"There's no change in our plan to release the console in the last quarter of this year. We are planning an announcement in September and it may be causing some confusion.'' - Yasuhiro Minagawa, spokesperson for Nintendo Co. Ltd.
This comes after the CNN article from yesterday, which is pretty much just restating what they previously said. October also falls in the last quarter, so who knows, maybe they'll announce in September, "New console next month for $199."
I believe the reason this was implemented is in the case where someone is tricked into downloading a malignant program (which by just being written onto disk can associate itself with file extensions, which is all contained in the application folder just downloaded) and then tricked into downloading a "potentially safe" document which this malignant program has associated itself with. Since Safari will by default open "potentially safe" documents by default (such as PDFs, disk images, videos or what not), this program could potentially be run just by downloading the document. Therefore Apple's solution was to implement a warning that says the program has never been opened on its own before. However Safari now has in addition to this warnings when downloading files that are applications or have (or perhaps "could have;" I'm not 100% sure if it actually checks) applications in them (like zip files), so the user should know beforehand that they just downloaded an application when they in fact did not mean to.
Perhaps having a cartridge plug-in add-on isn't such a bad idea... you can plug in a cartridge and you can either play it "live," or you can possibly import it into the Wii's Virtual Console. And since the accessory plugs in with USB you can also plug it into your computer. But hey, why not? You can use your Gamecube discs without having to buy them again to use on the Wii, so why not NES, SNES, or N64 games, if you're willing to buy an adapter?
I took it to mean that perhaps Microsoft will pressure Wal-Mart to only offer Windows installations, saying that the people who go with Linux will most likely go home and install a pirated copy of Windows over it. I'm pretty sure there was a story on here recently about something along those lines.
This is the development cycle that doesn't end Yes it goes on and on my friend Some people starting [Ballmer splice-in] DEVELOPING! [/Ballmer] not knowing what it was But they'll continue [Ballmer] DEVELOPING! [/Ballmer] forever just because...
For me, a computer is a box that sits on the floor and should remain as inconspicuous as possible, since I'm not trying to make any kind of statement with my choice of computer system. I make that statement with the quality of my work, regardless of the platform I happen to be working on at any given time.
I wonder if that's the same thing as saying you buy all your clothes from Wal-Mart because it's what's on the inside that counts.
1) Make a dancin' fool of yourself on tape and leave it somewhere inconspicuous 2) Await the magic of the Internet 3) Show parents and convince them of your trauma 4) ??? 5) Profit!!
I have developed a number of web sites and such, and absolutely hate having to use "hacks" to make things work. I'm a big proponent of having web standards, and I do not like having to develop code that have to be backwards compatible with older programs. Also, I think this is what web development should have been all along from the very beginning...none (or very little) of this browser compatibility crap.
Anyway, oftentimes when developing a site, if I make a page according to standards, and it works correctly in modern browsers (that is, not IE), I do not want to bend over backwards to make it work in IE. So when people tell me that something is broken in IE, I want to tell them that their browser is broken and that they should download a browser like Firefox or Opera or what have you. Obviously, this isn't a choice for many developers because many people still use IE, and many customers do not want to hear that they have to change browsers. What I want to know is, has anyone actually made a customer download a new browser because something that you or your company developed did not behave correctly in IE but behaved according to web standards? How successful were you in doing this? The reason I ask is that I always hear people proclaiming "standards!", or, "my browser passes Acid2!" but it doesn't seem of much use because I never hear of anyone actually forcing people to use any of these browsers that can understand up-to-date standards. I don't think we can make much progress in enforcing web standards without actually expecting standard-compliant web sites to render correctly, and alienating IE for as long as they are not compliant.
Slashdot Mirror
"There's no change in our plan to release the console in the last quarter of this year. We are planning an announcement in September and it may be causing some confusion.'' - Yasuhiro Minagawa, spokesperson for Nintendo Co. Ltd.
