Readability doesn't charge publishers. How ignorant or desperate are you? They offer users the ability to change the layout of content they already have access to. Additionally, the biggest issue people have with what Apple are doing isn't the charge, it is the fact that it is mandatory.
I've been really impressed by the new iPad. I'd snap one up in a second if I didn't dislike Apple's controlling nature and the fanboyism so prevalent among its customers.
Most competitive drinking games we played/created worked in the same way. It seemed to make more sense to use the booze to handicap than make the difference in ability even more pronounced.
That said most bar drinking games I can think of 'punish' the loser.
The BBC has just started a series called 'Outcasts'. I found the first two episodes enjoyable. I didn't expect much though as the Beebs other SciFi is Doctor Who which I can't stand.
Other than that not much new Sci-Fi comes to mind.
My general approach to life is to assume that any and all corporations will screw me over for a buck
Mine is that any and all corporations are staffed, managed and owned by people. They also make money from people. If all corporations are evil it can only be because groups of people are incapable of being good, or there is an active disadvantage to being 'good'. Of course that's entirely ridiculous, which partially explains it's insightful moderation.
There are plenty of companies out there that will actively refuse to screw customers over because they believe it for ideological reasons or because they believe it will make them more profitable in the long run. Tarring all companies with the same brush is just as naive and counter-productive as doing the same with people, women, Americans, politicians, Christians etc.
Or you'll have to get a bit more imaginative at finding solutions like anyone currently working with the Far East and Australasia does. It's not that I don't care about the inconvience this would cause you, I just don't care about it anymore than the inconvience the current system causes others. I find it very difficult to care about whether it happens or not, both options have merit and will suit different people and geographical parts of the UK better/worse.
For example, could you possibly leave work an hour earlier, and then put in an hour at home later on if you need to talk to people on the West Coast? If you're already having the conference calls at the end of the day you're not actioning it until the following day anyway? (I'm sure you're smart enough to work it out for yourself, and I hope, if this does happen, you can find a solution that works for you).
Furthermore, if we limit the discussion to non-retail employees
Which we would do why? It makes about as much sense as suggesting we limit the discussion to the number of African-American females (none), unless you're suggesting that Apple's retail employees work for free or apple should/could drop out of retail entirely.
Very similiar to my own situation. I've finally accumulated enough shit and earn enough to fear losing it more than buying content.
It doesn't hurt that music (the thing I pirated most) is easy to get through Spotify and other equivalents, and TV series are available cheaply on DVD quite quickly.
There's always been a trend among online games to encourage recruitment of new players. Social networks like Facebook have just allowed this to become even more invasive.
I've de-friended a few, less close, contacts because of messages from games etc (before FB sorted it out). Had to tell closer friends that I'd have to de-link them if they didn't get more selective about messages they send out (most of whom were ignorant of what they were doing). Yesterday I removed a friend because I got a notification that he answered a question about me on some Facebook application. I didn't join this app, and a friend who is willing to give details about me out to a third party so casually isn't someone I am willing to share a link with on this type of system.
All of the above isn't Facebook's fault, or even the game makers. It is the users who allow all this, who send all the invites, who accept or tolerate those invites etc. Sadly, as most users aren't going to change, we are reliant on FB etc to implement changes to protect us.
Finally, before this turns into another thread of endless "I don't use Lamebook" etc posts. No one gives a shit. No one. Bothering to post to say you don't use the tools makes people assume you're a social pariah. The people who don't use facebook, and aren't, don't need to shout about the decision whenever there is an opportunity.
Dark Knight still had to pull its punches in order to sneak through as a 12A. It was also a controversial decision by the BBFC. The director wasn't suggesting that it was violence or swearing that were the issue, he was saying that he couldn't make it as dark / scary as he wanted. He's right, exactly because if he made it as dark as he wanted to then the certification board would never give it the rating the studio wanted.
