Most people seem to be thinking it's an interlock device, rather than a standalone breathalyzer. In that case, assuming $1 per car trip, driving every day and a minimum of two trips (one to destination, one back home), it would be ~$730/year or more.
But since that isn't the case, then the point is moot. It's a couple bucks a year at minimum, more if you get pulled over and are forced to use them a lot.
My problem is efficiency. If it's not an interlock, how is it in any way improving public safety? What's the point? Why not just have the police carry around breathalyzers? That way, there's no chance the driver won't be able to take the test, and you won't have millions of people wasting money on these portable--
Oh. There it is. It's just a way to get money for the breathalyzer manufacturers, as well as for the government to pat themselves on the back for a job well done in "improving public safety" with this do-nothing legislation.
A couple years back (or maybe just a year), an "update" came out for WipEout HD on the PS3. The game cost $15 to buy, but the update added video advertisements to the loading screens of each race. Aside from being annoying, they drastically increased load times in order to force you to actually watch the ad. While not as bad as actually crippling the game as in this case, that event really soured me to the concept of digital distribution.
Really, the only company I trust with digital distribution these days is GOG, who don't use DRM in any of their games. Yeah, they pulled that weird "shutdown" stunt a while back, but to my mind it only proved their value--nobody was unable to play their games during the outage (except for those few people who hadn't gotten around to downloading them yet).
While you're right that widescreen monitors cost less to make due to less overall surface area, I think you're neglecting the fact that it's more comfortable for people to work with things side-by-side than top-to-bottom. Also, vertical scrolling is far easier on most computers than horizontal, so having two windows next to each other on a widescreen monitor is better than two next to each other on a 4:3 monitor--the windows will be slightly wider on the 16:9 monitor (duh, I know).
Widescreen monitors are better for multitasking when you have to switch between two windows often, or look at the content of two windows at the same time. It's also superior for movies (and video games), as you have a wider angle in which to display things. Interesting stuff doesn't tend to happen in the sky or at the cameraman's feet.
If you're just using one app at a time in full-screen, then I agree that 4:3 is better.
Pretty much mirrors my thoughts, too. I'll add that book 8 is also largely pointless. Book 11 felt like Jordan's attempt to regain control of the sprawling narrative--he ended at least three long, ongoing story lines. It wasn't up to the quality of, say, The Great Hunt, but it was loads better than Crossroads of Twilight.
Everything I've read says that the default is to allow signed and MAS apps only, but you can change it to run unsigned apps. How much does it cost to get a developer ID and sign your apps? It's free. You don't need the $99/year license--it's a new program.
Also, notice the "and" part in my first sentence. You don't need to be in the MAS to have a signed app. You do, however, need to be in the MAS in order to take advantage of iCloud.
Their name is actually a really good description: Serious Organized Crime Agency. From the description of what they do, it does sound like they're criminals, organized, and an official agency. And their wording is very serious.
Oh wait, they say they're the good guys? They might have wanted another word in there. "Prevention" right before Agency, or some such. Just a thought. They're monitoring my Internet activity now, so I don't need to write them a letter. They already saw this post. Right? Right??
Something tells me language has changed in the past 200 years. It's probably the same reason you see certain words capitalized "randomly" in the Constitution, which you wouldn't do now.
I have to take issue with the idea that the used game market hurts developers. It might, but I don't think we have enough evidence to support it. How many used game sales are lost new game sales? It's similar to the argument that each pirated copy represents a lost sale--some used sales do represent a lost new sale, while others don't. Some people simply can't justify spending $60 on a game.
There's also the fact that people who sell used games often turn around and buy new ones. Again, not a 1:1 ratio, but it's not so cut and dry as "used sales hurt the industry." Books, movies, and music have all gotten along with used sales. The car industry would be a fragment of what it is today without used sales. And games have done just fine with them in the past.
Also, if you want to take a look at "good" DRM, look at The Witcher 2. Retail copies had DRM, online copies didn't. Two weeks after release (so after they'd gotten all the launch money by making pirating slightly more difficult), CDPR sent out a patch that removed all DRM from all versions.
My bank has a similar ridiculous restriction. 14 characters max, limited subset of symbols allowed. Because of this, my bank password is my least secure password, while it should be one of the strongest. I find it amusing that my WoW account is much more secure than my bank (greater password freedom + authenticator)--at least from an authentication standpoint.
