That depends on if you expect Apple's record-breaking growth to continue or to taper off. But I agree--it's hard to see Objective-C as the most popular language.
First off, they are cheaper* than an equivalent PC. It's only $200 for a 360 and $300 for a PS3, and they come with a naturally more comfortable** input device. It's easier for most people to hook up a console to a large TV and sit in a comfortable couch. Games require less fiddling and you don't really need to interact with the system OS if you don't want to--and even if you do, it's basically impossible to screw things up. There are also many console games that never make it to PCs--or, if they do, they are often riddled with invasive DRM.
For myself, at the start of a new console generation, I prefer console gaming by a long shot. As the years go by, however, my purchases shift back toward the PC.
(I am assuming a completely legal, non-piracy approach to gaming on all fronts here. If you start allowing piracy, PC gaming becomes cheaper, but that's a terrible argument anyway.)
*The price disparity is typically much higher at the start of a console's lifetime, but goes down over time. **More comfortable, but not necessarily better. That depends on the game.
If any of these are found, the malware will skip the rest of its routine and proceed to delete itself.
So doing something basic and sensible, such as having a common (and free) antivirus program, or having a popular (but non-free) firewall meant that you wouldn't get the trojan. This particular piece of malware was specifically targeted at people who don't follow common security practices. (And before anyone says that Mac users haven't needed AV software in the past: It has always been recommended, if only because you don't want to risk passing a virus on to a friend's PC if you email him a file.)
Source on this? It seems to do the important parts of routing, at least for a home network configuration--assigns IP addresses, allows port forwarding, etc. And it certainly can do IPv6--the option was removed, for some reason, from the newest configuration utility. Also, it obviously works when connecting to the Internet, unless it has a really sophisticated Slashdot emulator:)
And Windows users look down at Mac users. And Linux users look down at both (Windows users look at Linux users in bafflement, mostly). Everyone looks down at everyone else, if they view it as some sort of "war".
Uh, Mojang definitely is "indie". Indie does not mean small or low budget, it's short for independent, as in, independent of the major publishers. Mojang self publishes, hence they are "indie". One hit game does not make them a major publisher.
That definition doesn't seem to go with the popular definition. If all that's required to be an indie studio is to self-publish, then EA is an indie studio.
Good to know it's not just me. I'd use Chrome full-time, but Safari has just a couple features that put it over the edge for me (better top sites feature/management, better 1Password integration, better overall look, and better integration with two-finger swipe back/forward). Hopefully a fix, either from Apple or Google, will be forthcoming.
Ghostery is where it's at for Safari. For some annoying reason, though, Safari does very poorly on Youtube videos on my systems. I'm not sure if it's some extension problem or if it's inherent in the browser, but I generally use Chrome for Youtube.
Fry: Well, sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio. And in magazines and movies and at ball games and on buses and milk cartons and T-shirts and written in the sky. But not in dreams. No, sir-ee!
Nothing prevents it. But publishers have access to resources (editors, marketing, etc.) that can all prove critical to a book's success, which an aspiring author might not have.
Problem is, that doesn't pay the editors, copy editors, typesetters, etc. that all played a part in getting that book in your hands (or on your device). The author doesn't live in a vacuum.
Sometimes? Almost? Try "often", and "exactly". New hardcovers are usually cheaper (often considerably so) than list price (though not much cheaper than Amazon's price), but mass market paperbacks seem to always cost the same as their eBook counterparts.
Inertia, for one thing. There's prestige/image, too. Also, much like the RIAA, the publishers in theory provide marketing and such that individuals can't (easily) duplicate. There's also a social stigma against indie stuff (though that scene has been growing of late).
Looking at Amazon, too many of the books I would want to buy are priced identically between eBooks and print books. Besides this making absolutely no sense from a cost standpoint, I still view paper books as superior: no batteries required, no DRM, I will always be able to read it if I take decent care of it, and I can do whatever I want with it.
At the very most, eBooks should cost $(price of print book - cost of printing and shipping said book).
Re:That's why I like the basic Kindle
on
The eBook Backlash
·
· Score: 2
The basic Kindle is great. I was a holdout for years, but I finally broke down and got a Touch a couple weeks ago.