This comes after the CNN article from yesterday, which is pretty much just restating what they previously said. October also falls in the last quarter, so who knows, maybe they'll announce in September, "New console next month for $199."
I believe the reason this was implemented is in the case where someone is tricked into downloading a malignant program (which by just being written onto disk can associate itself with file extensions, which is all contained in the application folder just downloaded) and then tricked into downloading a "potentially safe" document which this malignant program has associated itself with. Since Safari will by default open "potentially safe" documents by default (such as PDFs, disk images, videos or what not), this program could potentially be run just by downloading the document. Therefore Apple's solution was to implement a warning that says the program has never been opened on its own before. However Safari now has in addition to this warnings when downloading files that are applications or have (or perhaps "could have;" I'm not 100% sure if it actually checks) applications in them (like zip files), so the user should know beforehand that they just downloaded an application when they in fact did not mean to.
Perhaps having a cartridge plug-in add-on isn't such a bad idea... you can plug in a cartridge and you can either play it "live," or you can possibly import it into the Wii's Virtual Console. And since the accessory plugs in with USB you can also plug it into your computer. But hey, why not? You can use your Gamecube discs without having to buy them again to use on the Wii, so why not NES, SNES, or N64 games, if you're willing to buy an adapter?
Actually the NES had mono sound.
...Memories of DDR2...
Supposedly it makes for "brighter whites and darker blacks" which makes watching DVDs and stuff more vivid.
I took it to mean that perhaps Microsoft will pressure Wal-Mart to only offer Windows installations, saying that the people who go with Linux will most likely go home and install a pirated copy of Windows over it. I'm pretty sure there was a story on here recently about something along those lines.
This is the development cycle that doesn't end
Yes it goes on and on my friend
Some people starting [Ballmer splice-in] DEVELOPING! [/Ballmer] not knowing what it was
But they'll continue [Ballmer] DEVELOPING! [/Ballmer] forever just because...
I don't know, Hu?
For me, a computer is a box that sits on the floor and should remain as inconspicuous as possible, since I'm not trying to make any kind of statement with my choice of computer system. I make that statement with the quality of my work, regardless of the platform I happen to be working on at any given time.
I wonder if that's the same thing as saying you buy all your clothes from Wal-Mart because it's what's on the inside that counts.
Dance Dance Revolution Revolution. Awesome.
1) Make a dancin' fool of yourself on tape and leave it somewhere inconspicuous
2) Await the magic of the Internet
3) Show parents and convince them of your trauma
4) ???
5) Profit!!
In TextMate (used in most if not all Rails screencasts) they now have a choice in the languages dropdown "SQL (Rails)".
Great now I can read the article.
Does anyone have a link to a mirror?
At her first birthday she constructed a novel...
(Wow I haven't even constructed a novel...... oh...)
+1, Good Idea
That's not what you see?
I have developed a number of web sites and such, and absolutely hate having to use "hacks" to make things work. I'm a big proponent of having web standards, and I do not like having to develop code that have to be backwards compatible with older programs. Also, I think this is what web development should have been all along from the very beginning...none (or very little) of this browser compatibility crap.
Anyway, oftentimes when developing a site, if I make a page according to standards, and it works correctly in modern browsers (that is, not IE), I do not want to bend over backwards to make it work in IE. So when people tell me that something is broken in IE, I want to tell them that their browser is broken and that they should download a browser like Firefox or Opera or what have you. Obviously, this isn't a choice for many developers because many people still use IE, and many customers do not want to hear that they have to change browsers. What I want to know is, has anyone actually made a customer download a new browser because something that you or your company developed did not behave correctly in IE but behaved according to web standards? How successful were you in doing this? The reason I ask is that I always hear people proclaiming "standards!", or, "my browser passes Acid2!" but it doesn't seem of much use because I never hear of anyone actually forcing people to use any of these browsers that can understand up-to-date standards. I don't think we can make much progress in enforcing web standards without actually expecting standard-compliant web sites to render correctly, and alienating IE for as long as they are not compliant.