Mac users can use a program called 1Password to manage their passwords. It stores them in an encrypted file that you use a master password to unlock. And you can use browser extensions to have it automatically login to any site you've told it about, and it will generate passwords for you as well. It's the best solution I've found for having unique, strong passwords for every site or system you have a login for. Just make sure you choose a smart master password.
(There's an iOS version, too, that syncs with the standalone app, so you have access to your passwords on the go.)
Anyone know of something similar for other platforms? I'd like to get the rest of my family using stronger passwords than pet names or whatever they're using.
I can get behind change for the sake of change being a poor motivation. But if you are going to make functionality improvements, I see that as a good reason to change aesthetics. As a random example (because I happened to be on the site when I got the reply notification), GOG's current interface blows away their old one. Their old one was fine, but the new one has a lot more functionality, and they tied that functionality addition with a UI facelift. I think that's a good way to do it, because having a visual change encourages users to look for other changes, and thus discover the functionality changes.
Moving links around because you're bored, though, isn't worthwhile, unless it's to simplify or improve flow. (Microsoft Office is a prime example of this, seemingly moving icons around all over the place for no discernible reason. I'm not a ribbon hater, but there are some fairly obvious ways it could be improved.)
I sort of disagree--change can be refreshing, but can easily be a hassle. On the PS3, Netflix has changed the design quite often. Sometimes it's for the better, and sometimes it's not. The worst design change was when they briefly took away the "recently watched" section from the home screen. Made watching TV shows a very painful process.
That said, I like Google's current design a lot better than the old design(s). My only complaint is that the black at the top doesn't match other Google properties. The new design looks better, but I'm surprised you have to go through more motions to open something common, such as image search. That's a silly move in my mind, and it seems like it would be better to have the main menu items always visible, with the extended menu items showing up on mouseover for each root menu item (sort of a combination of the new look and the current look). Also, having "Google" show up in the top left and the center of the page looks redundant.
UI performance has always been one of the #1 complaints people had about webOS. The Touchpad has to be overclocked to 1.5-1.7GHz (dual core, mind you) and have lots of performance patches and experimental kernels used before it even approaches the responsiveness of the first iPad (1GHz, single core, 1/4 the RAM). I think webOS has some great concepts, but it seriously hamstrung itself by forcing everything to be rendered with WebKit.
Anecdote, yes, but a fair amount of people I know fiddle with the radio a lot. I know I used to do it all the time in order to find something that didn't make me want to cut my ears off. Then I realized 95% of music on public radio was god-awful, so I stopped listening altogether.
What's interesting is Chrome used to be stupid fast at startup on a Mac. The dock icon wouldn't even bounce, it was so quick. But now it takes a couple bounces, even on my new Air. Safari is definitely the better choice on a Mac, but I do fall back to Chrome every now and then (sometimes I have issues streaming Nextflix in Safari, and I don't have that problem with Chrome).
I would imagine, though, that many of the resources Safari uses are kept in other places than the.app package, because they are essential for the OS. Maybe that's (part of) why it's so much smaller than Chrome.
I'm usually pretty good at understanding differing points of view. It's just that in this case, nobody has provided what I deem a satisfactory example of how a popover doesn't accomplish the same task as a permanent status bar. Is it distracting? I could understand that, if that's the case (though I personally don't even notice it).
What do you plan to use otherwise? Chrome does the same thing, so you're stuck with IE and Safari.
Honestly, I cannot fathom what is preferential about an always-open status bar. For me, the status bar was always of such situational use that the first thing I did on a new browser install was disable it. Having it auto-hide is a much better choice. It's there when you need it (which is to say, rarely), and not there when you don't (which is to say, most of the time). I guess if you really want to see a progress bar for the page load, but then I think everybody should do what Safari does and combine that with the address bar.
(This isn't a dig at you or anyone who is upset by the lack of a persistent status bar. I am genuinely curious about why it's such a sticking point.)
Slashdot Mirror
Most people seem to be thinking it's an interlock device, rather than a standalone breathalyzer. In that case, assuming $1 per car trip, driving every day and a minimum of two trips (one to destination, one back home), it would be ~$730/year or more.
But since that isn't the case, then the point is moot. It's a couple bucks a year at minimum, more if you get pulled over and are forced to use them a lot.