The fact you are using a phone released 4 years ago shows that you're neither the market Nokia is looking for, and that they've already lost.
Most Apple and Android users will have gone through 2-3 handsets since 2007. If Nokia hasn't been able to motivate its users to upgrade it's hardly shocking that they are in a hole.
That must explain why no one got shot prior to the 1980s! Soldiers were going to shoot people anyway, the army may have found that soldiers were able better cope with shooting real people if a simulation allowed them to become accustomed to some proportion of this situation. It's nothing new. Now if they could show it made soldiers keener to shoot real people, you might have something vaguely informative to add.
I've got a study for you. Look around you at the 20-35 year olds in the US, Britain, Europe etc are they all emotionally out of control psychos with a fetish for violence? Has society gotten more dangerous, or in general is violent crime falling?
Those 20-35 year olds grew up with comparitively easy access to violent films, porn, all computer games. I'd seen half the Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday 13th series before I was supposed to be in the cinema seeing Saving Private Ryan. I had mastered running people over in GTA before I was big enough to ride an adult bicycle. This wasn't unusual (though I hate basing statements on anecdotals) and I'm confident of that because almost everyone within 5-6 years of me who I know remotely well has the same story to tell. I can name the exceptions easily, because they are so rare.
I'm not suggesting that the state should be sitting kids down to play Dead Space as soon as they can hold a controller. I do however think this obsession with 'protecting' children from things that aren't dangerous to begin with is crazy. My parents used to go to the local to drink in their mid-teens, I had to go to the bars that were pretty lax on ID at that age, the current mid-teens end up drinking in the street, at house parties or in parks. We've regulated against something that wasn't a problem (teenagers drinkingin moderation in a safe enviroment) and created a problem in the process.
It's a waste of time, it's a waste of money and it makes things worse.
Bollocks. You aren't part of anonymous simply because you think a certain thought, or share a certain belief. If you act under that monikor, alone or as part of a group, then you (probably) are. You weren't acting as part of anonymous when you decided you disliked scientolofy, you were when you took part in a group action against scientology.
Anonymous might be a nearly flat, and be less reliant on a command structure than most organisations. That doesn't stop it being an organisation, nor does it mean that there are not 'senior' members. Senior might be defined by people with the most ability and capability to influence the direction, rather than by centrally assigned authority, but again this doesn't stop it being true.
Even more ironic, is the fact that people cling to the idea of a self-organising collective because they are part of it and don't know any better. A low-level dealer who buys drugs off of someone who works for a big time criminal won't know it. A terrorist working for a small cell, within a larger organisation may not know anything about the organisation beyond the nearest 3-4 members.
The iPad is most innovative product of 2010 in the same way that The Beatles becoming available on iTunes "Was just another day... you'll never forget". That is, only if you're fanatiscism for Apple has left you incapable of relative comparison.
iPad's are great hardware, a great platform and host some great software. They're still the premium tablet (imo, though I won't be getting one). The fact it isn't very innovative isn't actually a bad thing.
When I first heard of OnLive I thought the concept of a rent-a-game solution which removed the need for a decent pc or console was a great idea. Then I actually read about it, found out that the games had to be bought, the 'console' had to be bought, and then I had to pay a subscription to keep going. This completely killed any interest I had. The idea of 'buying' something then having to keep paying a subscription as well is still an absolute deal breaker to me.
I like playing the odd new game, but actually wouldn't care all that much about a rental service being a little behind 6-12 months. I've only just started Forza 3 (12+ months old), haven't opened Dragon Age: Origins, let alone actually bought Lego Batman, Batman: Arkham Asylum, any of ultimate alliance games. If a service like OnLive 'just works' tm, at £10pm I could see me moving away from buying physical media, and rent 'gaming' instead.
