So then don't use that feature? I see nothing wrong with a company offering a feature that you need to trade a little privacy to take advantage of, as long as it is your choice whether or not you use it.
After I heard it would be 37 hours I was like "no way am I going to wait THAT long" and promptly bought tickets. Because you know, if I'm going to watch a shitty bootleg of a movie, I'm going to do it in the first day of the movie's release.
I know you're being sarcastic, but that's generally the point of a cam based bootleg - to be able to watch it for free on or close to opening night. If that wasn't a concern, people would just wait for the inevitable DVD rip, which will obviously be _much_ higher quality.
makes you wonder if they used a stock install of vista, or the upcoming vista sp1 etc. 'here, it's not a pile of crap'
(with each driver being run having been fully audited by microsoft, and everything tested beforehand to make sure it works)
A good test would have been to have them install the os themselves, on a box that could be randomly chosen from a large selection each with different hardware, and to see how well they fare with getting it all going.
SP1 for Windows Vista has been out since March 18, 2008, so it would make sense to have it installed. It also does not make sense for the 'subjects' to install Vista since most people would buy a computer with it already installed.
In any case, this is a marketing move, not a rigorous study - I personally find it a little amusing.
That excuse is very weak - when you pay someone to do something, you take responsibility for the things they do to that end. You don't let a company off the hook for poor service because they outsource support to India, and people certainly don't get off the hook if they hire someone to murder someone for them.
Is it wrong to recognize an accomplishment if (in theory) someone else may have been able to do the same thing? "Gee, I would thank you for saving my life, but if you hadn't done it, someone else probably would've - and they would've done it better too."
The full version alsoo works fine (and has for a long time) in FF2. In fact, there was an article like this that came out around the time the new Hotmail site was released regarding FF2 availability. I fully expect support of FF3 to be added within in a few weeks.
A lot of people tend to read lot from Firefox usage numbers. I use Firefox because I find that it works better; if IE, Opera or Safari, for that matter, ever surpass it, I will switch. Most people I know use it because of this same reason (i.e. it's a good browser, or it being recommended as such by someone else), not out of some desire for free software.
I'm guessing that the issue is not that the applications are too complex for a child to use, but rather for all children to use. Sure, you figured out the C64 on your own as a child, but could every other child that you went to school with have done the same thing?
I think this is the perspective lacking for a lot of people who have posted on OLPC stories. It is easy for us to get excited and think "what child wouldn't want one of these? A laptop to hack away on is exactly what I would've wanted!". The reality is the childhood of a geek is not the norm - tinkering with computers may have been exciting for us, but it isn't for everyone.
With education, there is a certain extent of needing to teach to a common denominator. If the OLPC was too complex for most children to use, then it failed.
All the problems you are describing are engineering/development issues and don't have anything to do with operations. The architects would be for the infrastructure, deployment, monitoring, etc etc, not for the games themselves.
I don't think this will be vaporware, if only because this has already been worked on in the form of Surface, which the author seems to have completely forgotten about (well, to be fair, so has almost everyone else).
Since I do so like to be pedantic, I would like to point out that if moms are indeed characterized as tough, then she would in act be quite average due to the large number of moms.
Ah yes, because automated data mining is perfect and requires no human intervention or tuning. It's also certain that nobody would ever verify whether it was working or not.
You're dead wrong about it being "rude" to "deny" derivative work to the original author. That's the whole fucking point of BSD, isn't it? That granting access to ANYONE of the derivative works is not required.
Saying thank you is not required but not doing so is rude. It's not a terribly difficult concept.
It's a ridiculously good game (I have the Xbox version), so this kind of news saddens me. I hate seeing masterpiece level games brought down by details like this (albeit pretty major, horrible details).
In any case, if you have a Xbox 360 or have thought about getting one, this game is well worth it (imho, though there are plenty of supporting reviews out there).
This is still an awesome game and definitely worth the purchase. This news only makes me glad that I got it for the Xbox 360 rather than PC. If you have a Xbox 360 and don't have this game yet - shame on you.
Slashdot Mirror
That's absurd - who pays the cost necessary to actually keep such a service running?
What a ridiculous notion, that anyone _should_ get their news from a single source.
Community service was mandatory as part of my high school education (IB program) and I found it to be rather valuable.
That's funny, I would've thought that the NBC Olympics site would've fallen into that category.
It must in order to be approved by OSI, but I tend to agree with the gp that source code being available is sufficient to call something open source.
