It's entirely a shame that LotRO is doing well, in my opinion. What I saw of the game was shallow, unoriginal and downright lame. Not even to mention how much a disgrace to Tolkien it is (because we all know that epic battles involve targeting random mobs, pressing your ranged attack then the hotbar keys). Turbine goes and makes a GOOD game, and everyone ignores it for the trite WoW/Everquest clone garbage.
Way to ignore the fact that this is a public Wi-Fi access point, and not an "unconfigured" one. If the shops don't want non-customers to use their kit, they either need to secure it, or deal with the consequences. Charging someone with up to 50 years in prison for using an unsecured, public network is absurd. Murderers, rapists, etc., are not even subject to that severity of sentencing. Your entire position is absurd and invalid.
You, and these Blue Sky whatever idiots, are forgetting that the technology for copy protection specifically has to be "effective" to be protected by the DMCA. Now, it may come down to the fact that the defense will have no expert testimony, but if they did it would be a pretty safe bet that they could get JS protection thrown out because of this reason (it's *NEVER* been effective, as anyone that's ever circumvented those things knows, it's entirely trivial). Now, IANAL, but with even a fairly slack-jawed judge and a basic expert to explain things, I think this could be shown to be absurd. However, it most likely will end up creating the precedent that the DMCA's actual wording doesn't matter, and even ineffective DRM schemes will be protected fully.
Yeah, except there isn't a point in trying to explain that to someone that thinks similarities to mythological stories (the so-called "Bible") denote the end of existence.
I suppose you're a lawyer then? If Stanford is legally required to comply with any wishes of the RIAA, why is it that other universities have REFUSED to comply. Sounds like BS to me.
While I can see why you'd say that, I can't agree. Stanford aren't doing their students any favors by bowing to the whims of the RIAA based on their false/non-existent evidence. Until the RIAA actually proves it has a case, and can reliably track exactly who used what IP on what machine, they have no basis to be giving out legal threats, and therefore Stanford should ignore them, not charge their students absurd fees and pander to the RIAA. This is no better than if Stanford were giving the RIAA lists of random students with a free pass to harass them. This is only a hair's breadth short of Stanford suing their own students based on non-evidence (and it's been demonstrated that the RIAA has none, and their experts are full of shit, though the courts aren't equipped to handle technical cases, which is why nothing is being done to stop their illegal racketeering). The only thing Stanford is teaching by these actions is that they can be bullied into doing anything that random private companies want.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to de-rank Stanford because of this. If they're willing to harass their own students based on the whims of a private company, it's a short shot to doing more than just harass. Stanford (like others that seem to be more aware and responsible) has the clout to completely ignore the RIAA (as other universities have done), but instead it chooses to 1) harass students and 2) charge them arbitrary fees. All at the whims of a totally unrelated private company. Pretty dodgy if you ask me.
It's called "willful" ignorance for a reason. What the submitter wants and what his illiterate bosses want are totally disparate things. They want to be assured their decision is the right one, without having to learn anything or actually think at all, and want that assurance to come from someone that knows what they're doing so if anything goes wrong, guess who is at fault. He wants to give them the ability to make sound decisions, so when they FAIL to do so, he's not at fault. Instead of trying to help these idiots, he should be actively documenting their incompetence in order to ensure they can't continue making ignorant, uninformed decisions. The problem isn't with tech people, or the submitter in this case, it's with his (and other) lazy, incompetent imbecile people that are assumed to know how to make these decisions, but obviously do not. If they can't do their job, they should be fired, not coddled by the IT staff.
This is assuming that self-taught hackers can't self-teach themselves proper computer science, which is wholly untrue (referring not to your whole post Madirish, but rather the last sentence). Indeed, rare is the auto-didact that can read or write a (computer) scientific paper and apply its methods to their own work. I speak entirely from experience here, as someone that taught himself all knowledge of "how" to make things work, then realized something was missing, and went to the "why" with a fervor. Learning how to read and understand algorithms in their formal definitions is possibly the most useful skill I've ever taught myself.