My problem is efficiency. If it's not an interlock, how is it in any way improving public safety? What's the point? Why not just have the police carry around breathalyzers? That way, there's no chance the driver won't be able to take the test, and you won't have millions of people wasting money on these portable--
Oh. There it is. It's just a way to get money for the breathalyzer manufacturers, as well as for the government to pat themselves on the back for a job well done in "improving public safety" with this do-nothing legislation.
A couple years back (or maybe just a year), an "update" came out for WipEout HD on the PS3. The game cost $15 to buy, but the update added video advertisements to the loading screens of each race. Aside from being annoying, they drastically increased load times in order to force you to actually watch the ad. While not as bad as actually crippling the game as in this case, that event really soured me to the concept of digital distribution.
Really, the only company I trust with digital distribution these days is GOG, who don't use DRM in any of their games. Yeah, they pulled that weird "shutdown" stunt a while back, but to my mind it only proved their value--nobody was unable to play their games during the outage (except for those few people who hadn't gotten around to downloading them yet).
While you're right that widescreen monitors cost less to make due to less overall surface area, I think you're neglecting the fact that it's more comfortable for people to work with things side-by-side than top-to-bottom. Also, vertical scrolling is far easier on most computers than horizontal, so having two windows next to each other on a widescreen monitor is better than two next to each other on a 4:3 monitor--the windows will be slightly wider on the 16:9 monitor (duh, I know).
Widescreen monitors are better for multitasking when you have to switch between two windows often, or look at the content of two windows at the same time. It's also superior for movies (and video games), as you have a wider angle in which to display things. Interesting stuff doesn't tend to happen in the sky or at the cameraman's feet.
If you're just using one app at a time in full-screen, then I agree that 4:3 is better.
Apple's OS is a fully certified UNIX platform. Would a victory here make them pay more money?
Pretty much mirrors my thoughts, too. I'll add that book 8 is also largely pointless. Book 11 felt like Jordan's attempt to regain control of the sprawling narrative--he ended at least three long, ongoing story lines. It wasn't up to the quality of, say, The Great Hunt, but it was loads better than Crossroads of Twilight.
Looking forward to the last book.
Everything I've read says that the default is to allow signed and MAS apps only, but you can change it to run unsigned apps. How much does it cost to get a developer ID and sign your apps? It's free. You don't need the $99/year license--it's a new program.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/02/16/gatekeeper_to_add_optional_app_restrictions_to_mountain_lion.html
Also, notice the "and" part in my first sentence. You don't need to be in the MAS to have a signed app. You do, however, need to be in the MAS in order to take advantage of iCloud.
Their name is actually a really good description: Serious Organized Crime Agency. From the description of what they do, it does sound like they're criminals, organized, and an official agency. And their wording is very serious.
Oh wait, they say they're the good guys? They might have wanted another word in there. "Prevention" right before Agency, or some such. Just a thought. They're monitoring my Internet activity now, so I don't need to write them a letter. They already saw this post. Right? Right??
I believe the parent was wondering why they are offering it for a price, rather than for free.
Something tells me language has changed in the past 200 years. It's probably the same reason you see certain words capitalized "randomly" in the Constitution, which you wouldn't do now.
I have to take issue with the idea that the used game market hurts developers. It might, but I don't think we have enough evidence to support it. How many used game sales are lost new game sales? It's similar to the argument that each pirated copy represents a lost sale--some used sales do represent a lost new sale, while others don't. Some people simply can't justify spending $60 on a game.
There's also the fact that people who sell used games often turn around and buy new ones. Again, not a 1:1 ratio, but it's not so cut and dry as "used sales hurt the industry." Books, movies, and music have all gotten along with used sales. The car industry would be a fragment of what it is today without used sales. And games have done just fine with them in the past.
Also, if you want to take a look at "good" DRM, look at The Witcher 2. Retail copies had DRM, online copies didn't. Two weeks after release (so after they'd gotten all the launch money by making pirating slightly more difficult), CDPR sent out a patch that removed all DRM from all versions.
There is no difference. The only useful thing SRWare Iron makes is increasing the number of website thumbnails.
http://chromium.hybridsource.org/the-iron-scam
My bank has a similar ridiculous restriction. 14 characters max, limited subset of symbols allowed. Because of this, my bank password is my least secure password, while it should be one of the strongest. I find it amusing that my WoW account is much more secure than my bank (greater password freedom + authenticator)--at least from an authentication standpoint.