I've just had my xbox stolen. Save games gone. You might be someone who likes starting over instead of continueing your progress, that's fine, fortunately most other people can accept that others have different requirements. Personally, I didn't want to have to play the first 40 hours of New Vegas through as the same character, I had hoped to finish the game and then play it through again as a different build. I don't really want to do the first 15 hours of Forza 3 again, just to get back to driving the races I was already competing in.
In short, cloud game backups would be a definite selling point of a console to me.
You're not the centre of the universe. Either that's news to you, or you know that Netflix doesn't have to please everyone to do perfectly well;)
I doubt they'll drop the postal model anytime soon. You are correct when you say they still make money off you. If they need to increase the cost of the postal package in order to keep doing so, and perhaps encourage the change to streaming then I would expect that would make more sense than stopping entirely.
Wikileaks threatens to release private financial information, Slashdot applauses. Anon uses DOS attacks, and releases the personal details of people who downloaded adult material, Slashdot applauds. Bill Gates releases mosquitos in a room of wealthy people, in order to bring attention to one of the biggest health issues on earth, Slashdot decries it. There's nothing quite like group think for encouraging hypocrisy.
Or possibly that they value the protection of privacy enough to see that it doesn't cease to apply just because they don't like someone.
I wouldn't support an organisation that shared my private details, I don't believe anyone who feels the same, while being happy to see it happen to other people, can claim to be anything but a hypocrite.
The post certainly fits with the contradicting feelings I have on this issue. I have found the issue even more pronounced with some of the decisions in Fallout 3 & Fallout: New Vegas. I love the comparative level of choice the games present, but rarely end up taking too much advantage of it.
To give a spoiler based example from Fallout 3. I worked to get a snobby hotel to accept a bunch of Ghouls as residents. I avoided requests to kill of the Ghouls, to help the Ghouls break in instead and negotiated their admittance. Next time I visit the Ghouls had murdered the original residents. Obviously this wasn't the outcome I had intended, and my desire to go back and alter my decision nearly got the better of me. I still admire Bethesda for putting all those decisions, and the potentially unexpected consequences in there. It was a well crafted kick in the balls showing me that I was playing god and got it wrong.
And remember that most average people think they aren't average. The odds of you being abnormally specially are pretty slim.
I don't replace my own break discs on my car. It doesn't mean that I want some car maker to make the process impossible. Helping users make good decisions, and even providing limitations people can opt out of are fine. Making it impossible to do something with your property, not so much.
I think they plan to start charging a subscription if they can become popular. It is the only way I can see them staying profitable in the long run, unless they simply start limiting games and saying "You've played that enough, you have to buy something else now."
What I find really odd is that I was interested in oneLive when I thought it was a subscription service. Then I lost interest when it turned into subscription + buying games at effectively full price.
Maybe the market is small, but personally I find the idea of paying a subscription to game rental service quite appealing. Having instant access would be a nice benefit of a one live style system. Sure I wouldn't own the games, but that is the point of renting so if the price is right I'm fine with that.
I'm actually quite surprised that password quality is as good as this article makes out. For my own shame, I'm a CS graduate with plenty of experience and awareness of how poor password use can be a risk.... I still used the same password almost anywhere until around 2 weeks ago. I don't know why, beyond sheer laziness and prioritising convenience over security. The password I used is secure (no real words, includes numbers etc) but that's no protection if any site I use it at is compromised.
I have now begun to append 3 standard passwords (one for high risk sites (banks etc), one for medium risk (email), one for untrustworthy sites) with a site specific ending. I know this is still some way from perfect, but it gives me the ability to recall passwords easily, while making it harder for people to exploit one security breach to attack my other accounts.
Example:
Base Password "Password1234"
Append with all the vowels in the site name.
Slashdot password would thus be: "Password1234aoo"
There is still a risk that someone who targets me specifically and has my password from a compromised site of the same tier could work out other passwords quite easily. This is a risk I'm not sufficiently uncomfortable with at the moment, though 2 factor authentication probably wouldn't be a bad idea.