Instead of overselling their bandwidth. They wouldn't have a problem otherwise. I have little sympathy for AT&T when they put themselves in this predicament with taxpayer funded networks, yet over bill said networks and then complain when they become saturated. Pathetic.
This is retarded. Claiming that software will be "clunky" or "sluggish" because hardware vendors decided to make an inefficient hardware design to cope with the fact that they can't or won't innovate is rather like saying that cars without engines don't run well because of the tires. Multi-core will have crappy software because multi-core is essentially a "hack" to get over the fact that silicon can't supply the density needed for high performance applications. Blaming software developers for the hardware industry's crappy hack is pretty pathetic. Instead of blaming software for their crappy designs, maybe they should work on moving away from silicon into spintronics or any of the other promising possible hardware advances.
Seems to me (and it becomes readily apparent from your well written post) that the problem isn't with Linux at all, but with stupid business users that don't even understand their own requirements well enough to express them in natural language, much less get someone to design an application around said requirements.
OGL will have support for DX10 features and cards supporting them. Most likely, extensions will be available from either card manufacturer (I know nVidia already released some limited ones) before any games really use the juicy new stuff in a meaningful way.
Yes, I do own a DS (though, not for very long yet). Your mention of the mic is the same exact issue as the one I raised, merely applied to a different piece of the DS "non-standard" (historically, for handheld game systems, at least) hardware. The point is that the fact that the DS has these features at all means that customers will expect games that take advantage of them in interesting ways, and games that don't are given a lesser rating by default.
Lost Magic is actually quite fun, but it just illustrates my point again. If it instead had used the touch screen merely as a static map, with NO input, the game wouldn't be as well liked/hated (I guess it didn't do as well here due to the requirement of drawing runes quickly in combat, but I think it's excellent).
The DS also has a far greater chance of "bad" games due to improper or poorly thought out use of the touch screen, where as the PSP doesn't need "innovation" or specific concern put to such a feature. Also, games that are classic in style (and thus use the touch screen for maps or something equally lame) might also be judged poorer due to lack of input use of the touch screen.
Female engineers may be judged by their looks rather than their talent, but IMO that's better than being negatively judged by society as a whole, regardless of talent OR looks. The societal stigma in the US at least, is such that male engineers (or any "tech industry" worker, for that matter) are judged far more harshly than an attractive female in the same position (or, perhaps, *any* female in the same position, since people have a harder time judging the "outcasts" of such an outcast group). Perhaps what's-her-name (from TFA) should work on eliminating the negative social stigma instead of trying to pass this off as solely a gender-biased issue. It's not.
IMO, Moore's Law is totally flawed due to the fact that it essentially only predicts the miniaturization of silicon chips. Any move to more advanced technologies (either not involving silicon, or in some configuration unlike current ones using copper) automatically breaks the law due to said technologies not adhering to the performance ratio of silicon chips. Of course, some of that is mitigated by the fact that such new technologies tend not to go into circulation for a very long time, perhaps preserving some of the validity of the law, but if this weren't the case, Moore's Law definitely wouldn't hold up against more advanced tech than silicon.
Indeed. There are so many unwanted compromises that we seldom get to work in our most efficient environment. Although, personally, I'd do almost anything to get away from MFC:P Write your own string class?
I do know what you mean though. Currently I have to work to support Visual FoxPro 3.0 (yeah...insane) on a production database. The people in charge are too "afraid" to upgrade versions, even those that are mostly backwards compatible(or, for that matter, switch away from FoxPro to something better entirely). Their fear only gets worse as time passes and FP3 becomes more out of date.
TheCrayfish: I think your suggestion is a bad idea, because it might cause injury or death. I've tried similar things at work before, and it is *painful*.
I also know some non-hardcore gamers which bought the PS3 and were incredibly disappointed with it (given, some of them had also bought an Xbox 360, which I imagine would make buying the PS3 for twice as much with 30x fewer games rather unappealing).
Slashdot Mirror
It's entirely a shame that LotRO is doing well, in my opinion. What I saw of the game was shallow, unoriginal and downright lame. Not even to mention how much a disgrace to Tolkien it is (because we all know that epic battles involve targeting random mobs, pressing your ranged attack then the hotbar keys). Turbine goes and makes a GOOD game, and everyone ignores it for the trite WoW/Everquest clone garbage.
