I thought it was fair clear in context that I was talking about dissatisfaction on the part of other manufacturers, who had bought into Android on the understanding that they would all be on a level playing field.
There was broad dissatisfaction with the Nexus One, and that was just one handset.
Really?!? The only dissatisfaction with the Nexus One was distribution. Google tried to sell it outside the influence of the carriers and the carriers played hardball.
I have a Nexus One and I love it... [...]
That does not sound like broad dissatisfaction to me...
I thought it was fair clear in context that I was talking about dissatisfaction on the part of other manufacturers, who had bought into Android on the understanding that they would all be on a level playing field.
I reckon by 2013 Google will either be making all Android hardware, or none of it.
What will the other manufacturers making Android handsets think about this? Who would license an OS from a company which also manufactures directly competing hardware and sells it on a large scale? There was broad dissatisfaction with the Nexus One, and that was just one handset. Clearly Google are most interested in the patents (to fight against Apple, Nokia, Microsoft et al) but is that worth destroying the partnership with other companies? Maybe they think they can go it alone.
There are even more ways to ruin a Mac game than a PC version. All of the ones in that article, plus why bother to write a native port when you can run everything through a Windows API translation layer instead? It's a sure-fire route to making performance suck, and only the real pedants will care about things like.ini files randomly turning up in the Documents folder.
What annoys me most is their arrogance; it's like the publishers expect me to be grateful for scraps. Assassins Creed II actually manages to be incompatible with Keyboards (seriously - if you're on a laptop than you have to use the built-in keyboard, anything plugged into the USB won't be recognized). Ubisoft tech support said: "At this point in time there is no plant for a patch to change this. I wish there was enough space on the game box to write all this, but i will defiantly escalate your query to head office." Never mind that the game box was Steam's web page with essentially unlimited space, in what universe does it make more sense to advertise your bugs than to fix them? I just wish I could have been there to see that defiant escalation...
Assassins Creed II had a reputation of being one of the best games in years. Yet, when the Mac version came out I didn't buy it (a) because of the DRM, (b) because of reports of sucky performance. Months later, Steam got it from a fraction of the original price and I finally caved. So although my purchase might be counted in the sales figures for this "successful DRM", actually Ubisoft got much less money from me than if the DRM were absent.
Unfortunately it turns out my fears on (b) turned out to be justified (it's a Transgaming port, after all...) It's buggy too: running on a laptop it can't even accept input from USB keyboards. Ubisoft tech support said: "At this point in time there is no plant for a patch to change this. I wish there was enough space on the game box to write all this, but i will defiantly escalate your query to head office." Never mind that the game box was Steam's web page with esentailly unlimited space, in what universe does it make more sense to advertise your bugs than to fix them? I just wish I could have been there to see that defiant escalation...
I agree that Ubisoft frequently make good games. The only trouble is that they have just about the worst QA in the industry.
Except, every bit of energy that is "wasted" in your house lowers your heating bill by just that much.
No. I'll never understand how this stuff gets modded Insightful.
You waste some expensive energy, and then have to put in a slightly smaller amount of cheap energy. (Oh, you can define "expensive" and "cheap" using any terms you like: Price. Carbon output. Efficiency of raw materials). Every way, it's worse.
Unless you live in a hot region where air conditioning is needed
Or a relatively cool region, like America, where it's considered an affordable luxury. So that's most of the world for at least half the year.
Isn't it obvious? Isn't eating food full of herbicide a concern for you? Monsanto itself isn't producing or selling food, only seeds and chemical which you use to do that. But what you do with it is bad food, full of poison (remember: the goal is to kill plants).
Aren't *all* crops saturated with herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and whatever other sprayed chemicals are necessary to make farming it economically viable?
Oh, and don't say "organic". That word has little meaning outside of marketing buzzword requirements. It doesn't mean ecologically sustainable. It doesn't mean non-intensively farmed. It doesn't mean environmentally sustainable. It doesn't even mean no chemical pesticides - it just means you have to use the ones that are produced by brewing up things of plant origin, i.e. the really nasty ones which kill just about everything and not just the targeted threats to the crop, the ones linked to real human diseases and which are far more dangerous and destructive than anything used by the rest of the world who aren't obliged to pretend that the last 100 years of scientific development had never happened. "Organic" farming is nothing more than a triumph of hippie luddites.