Mac users can use a program called 1Password to manage their passwords. It stores them in an encrypted file that you use a master password to unlock. And you can use browser extensions to have it automatically login to any site you've told it about, and it will generate passwords for you as well. It's the best solution I've found for having unique, strong passwords for every site or system you have a login for. Just make sure you choose a smart master password.
(There's an iOS version, too, that syncs with the standalone app, so you have access to your passwords on the go.)
Anyone know of something similar for other platforms? I'd like to get the rest of my family using stronger passwords than pet names or whatever they're using.
"Included apps" could very well be zero. The marketing material could say, "Hey, look, guys, we don't bundle any crap!"
Maybe you're bad at explaining? Streaming from Netflix is loads easier than explaining how bittorrent works.
I can get behind change for the sake of change being a poor motivation. But if you are going to make functionality improvements, I see that as a good reason to change aesthetics. As a random example (because I happened to be on the site when I got the reply notification), GOG's current interface blows away their old one. Their old one was fine, but the new one has a lot more functionality, and they tied that functionality addition with a UI facelift. I think that's a good way to do it, because having a visual change encourages users to look for other changes, and thus discover the functionality changes.
Moving links around because you're bored, though, isn't worthwhile, unless it's to simplify or improve flow. (Microsoft Office is a prime example of this, seemingly moving icons around all over the place for no discernible reason. I'm not a ribbon hater, but there are some fairly obvious ways it could be improved.)
I sort of disagree--change can be refreshing, but can easily be a hassle. On the PS3, Netflix has changed the design quite often. Sometimes it's for the better, and sometimes it's not. The worst design change was when they briefly took away the "recently watched" section from the home screen. Made watching TV shows a very painful process.
That said, I like Google's current design a lot better than the old design(s). My only complaint is that the black at the top doesn't match other Google properties. The new design looks better, but I'm surprised you have to go through more motions to open something common, such as image search. That's a silly move in my mind, and it seems like it would be better to have the main menu items always visible, with the extended menu items showing up on mouseover for each root menu item (sort of a combination of the new look and the current look). Also, having "Google" show up in the top left and the center of the page looks redundant.
UI performance has always been one of the #1 complaints people had about webOS. The Touchpad has to be overclocked to 1.5-1.7GHz (dual core, mind you) and have lots of performance patches and experimental kernels used before it even approaches the responsiveness of the first iPad (1GHz, single core, 1/4 the RAM). I think webOS has some great concepts, but it seriously hamstrung itself by forcing everything to be rendered with WebKit.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn ?
The industry has worked fine for decades with used games. Why is it only now a problem?
I think my first two words acknowledged that fact.
Anecdote, yes, but a fair amount of people I know fiddle with the radio a lot. I know I used to do it all the time in order to find something that didn't make me want to cut my ears off. Then I realized 95% of music on public radio was god-awful, so I stopped listening altogether.
If we ban headsets, then we should ban talking with someone in your car.
What's interesting is Chrome used to be stupid fast at startup on a Mac. The dock icon wouldn't even bounce, it was so quick. But now it takes a couple bounces, even on my new Air. Safari is definitely the better choice on a Mac, but I do fall back to Chrome every now and then (sometimes I have issues streaming Nextflix in Safari, and I don't have that problem with Chrome).
I would imagine, though, that many of the resources Safari uses are kept in other places than the .app package, because they are essential for the OS. Maybe that's (part of) why it's so much smaller than Chrome.
I'm usually pretty good at understanding differing points of view. It's just that in this case, nobody has provided what I deem a satisfactory example of how a popover doesn't accomplish the same task as a permanent status bar. Is it distracting? I could understand that, if that's the case (though I personally don't even notice it).
What do you plan to use otherwise? Chrome does the same thing, so you're stuck with IE and Safari.
Honestly, I cannot fathom what is preferential about an always-open status bar. For me, the status bar was always of such situational use that the first thing I did on a new browser install was disable it. Having it auto-hide is a much better choice. It's there when you need it (which is to say, rarely), and not there when you don't (which is to say, most of the time). I guess if you really want to see a progress bar for the page load, but then I think everybody should do what Safari does and combine that with the address bar.
(This isn't a dig at you or anyone who is upset by the lack of a persistent status bar. I am genuinely curious about why it's such a sticking point.)