That said, I still just can't bring myself to trust either the publishers or device makers (in this case, Amazon and Apple) not to try to screw me. I look at these Kindle ebooks, and the vast majority of the ones I'd be interested in buying are full retail price. I'm not saying they should be free--far from it; authors deserve compensation, publishers have to pay for marketing, etc.--but they should, at the very least, subtract the cost of actually printing and shipping the book to the retailer. I have a hard time justifying paying full price for a digital item that could, at any moment, be remotely deleted from my device (which has happened before).
What I've been doing is downloading unprotected MOBI files from other sources, but only for books I already own and have paid for--I see nothing unethical in that. And since I like having physical books (which are superior in some edge cases), I plan on continuing this practice when I buy new books. In the rare event that I can get a (very) cheap used copy, and the Kindle book is priced low enough to justify it, I'll buy the Kindle version for the X-Ray and Text-to-Speech features (the former being very useful in some cases, the latter marginally so).
On the hardware side, I wish that the Kindle had better resolution and higher contrast. I'd wish that it was in color, but since none of my textbooks are ever available on the Kindle, it's something of a moot point. I also wish they could find a way to solve the lighting issue. You don't get reflections, but it can still be nigh unreadable in direct, artificial light. Light diffuses across the screen and creates significant glare.
I think, for certain people it will be nice. Looking at screenshots and videos of it at work, I think my mom would have an easier time with it than with Win7.
For other users, it looks like a disaster. As many have said, it might be a nice tablet OS (hell, I may actually get a Win8 tablet at some point, though I'm a bit skeptical), but mouse interactions on the thing look awful. Maybe if I had a Cintiq...
How is it unintuitive? It's different, yes, but different does not mean unintuitive. I've always preferred it over every window having a redundant menu bar. (Now I wonder what it would be like if they put the menu bar in the window, but only in the active one.)
Slashdot Mirror
That depends on if you expect Apple's record-breaking growth to continue or to taper off. But I agree--it's hard to see Objective-C as the most popular language.
First off, they are cheaper* than an equivalent PC. It's only $200 for a 360 and $300 for a PS3, and they come with a naturally more comfortable** input device. It's easier for most people to hook up a console to a large TV and sit in a comfortable couch. Games require less fiddling and you don't really need to interact with the system OS if you don't want to--and even if you do, it's basically impossible to screw things up. There are also many console games that never make it to PCs--or, if they do, they are often riddled with invasive DRM.
For myself, at the start of a new console generation, I prefer console gaming by a long shot. As the years go by, however, my purchases shift back toward the PC.
(I am assuming a completely legal, non-piracy approach to gaming on all fronts here. If you start allowing piracy, PC gaming becomes cheaper, but that's a terrible argument anyway.)
*The price disparity is typically much higher at the start of a console's lifetime, but goes down over time.
**More comfortable, but not necessarily better. That depends on the game.
At the same time, having basic security practices still thwarted it from being installed on your system. From F-Secure:
So doing something basic and sensible, such as having a common (and free) antivirus program, or having a popular (but non-free) firewall meant that you wouldn't get the trojan. This particular piece of malware was specifically targeted at people who don't follow common security practices. (And before anyone says that Mac users haven't needed AV software in the past: It has always been recommended, if only because you don't want to risk passing a virus on to a friend's PC if you email him a file.)
Did anyone here actually believe this? The big power draw is from the backlight, which is still running even with black pixels.
I am really curious: What is the reason for doing this?
To be fair, they are fixing this in Mountain Lion, but it is baffling that they didn't have iCloud working with OS X from the start.
It depends on if they track the cookies from the Girl Scouts website.
Source on this? It seems to do the important parts of routing, at least for a home network configuration--assigns IP addresses, allows port forwarding, etc. And it certainly can do IPv6--the option was removed, for some reason, from the newest configuration utility. Also, it obviously works when connecting to the Internet, unless it has a really sophisticated Slashdot emulator :)
You can still download the old Utility: http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1482?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US
And Windows users look down at Mac users. And Linux users look down at both (Windows users look at Linux users in bafflement, mostly). Everyone looks down at everyone else, if they view it as some sort of "war".
Not so. It was a great source of meta-humor for me, choosing Obj-C specifically to see people's reactions to it.