Load sharing between groups of large companies could be one potential counter-tactic. I'm not a network expert, so I'm not even going to try and elaborate on the concept, however I doubt it's beyond the wit of man to implement.
Slashdot Mirror
Readability doesn't charge publishers. How ignorant or desperate are you? They offer users the ability to change the layout of content they already have access to. Additionally, the biggest issue people have with what Apple are doing isn't the charge, it is the fact that it is mandatory.
I've been really impressed by the new iPad. I'd snap one up in a second if I didn't dislike Apple's controlling nature and the fanboyism so prevalent among its customers.
Most competitive drinking games we played/created worked in the same way. It seemed to make more sense to use the booze to handicap than make the difference in ability even more pronounced.
That said most bar drinking games I can think of 'punish' the loser.
The BBC has just started a series called 'Outcasts'. I found the first two episodes enjoyable. I didn't expect much though as the Beebs other SciFi is Doctor Who which I can't stand.
Other than that not much new Sci-Fi comes to mind.
Mine is that any and all corporations are staffed, managed and owned by people. They also make money from people. If all corporations are evil it can only be because groups of people are incapable of being good, or there is an active disadvantage to being 'good'. Of course that's entirely ridiculous, which partially explains it's insightful moderation.
There are plenty of companies out there that will actively refuse to screw customers over because they believe it for ideological reasons or because they believe it will make them more profitable in the long run. Tarring all companies with the same brush is just as naive and counter-productive as doing the same with people, women, Americans, politicians, Christians etc.
Or you'll have to get a bit more imaginative at finding solutions like anyone currently working with the Far East and Australasia does. It's not that I don't care about the inconvience this would cause you, I just don't care about it anymore than the inconvience the current system causes others. I find it very difficult to care about whether it happens or not, both options have merit and will suit different people and geographical parts of the UK better/worse.
For example, could you possibly leave work an hour earlier, and then put in an hour at home later on if you need to talk to people on the West Coast? If you're already having the conference calls at the end of the day you're not actioning it until the following day anyway? (I'm sure you're smart enough to work it out for yourself, and I hope, if this does happen, you can find a solution that works for you).
Which we would do why? It makes about as much sense as suggesting we limit the discussion to the number of African-American females (none), unless you're suggesting that Apple's retail employees work for free or apple should/could drop out of retail entirely.
Very similiar to my own situation. I've finally accumulated enough shit and earn enough to fear losing it more than buying content.
It doesn't hurt that music (the thing I pirated most) is easy to get through Spotify and other equivalents, and TV series are available cheaply on DVD quite quickly.
There's always been a trend among online games to encourage recruitment of new players. Social networks like Facebook have just allowed this to become even more invasive.
I've de-friended a few, less close, contacts because of messages from games etc (before FB sorted it out). Had to tell closer friends that I'd have to de-link them if they didn't get more selective about messages they send out (most of whom were ignorant of what they were doing). Yesterday I removed a friend because I got a notification that he answered a question about me on some Facebook application. I didn't join this app, and a friend who is willing to give details about me out to a third party so casually isn't someone I am willing to share a link with on this type of system.
All of the above isn't Facebook's fault, or even the game makers. It is the users who allow all this, who send all the invites, who accept or tolerate those invites etc. Sadly, as most users aren't going to change, we are reliant on FB etc to implement changes to protect us.
Finally, before this turns into another thread of endless "I don't use Lamebook" etc posts. No one gives a shit. No one. Bothering to post to say you don't use the tools makes people assume you're a social pariah. The people who don't use facebook, and aren't, don't need to shout about the decision whenever there is an opportunity.
Dark Knight still had to pull its punches in order to sneak through as a 12A. It was also a controversial decision by the BBFC. The director wasn't suggesting that it was violence or swearing that were the issue, he was saying that he couldn't make it as dark / scary as he wanted. He's right, exactly because if he made it as dark as he wanted to then the certification board would never give it the rating the studio wanted.