Except that's completely incorrect. I know the link says "asked to see some of Samsung's future devices" but that doesn't mean the request was granted. Rather:
She [Judge Koh] also limited the results of discovery to "Outside Counsel Eyes Only," meaning neither Apple nor its in-house counsel will get a peek at the phones or related marketing materials.
Apple will get no opportunity to rip off Samsung's pre-release designs. It's such a shame that the facts are so much less interesting than your speculation.
And since they've repeated stated they won't be doing such a thing, you won't have to worry.
Didn't they repeatedly say that they were sticking with PowerPC chips and not looking at Intel chips, right up until they announced they were going with Intel?
I'm don't know why you raise the particular subject of biblical reliability (GP and TFA don't), but let's get one thing straight: it is the view of the overwhelming majority of modern, mainstream, secular and non-secular historians, that the major events in the Bible narrative (e.g. King David's rise to power; the exile into Babylon; that a man called Jesus lived, taught, and was crucified in first century Palestine) have sufficient supporting evidence in contemporary sources to be considered true, historical events. Very few academically credible historians dispute them. All these history channel programs about "King David didn't exist" and so on, remain on the "crackpot theory" level and have to ignore substantially more supporting evidence than they ever present.
how is Apple expecting software distributed via their App Store to comply with App Store terms and conditions any more obstinate than expecting software distributed under the GPL to be distributed according to GPL conditions?
It isn't, but the free software community's obstinacy is for the greater good of us all.
Spending money alone does not increase safety, so either it is safe enough to raise the limit for everyone or it's not just a license to speed, it's a license to create mayhem.
What about the vehicle safety inspection? Sure, you could mandate that all vehicles meet the (presumably more rigorous) standard, but people who don't drive at 90mph might not appreciate the increase in maintenance costs.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought it was about camouflaging unpicturesque donkeys.
I thought it was fair clear in context that I was talking about dissatisfaction on the part of other manufacturers, who had bought into Android on the understanding that they would all be on a level playing field.
There was broad dissatisfaction with the Nexus One, and that was just one handset.
Really?!? The only dissatisfaction with the Nexus One was distribution. Google tried to sell it outside the influence of the carriers and the carriers played hardball.
I have a Nexus One and I love it... [...]
That does not sound like broad dissatisfaction to me...
I thought it was fair clear in context that I was talking about dissatisfaction on the part of other manufacturers, who had bought into Android on the understanding that they would all be on a level playing field.
I reckon by 2013 Google will either be making all Android hardware, or none of it.
What will the other manufacturers making Android handsets think about this? Who would license an OS from a company which also manufactures directly competing hardware and sells it on a large scale? There was broad dissatisfaction with the Nexus One, and that was just one handset. Clearly Google are most interested in the patents (to fight against Apple, Nokia, Microsoft et al) but is that worth destroying the partnership with other companies? Maybe they think they can go it alone.
There are even more ways to ruin a Mac game than a PC version. All of the ones in that article, plus why bother to write a native port when you can run everything through a Windows API translation layer instead? It's a sure-fire route to making performance suck, and only the real pedants will care about things like .ini files randomly turning up in the Documents folder.
What annoys me most is their arrogance; it's like the publishers expect me to be grateful for scraps. Assassins Creed II actually manages to be incompatible with Keyboards (seriously - if you're on a laptop than you have to use the built-in keyboard, anything plugged into the USB won't be recognized). Ubisoft tech support said: "At this point in time there is no plant for a patch to change this. I wish there was enough space on the game box to write all this, but i will defiantly escalate your query to head office." Never mind that the game box was Steam's web page with essentially unlimited space, in what universe does it make more sense to advertise your bugs than to fix them? I just wish I could have been there to see that defiant escalation...
Assassins Creed II had a reputation of being one of the best games in years. Yet, when the Mac version came out I didn't buy it (a) because of the DRM, (b) because of reports of sucky performance. Months later, Steam got it from a fraction of the original price and I finally caved. So although my purchase might be counted in the sales figures for this "successful DRM", actually Ubisoft got much less money from me than if the DRM were absent.
Unfortunately it turns out my fears on (b) turned out to be justified (it's a Transgaming port, after all...) It's buggy too: running on a laptop it can't even accept input from USB keyboards. Ubisoft tech support said: "At this point in time there is no plant for a patch to change this. I wish there was enough space on the game box to write all this, but i will defiantly escalate your query to head office." Never mind that the game box was Steam's web page with esentailly unlimited space, in what universe does it make more sense to advertise your bugs than to fix them? I just wish I could have been there to see that defiant escalation...