If the players can't see what's being done (as per TFS), then the following method should work perfectly:
-(BOOL)isSliceFair:(Slice *)slice {
return YES;
}
Related: http://xkcd.com/221/
Uh, Mojang definitely is "indie". Indie does not mean small or low budget, it's short for independent, as in, independent of the major publishers. Mojang self publishes, hence they are "indie". One hit game does not make them a major publisher.
That definition doesn't seem to go with the popular definition. If all that's required to be an indie studio is to self-publish, then EA is an indie studio.
Good to know it's not just me. I'd use Chrome full-time, but Safari has just a couple features that put it over the edge for me (better top sites feature/management, better 1Password integration, better overall look, and better integration with two-finger swipe back/forward). Hopefully a fix, either from Apple or Google, will be forthcoming.
Ghostery is where it's at for Safari. For some annoying reason, though, Safari does very poorly on Youtube videos on my systems. I'm not sure if it's some extension problem or if it's inherent in the browser, but I generally use Chrome for Youtube.
In a the past couple months that I've owned a Kindle, I've noticed one gift card ad--basically, pay $5 and get $10.
Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 20th century?
Fry: Well, sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio. And in magazines and movies and at ball games and on buses and milk cartons and T-shirts and written in the sky. But not in dreams. No, sir-ee!
Nothing prevents it. But publishers have access to resources (editors, marketing, etc.) that can all prove critical to a book's success, which an aspiring author might not have.
Problem is, that doesn't pay the editors, copy editors, typesetters, etc. that all played a part in getting that book in your hands (or on your device). The author doesn't live in a vacuum.
Sometimes? Almost? Try "often", and "exactly". New hardcovers are usually cheaper (often considerably so) than list price (though not much cheaper than Amazon's price), but mass market paperbacks seem to always cost the same as their eBook counterparts.
Inertia, for one thing. There's prestige/image, too. Also, much like the RIAA, the publishers in theory provide marketing and such that individuals can't (easily) duplicate. There's also a social stigma against indie stuff (though that scene has been growing of late).
Looking at Amazon, too many of the books I would want to buy are priced identically between eBooks and print books. Besides this making absolutely no sense from a cost standpoint, I still view paper books as superior: no batteries required, no DRM, I will always be able to read it if I take decent care of it, and I can do whatever I want with it.
At the very most, eBooks should cost $(price of print book - cost of printing and shipping said book).
The basic Kindle is great. I was a holdout for years, but I finally broke down and got a Touch a couple weeks ago.
That said, I still just can't bring myself to trust either the publishers or device makers (in this case, Amazon and Apple) not to try to screw me. I look at these Kindle ebooks, and the vast majority of the ones I'd be interested in buying are full retail price. I'm not saying they should be free--far from it; authors deserve compensation, publishers have to pay for marketing, etc.--but they should, at the very least, subtract the cost of actually printing and shipping the book to the retailer. I have a hard time justifying paying full price for a digital item that could, at any moment, be remotely deleted from my device (which has happened before).
What I've been doing is downloading unprotected MOBI files from other sources, but only for books I already own and have paid for--I see nothing unethical in that. And since I like having physical books (which are superior in some edge cases), I plan on continuing this practice when I buy new books. In the rare event that I can get a (very) cheap used copy, and the Kindle book is priced low enough to justify it, I'll buy the Kindle version for the X-Ray and Text-to-Speech features (the former being very useful in some cases, the latter marginally so).
On the hardware side, I wish that the Kindle had better resolution and higher contrast. I'd wish that it was in color, but since none of my textbooks are ever available on the Kindle, it's something of a moot point. I also wish they could find a way to solve the lighting issue. You don't get reflections, but it can still be nigh unreadable in direct, artificial light. Light diffuses across the screen and creates significant glare.
I think, for certain people it will be nice. Looking at screenshots and videos of it at work, I think my mom would have an easier time with it than with Win7.
For other users, it looks like a disaster. As many have said, it might be a nice tablet OS (hell, I may actually get a Win8 tablet at some point, though I'm a bit skeptical), but mouse interactions on the thing look awful. Maybe if I had a Cintiq...
How is it unintuitive? It's different, yes, but different does not mean unintuitive. I've always preferred it over every window having a redundant menu bar. (Now I wonder what it would be like if they put the menu bar in the window, but only in the active one.)
Except that the only one's using the words evil are those opposing Obama[...]
That's not really surprising. No sane person is going to say (or believe) that the person they support is evil.