So then don't use that feature? I see nothing wrong with a company offering a feature that you need to trade a little privacy to take advantage of, as long as it is your choice whether or not you use it.
Maybe I'm a closet fascist, but I don't see the act of asking for something from the owner and being given permission to take it as 'seizure'.
Oh, and don't claim you hated Microsoft prior to 1995, you know it's a lie.
Fail. I was a vocal opponent of Windows 3.1, calling it the abomination it was.
Wow, if I hated every company who put out a product I didn't like, I'd sure be full of hate and very little else.
After I heard it would be 37 hours I was like "no way am I going to wait THAT long" and promptly bought tickets. Because you know, if I'm going to watch a shitty bootleg of a movie, I'm going to do it in the first day of the movie's release.
I know you're being sarcastic, but that's generally the point of a cam based bootleg - to be able to watch it for free on or close to opening night. If that wasn't a concern, people would just wait for the inevitable DVD rip, which will obviously be _much_ higher quality.
makes you wonder if they used a stock install of vista, or the upcoming vista sp1 etc. 'here, it's not a pile of crap' (with each driver being run having been fully audited by microsoft, and everything tested beforehand to make sure it works)
A good test would have been to have them install the os themselves, on a box that could be randomly chosen from a large selection each with different hardware, and to see how well they fare with getting it all going.
SP1 for Windows Vista has been out since March 18, 2008, so it would make sense to have it installed. It also does not make sense for the 'subjects' to install Vista since most people would buy a computer with it already installed.
In any case, this is a marketing move, not a rigorous study - I personally find it a little amusing.
That excuse is very weak - when you pay someone to do something, you take responsibility for the things they do to that end. You don't let a company off the hook for poor service because they outsource support to India, and people certainly don't get off the hook if they hire someone to murder someone for them.
Was I the only one to misread the title as: "IE 8 To Include New Security Holes" ?
That's true for almost everything new. As complexity rises, so does the chance of a problem, and browsers are surprisingly complex nowadays.
Is it wrong to recognize an accomplishment if (in theory) someone else may have been able to do the same thing? "Gee, I would thank you for saving my life, but if you hadn't done it, someone else probably would've - and they would've done it better too."
The full version alsoo works fine (and has for a long time) in FF2. In fact, there was an article like this that came out around the time the new Hotmail site was released regarding FF2 availability. I fully expect support of FF3 to be added within in a few weeks.
A lot of people tend to read lot from Firefox usage numbers. I use Firefox because I find that it works better; if IE, Opera or Safari, for that matter, ever surpass it, I will switch. Most people I know use it because of this same reason (i.e. it's a good browser, or it being recommended as such by someone else), not out of some desire for free software.
I'm guessing that the issue is not that the applications are too complex for a child to use, but rather for all children to use. Sure, you figured out the C64 on your own as a child, but could every other child that you went to school with have done the same thing?
I think this is the perspective lacking for a lot of people who have posted on OLPC stories. It is easy for us to get excited and think "what child wouldn't want one of these? A laptop to hack away on is exactly what I would've wanted!". The reality is the childhood of a geek is not the norm - tinkering with computers may have been exciting for us, but it isn't for everyone.
With education, there is a certain extent of needing to teach to a common denominator. If the OLPC was too complex for most children to use, then it failed.
One of the major criticisms is tied to the ratio of non-users to users.
All the problems you are describing are engineering/development issues and don't have anything to do with operations. The architects would be for the infrastructure, deployment, monitoring, etc etc, not for the games themselves.
I don't think this will be vaporware, if only because this has already been worked on in the form of Surface, which the author seems to have completely forgotten about (well, to be fair, so has almost everyone else).
Since I do so like to be pedantic, I would like to point out that if moms are indeed characterized as tough, then she would in act be quite average due to the large number of moms.
Ah yes, because automated data mining is perfect and requires no human intervention or tuning. It's also certain that nobody would ever verify whether it was working or not.
Yeah, starting with an ad hominem makes me want to take your arguments seriously.
Saying thank you is not required but not doing so is rude. It's not a terribly difficult concept.
It's a ridiculously good game (I have the Xbox version), so this kind of news saddens me. I hate seeing masterpiece level games brought down by details like this (albeit pretty major, horrible details).
In any case, if you have a Xbox 360 or have thought about getting one, this game is well worth it (imho, though there are plenty of supporting reviews out there).
This is still an awesome game and definitely worth the purchase. This news only makes me glad that I got it for the Xbox 360 rather than PC. If you have a Xbox 360 and don't have this game yet - shame on you.