Way to ignore the fact that this is a public Wi-Fi access point, and not an "unconfigured" one. If the shops don't want non-customers to use their kit, they either need to secure it, or deal with the consequences. Charging someone with up to 50 years in prison for using an unsecured, public network is absurd. Murderers, rapists, etc., are not even subject to that severity of sentencing. Your entire position is absurd and invalid.
You, and these Blue Sky whatever idiots, are forgetting that the technology for copy protection specifically has to be "effective" to be protected by the DMCA. Now, it may come down to the fact that the defense will have no expert testimony, but if they did it would be a pretty safe bet that they could get JS protection thrown out because of this reason (it's *NEVER* been effective, as anyone that's ever circumvented those things knows, it's entirely trivial). Now, IANAL, but with even a fairly slack-jawed judge and a basic expert to explain things, I think this could be shown to be absurd. However, it most likely will end up creating the precedent that the DMCA's actual wording doesn't matter, and even ineffective DRM schemes will be protected fully.
Yeah, except there isn't a point in trying to explain that to someone that thinks similarities to mythological stories (the so-called "Bible") denote the end of existence.
Yeah, and as your post implies, they also aren't about defending their students, either.
I suppose you're a lawyer then? If Stanford is legally required to comply with any wishes of the RIAA, why is it that other universities have REFUSED to comply. Sounds like BS to me.
While I can see why you'd say that, I can't agree. Stanford aren't doing their students any favors by bowing to the whims of the RIAA based on their false/non-existent evidence. Until the RIAA actually proves it has a case, and can reliably track exactly who used what IP on what machine, they have no basis to be giving out legal threats, and therefore Stanford should ignore them, not charge their students absurd fees and pander to the RIAA. This is no better than if Stanford were giving the RIAA lists of random students with a free pass to harass them. This is only a hair's breadth short of Stanford suing their own students based on non-evidence (and it's been demonstrated that the RIAA has none, and their experts are full of shit, though the courts aren't equipped to handle technical cases, which is why nothing is being done to stop their illegal racketeering). The only thing Stanford is teaching by these actions is that they can be bullied into doing anything that random private companies want.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to de-rank Stanford because of this. If they're willing to harass their own students based on the whims of a private company, it's a short shot to doing more than just harass. Stanford (like others that seem to be more aware and responsible) has the clout to completely ignore the RIAA (as other universities have done), but instead it chooses to 1) harass students and 2) charge them arbitrary fees. All at the whims of a totally unrelated private company. Pretty dodgy if you ask me.
It's called "willful" ignorance for a reason. What the submitter wants and what his illiterate bosses want are totally disparate things. They want to be assured their decision is the right one, without having to learn anything or actually think at all, and want that assurance to come from someone that knows what they're doing so if anything goes wrong, guess who is at fault. He wants to give them the ability to make sound decisions, so when they FAIL to do so, he's not at fault. Instead of trying to help these idiots, he should be actively documenting their incompetence in order to ensure they can't continue making ignorant, uninformed decisions. The problem isn't with tech people, or the submitter in this case, it's with his (and other) lazy, incompetent imbecile people that are assumed to know how to make these decisions, but obviously do not. If they can't do their job, they should be fired, not coddled by the IT staff.
This is assuming that self-taught hackers can't self-teach themselves proper computer science, which is wholly untrue (referring not to your whole post Madirish, but rather the last sentence). Indeed, rare is the auto-didact that can read or write a (computer) scientific paper and apply its methods to their own work. I speak entirely from experience here, as someone that taught himself all knowledge of "how" to make things work, then realized something was missing, and went to the "why" with a fervor. Learning how to read and understand algorithms in their formal definitions is possibly the most useful skill I've ever taught myself.
Instead of overselling their bandwidth. They wouldn't have a problem otherwise. I have little sympathy for AT&T when they put themselves in this predicament with taxpayer funded networks, yet over bill said networks and then complain when they become saturated. Pathetic.