I agree that Ubisoft frequently make good games. The only trouble is that they have just about the worst QA in the industry.
Except, every bit of energy that is "wasted" in your house lowers your heating bill by just that much.
No. I'll never understand how this stuff gets modded Insightful.
You waste some expensive energy, and then have to put in a slightly smaller amount of cheap energy. (Oh, you can define "expensive" and "cheap" using any terms you like: Price. Carbon output. Efficiency of raw materials). Every way, it's worse.
Unless you live in a hot region where air conditioning is needed
Or a relatively cool region, like America, where it's considered an affordable luxury. So that's most of the world for at least half the year.
Isn't it obvious? Isn't eating food full of herbicide a concern for you? Monsanto itself isn't producing or selling food, only seeds and chemical which you use to do that. But what you do with it is bad food, full of poison (remember: the goal is to kill plants).
Aren't *all* crops saturated with herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and whatever other sprayed chemicals are necessary to make farming it economically viable?
Oh, and don't say "organic". That word has little meaning outside of marketing buzzword requirements. It doesn't mean ecologically sustainable. It doesn't mean non-intensively farmed. It doesn't mean environmentally sustainable. It doesn't even mean no chemical pesticides - it just means you have to use the ones that are produced by brewing up things of plant origin, i.e. the really nasty ones which kill just about everything and not just the targeted threats to the crop, the ones linked to real human diseases and which are far more dangerous and destructive than anything used by the rest of the world who aren't obliged to pretend that the last 100 years of scientific development had never happened. "Organic" farming is nothing more than a triumph of hippie luddites.
Except that's completely incorrect. I know the link says "asked to see some of Samsung's future devices" but that doesn't mean the request was granted. Rather:
She [Judge Koh] also limited the results of discovery to "Outside Counsel Eyes Only," meaning neither Apple nor its in-house counsel will get a peek at the phones or related marketing materials.
Apple will get no opportunity to rip off Samsung's pre-release designs. It's such a shame that the facts are so much less interesting than your speculation.
And since they've repeated stated they won't be doing such a thing, you won't have to worry.
Didn't they repeatedly say that they were sticking with PowerPC chips and not looking at Intel chips, right up until they announced they were going with Intel?
No, they didn't.
They 80s just called,
And didn't you warn them? About Chernobyl, Challenger, and Lockerbie?
I'm don't know why you raise the particular subject of biblical reliability (GP and TFA don't), but let's get one thing straight: it is the view of the overwhelming majority of modern, mainstream, secular and non-secular historians, that the major events in the Bible narrative (e.g. King David's rise to power; the exile into Babylon; that a man called Jesus lived, taught, and was crucified in first century Palestine) have sufficient supporting evidence in contemporary sources to be considered true, historical events. Very few academically credible historians dispute them. All these history channel programs about "King David didn't exist" and so on, remain on the "crackpot theory" level and have to ignore substantially more supporting evidence than they ever present.
[citation needed]
I demand my money back!
Even if it was optional?
I do not think that Apple will remove a signature button from their iOS device lineup.
I never thought they'd ditch the iconic "scroll wheel" which had been a signature design feature since the very first iPod...
And slashdot is advertising this... why, exactly?
how is Apple expecting software distributed via their App Store to comply with App Store terms and conditions any more obstinate than expecting software distributed under the GPL to be distributed according to GPL conditions?
It isn't, but the free software community's obstinacy is for the greater good of us all.
Well usually. Sometimes.
Nothing Happened! News at eleven...
Spending money alone does not increase safety, so either it is safe enough to raise the limit for everyone or it's not just a license to speed, it's a license to create mayhem.
What about the vehicle safety inspection? Sure, you could mandate that all vehicles meet the (presumably more rigorous) standard, but people who don't drive at 90mph might not appreciate the increase in maintenance costs.
Lots of web sites have got robots.txt files, how come Murdoch's merits a front-page slashdot story?
3D games in a web browser? Been there, done that.
Also, Trinergy appears to be a Windows-only technology wheras Unity works on MacOS too (and additionally supports native building for iPhone & Wii)
Apple said things which were true, worded in such that might cause people to draw an exaggerated conclusion. PitaBred merely lied. You fail at logic.
That citation enough for ya? It's not outright stated,
That would be a "no", then.
GF100 is the name of the chip. The cards will be called the GT300 series.
Great! That's not confusing at all.