The fact you are using a phone released 4 years ago shows that you're neither the market Nokia is looking for, and that they've already lost.
Most Apple and Android users will have gone through 2-3 handsets since 2007. If Nokia hasn't been able to motivate its users to upgrade it's hardly shocking that they are in a hole.
That must explain why no one got shot prior to the 1980s! Soldiers were going to shoot people anyway, the army may have found that soldiers were able better cope with shooting real people if a simulation allowed them to become accustomed to some proportion of this situation. It's nothing new. Now if they could show it made soldiers keener to shoot real people, you might have something vaguely informative to add.
I've got a study for you. Look around you at the 20-35 year olds in the US, Britain, Europe etc are they all emotionally out of control psychos with a fetish for violence? Has society gotten more dangerous, or in general is violent crime falling?
Those 20-35 year olds grew up with comparitively easy access to violent films, porn, all computer games. I'd seen half the Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday 13th series before I was supposed to be in the cinema seeing Saving Private Ryan. I had mastered running people over in GTA before I was big enough to ride an adult bicycle. This wasn't unusual (though I hate basing statements on anecdotals) and I'm confident of that because almost everyone within 5-6 years of me who I know remotely well has the same story to tell. I can name the exceptions easily, because they are so rare.
I'm not suggesting that the state should be sitting kids down to play Dead Space as soon as they can hold a controller. I do however think this obsession with 'protecting' children from things that aren't dangerous to begin with is crazy. My parents used to go to the local to drink in their mid-teens, I had to go to the bars that were pretty lax on ID at that age, the current mid-teens end up drinking in the street, at house parties or in parks. We've regulated against something that wasn't a problem (teenagers drinkingin moderation in a safe enviroment) and created a problem in the process.
It's a waste of time, it's a waste of money and it makes things worse.
Bollocks. You aren't part of anonymous simply because you think a certain thought, or share a certain belief. If you act under that monikor, alone or as part of a group, then you (probably) are. You weren't acting as part of anonymous when you decided you disliked scientolofy, you were when you took part in a group action against scientology.
Anonymous might be a nearly flat, and be less reliant on a command structure than most organisations. That doesn't stop it being an organisation, nor does it mean that there are not 'senior' members. Senior might be defined by people with the most ability and capability to influence the direction, rather than by centrally assigned authority, but again this doesn't stop it being true.
Even more ironic, is the fact that people cling to the idea of a self-organising collective because they are part of it and don't know any better. A low-level dealer who buys drugs off of someone who works for a big time criminal won't know it. A terrorist working for a small cell, within a larger organisation may not know anything about the organisation beyond the nearest 3-4 members.
The iPad is most innovative product of 2010 in the same way that The Beatles becoming available on iTunes "Was just another day... you'll never forget". That is, only if you're fanatiscism for Apple has left you incapable of relative comparison.
iPad's are great hardware, a great platform and host some great software. They're still the premium tablet (imo, though I won't be getting one). The fact it isn't very innovative isn't actually a bad thing.
When I first heard of OnLive I thought the concept of a rent-a-game solution which removed the need for a decent pc or console was a great idea. Then I actually read about it, found out that the games had to be bought, the 'console' had to be bought, and then I had to pay a subscription to keep going. This completely killed any interest I had. The idea of 'buying' something then having to keep paying a subscription as well is still an absolute deal breaker to me.
I like playing the odd new game, but actually wouldn't care all that much about a rental service being a little behind 6-12 months. I've only just started Forza 3 (12+ months old), haven't opened Dragon Age: Origins, let alone actually bought Lego Batman, Batman: Arkham Asylum, any of ultimate alliance games. If a service like OnLive 'just works' tm, at £10pm I could see me moving away from buying physical media, and rent 'gaming' instead.