This is retarded. Claiming that software will be "clunky" or "sluggish" because hardware vendors decided to make an inefficient hardware design to cope with the fact that they can't or won't innovate is rather like saying that cars without engines don't run well because of the tires. Multi-core will have crappy software because multi-core is essentially a "hack" to get over the fact that silicon can't supply the density needed for high performance applications. Blaming software developers for the hardware industry's crappy hack is pretty pathetic. Instead of blaming software for their crappy designs, maybe they should work on moving away from silicon into spintronics or any of the other promising possible hardware advances.
Seems to me (and it becomes readily apparent from your well written post) that the problem isn't with Linux at all, but with stupid business users that don't even understand their own requirements well enough to express them in natural language, much less get someone to design an application around said requirements.
OGL will have support for DX10 features and cards supporting them. Most likely, extensions will be available from either card manufacturer (I know nVidia already released some limited ones) before any games really use the juicy new stuff in a meaningful way.
Yes, I do own a DS (though, not for very long yet). Your mention of the mic is the same exact issue as the one I raised, merely applied to a different piece of the DS "non-standard" (historically, for handheld game systems, at least) hardware. The point is that the fact that the DS has these features at all means that customers will expect games that take advantage of them in interesting ways, and games that don't are given a lesser rating by default.
Lost Magic is actually quite fun, but it just illustrates my point again. If it instead had used the touch screen merely as a static map, with NO input, the game wouldn't be as well liked/hated (I guess it didn't do as well here due to the requirement of drawing runes quickly in combat, but I think it's excellent).
Instead of just trying to "make it look neat". iPhone is utterly pointless if you can't run any 3rd party apps on it, IMO.
The DS also has a far greater chance of "bad" games due to improper or poorly thought out use of the touch screen, where as the PSP doesn't need "innovation" or specific concern put to such a feature. Also, games that are classic in style (and thus use the touch screen for maps or something equally lame) might also be judged poorer due to lack of input use of the touch screen.
Female engineers may be judged by their looks rather than their talent, but IMO that's better than being negatively judged by society as a whole, regardless of talent OR looks. The societal stigma in the US at least, is such that male engineers (or any "tech industry" worker, for that matter) are judged far more harshly than an attractive female in the same position (or, perhaps, *any* female in the same position, since people have a harder time judging the "outcasts" of such an outcast group). Perhaps what's-her-name (from TFA) should work on eliminating the negative social stigma instead of trying to pass this off as solely a gender-biased issue. It's not.
IMO, Moore's Law is totally flawed due to the fact that it essentially only predicts the miniaturization of silicon chips. Any move to more advanced technologies (either not involving silicon, or in some configuration unlike current ones using copper) automatically breaks the law due to said technologies not adhering to the performance ratio of silicon chips. Of course, some of that is mitigated by the fact that such new technologies tend not to go into circulation for a very long time, perhaps preserving some of the validity of the law, but if this weren't the case, Moore's Law definitely wouldn't hold up against more advanced tech than silicon.
Indeed. There are so many unwanted compromises that we seldom get to work in our most efficient environment. Although, personally, I'd do almost anything to get away from MFC :P Write your own string class?
I do know what you mean though. Currently I have to work to support Visual FoxPro 3.0 (yeah...insane) on a production database. The people in charge are too "afraid" to upgrade versions, even those that are mostly backwards compatible(or, for that matter, switch away from FoxPro to something better entirely). Their fear only gets worse as time passes and FP3 becomes more out of date.
I honestly don't see the point of this. Self-taught engineers tend not to bother with certifications.
The problem cropped up at the seventh word of your sentence. Just don't use MFC :p
TheCrayfish: I think your suggestion is a bad idea, because it might cause injury or death. I've tried similar things at work before, and it is *painful*.
I also know some non-hardcore gamers which bought the PS3 and were incredibly disappointed with it (given, some of them had also bought an Xbox 360, which I imagine would make buying the PS3 for twice as much with 30x fewer games rather unappealing).
If taxpayers hadn't already paid to have service installed to their homes.