative response from consumers?
But this is not an iPod phone. This is a phone with iTunes - big difference. If they had made an iPod with phone capabilities, there's no way it would've flopped. Heck, I'd be stanind in line for it the day it came it out.
What is wrong with a company investing profits from one product in another product it produces? All they're doing is keeping alive a product they think might one day be successful but just needs a little more time.
...all Microsoft asks is for regulations requiring all states use their proprietary Office file formats. Massachusetts rebels, with the "Boston Office Party" dumping thousands of install discs into the harbor while disguised as Apple store employees.
Slow down the speed of a Steve Ballmer-thrown chair.