I've just had my xbox stolen. Save games gone. You might be someone who likes starting over instead of continueing your progress, that's fine, fortunately most other people can accept that others have different requirements. Personally, I didn't want to have to play the first 40 hours of New Vegas through as the same character, I had hoped to finish the game and then play it through again as a different build. I don't really want to do the first 15 hours of Forza 3 again, just to get back to driving the races I was already competing in.
In short, cloud game backups would be a definite selling point of a console to me.
You're not the centre of the universe. Either that's news to you, or you know that Netflix doesn't have to please everyone to do perfectly well ;)
I doubt they'll drop the postal model anytime soon. You are correct when you say they still make money off you. If they need to increase the cost of the postal package in order to keep doing so, and perhaps encourage the change to streaming then I would expect that would make more sense than stopping entirely.
Wikileaks threatens to release private financial information, Slashdot applauses. Anon uses DOS attacks, and releases the personal details of people who downloaded adult material, Slashdot applauds. Bill Gates releases mosquitos in a room of wealthy people, in order to bring attention to one of the biggest health issues on earth, Slashdot decries it. There's nothing quite like group think for encouraging hypocrisy.
Or possibly that they value the protection of privacy enough to see that it doesn't cease to apply just because they don't like someone.
I wouldn't support an organisation that shared my private details, I don't believe anyone who feels the same, while being happy to see it happen to other people, can claim to be anything but a hypocrite.
The post certainly fits with the contradicting feelings I have on this issue. I have found the issue even more pronounced with some of the decisions in Fallout 3 & Fallout: New Vegas. I love the comparative level of choice the games present, but rarely end up taking too much advantage of it.
To give a spoiler based example from Fallout 3. I worked to get a snobby hotel to accept a bunch of Ghouls as residents. I avoided requests to kill of the Ghouls, to help the Ghouls break in instead and negotiated their admittance. Next time I visit the Ghouls had murdered the original residents. Obviously this wasn't the outcome I had intended, and my desire to go back and alter my decision nearly got the better of me. I still admire Bethesda for putting all those decisions, and the potentially unexpected consequences in there. It was a well crafted kick in the balls showing me that I was playing god and got it wrong.
And remember that most average people think they aren't average. The odds of you being abnormally specially are pretty slim.
I don't replace my own break discs on my car. It doesn't mean that I want some car maker to make the process impossible. Helping users make good decisions, and even providing limitations people can opt out of are fine. Making it impossible to do something with your property, not so much.
What I find really odd is that I was interested in oneLive when I thought it was a subscription service. Then I lost interest when it turned into subscription + buying games at effectively full price.
Maybe the market is small, but personally I find the idea of paying a subscription to game rental service quite appealing. Having instant access would be a nice benefit of a one live style system. Sure I wouldn't own the games, but that is the point of renting so if the price is right I'm fine with that.
I'm actually quite surprised that password quality is as good as this article makes out. For my own shame, I'm a CS graduate with plenty of experience and awareness of how poor password use can be a risk.... I still used the same password almost anywhere until around 2 weeks ago. I don't know why, beyond sheer laziness and prioritising convenience over security. The password I used is secure (no real words, includes numbers etc) but that's no protection if any site I use it at is compromised.
I have now begun to append 3 standard passwords (one for high risk sites (banks etc), one for medium risk (email), one for untrustworthy sites) with a site specific ending. I know this is still some way from perfect, but it gives me the ability to recall passwords easily, while making it harder for people to exploit one security breach to attack my other accounts.
Example:
Base Password "Password1234"
Append with all the vowels in the site name.
Slashdot password would thus be: "Password1234aoo"
There is still a risk that someone who targets me specifically and has my password from a compromised site of the same tier could work out other passwords quite easily. This is a risk I'm not sufficiently uncomfortable with at the moment, though 2 factor authentication probably wouldn't be a bad idea.
Load sharing between groups of large companies could be one potential counter-tactic. I'm not a network expert, so I'm not even going to try and elaborate on the concept, however I doubt it's beyond the wit of man to implement.