Two companies in the same market, facing the same problems, decide on the same solutions... this is "collusion?" And not, say, "duh?"
I'm all for being pro-consumer, but at least try to do it intelligently. The ATT plan is cheaper for the vast majority of their customers... for those who need more data, they can pay for it a gigabyte at a time. It sounds fair to me, frankly, and I also don't understand the frothing-at-the-mouth over the change.
So, if there is any tip I can give to anyone making a web-game for kids: it's appeal to that social interaction and competitiveness that keeps kids playing webgames, keeps jocks playing football, and keeps nerds playing WoW.
Ha ha ha you are so original I've never heard that joke before wow you should write for sitcoms or something please mod up to +30000 Funny because that's the only score that comes close to how hilarious and original this joke is.
I'm guessing the instant the first person signed on with an opinion different than yours. Because obviously anybody not toeing your line is a moron.
Am I right?
Look, there's tons of *valid* opinions about how this guy handled the bug disclosure. Calling people morons doesn't help the discussion and just makes you look like an asshole.
The basic movement keys any 4 year old that has ever used vi will know,
So... zero people. Good to know.
And there *is* a built-in help system, I'm not sure what failure of a school shat you out to not be able to figure it out, but everyone else in the world that has played nethack can use it.
Screw you, too.
The point is that the game would be a lot more *fun* if it was easier to play. Since there's no reason it has to be hard (for example: Mission: Thunderbolt has the same features, but an above-average usable UI), I can only assume it's difficult because the developers don't give a shit.
1) Any developer who cares about security is already following best-practices and doesn't need this tool 2) Any developers who doesn't care about security will never seek out a tool like this
Well, if we're comparing apples to apples (it plays the same games and whatnot) then I think it's fair to bring the physical design into consideration.
I'm saying:
1) This isn't even remotely close to apples-to-apples in the first place, thus (by your own admission) it's not fair to bring physical design into consideration. The systems have vastly different game selections, completely different motion controllers. The only thing similar is capabilities, but even on the most technical level. (For example, both have download game stores, but the quality of the two stores is vastly different.)
2) Even if you did bring the design into consideration, the *size* of it? WHO THE FUCK CARES? It's "entertainment center size", just like your DVD player, just like your Blu-Ray, just like your receiver, just like your cable box or whatever. It doesn't freakin' matter what size it is, as long as it fits into your entertainment center.
The funny thing is that people used to gripe about the first Xbox for the same reason, and since it was one of the best consoles ever released, I still can't fathom why.
My theory: wags who want to irrationally bash Microsoft bring it up so they have something to argue with when they can't think of anything better.
Anyway, thanks for admitting that you were factually wrong, but that aside, let's skip the criticism on the pointless trivialities and focus on the features of the actual product.
check out the new hardware! That thing is hideous. Leave it to microsoft to come out five years later with a hardware rev that is larger than the original.
You mean the HD? Would you prefer they come out with a smaller HD than the last-gen? Sure, 250 GB isn't going to blow anybody away, but the first-gen shipped with 20 GB and that's a good-sized bump.
Oh, wait, you're referring to... physical dimensions? Care to explain to me why the holy shit that even slightly matters? Of all the things to criticize the Xbox about, "the hardware is slightly larger" strikes me as by far the dumbest.
I'm not sold on Gates' motives. He sounds more like a lobbyist than a sage omen of caution like Einstein was.
At the time, Einstein was just a lobbyist too. He only became a "sage omen of caution" in retrospect.
I understand this is Slashdot, but maybe we could ratchet-back the Gates hate a tiny bit and have a civil discussion for once? I think he brings up an interesting point.
If a industry leading OS vendor who has a legally declared monopoly doesn't have a process in place to fix serious reported bugs in 5-7 days, after what 10-15 years as an OS company, then they deserve everything they get.
First of all, could people stop throwing out "legally declared monopoly" (or the even worse "convicted monopolist") in threads where it's utterly irrelevant? It just makes me think you're a fucking idiot. Idiot.
Secondly, do you think the fact that Microsoft runs so many computers is perhaps the *reason* they can't fix serious bugs in 5-7 days? (And I'll note that this time they only got 3 *business* days, and when their security team was already working on a major patch release.)
Microsoft does this thing you may have heard of, it's called "QA." They test everything. Regression testing, fuzz testing, code reviews, etc. There's no way any company that follows those procedures, on a product as big as Windows, would be able to create a working patch in 5 days. No way in fucking hell.
Now you probably work at a small software company that has shitty QA and puts out shitty products. Most do. (Either that or you're completely ignorant of software development, but posting here as an 'expert' anyway.) Fine. But don't extrapolate your experience to Microsoft.
Microsoft is the largest software company in the world.
No they aren't.
But it's good to know that you have no shame about posting easily-verifiable bullshit to this forum. I think it puts the rest of your little screed here into perspective.
They should have had a team in place for years to deal with these kinds of reports and have a process in place to get a "hotfix" out within a few days and a serious stable long term solution with a week or two max.
What makes you think they don't?
If Microsoft can't manage that then they simple just don't care, and aren't willing to spend the money to fix the problems that are their own creation.
Arguably they don't (and shouldn't) care-- about a flaw in IE6 and Windows XP! Support for it ends in a couple years, and we'll all be happy to get rid of the fucking thing. If you care about security, upgrade! Windows 7 and IE8 are significantly more secure.
That is simply putting profits above the health of their customers computer systems and networks.
Or maybe it's "doing the best that is humanly possible." Do you have any *proof* of this accusation? Or are you just posting more bullshit?
Look, if you have a hard job to do, throwing money at it won't make it go any quicker. You're living in some strange fantasy-world if think otherwise... it's well documented that adding more people to a software development job makes it *slower*. Paying existing people more doesn't make them miraculously able to type or think more quickly.
What are you expecting the money to be able to do, exactly? Call down miracles from heaven?
Which is in my opinion crappy ethics, and being a poor American corporate company.
You're welcome to hold whatever opinion you like, but it would be nice if it wasn't based on complete bullshit.
And yet how many times has microsoft "fixed" a vulnerability by band-aiding over *one* instance of an exploit while leaving many other related attack vectors wide open?
As far as I know, zero.
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and show otherwise?
You're saying instead of a Google engineer spilling the beans in 5 days, Microsoft should have spilled the beans in does not work. Things like that are exactly *why* the process takes longer than 5 days, and exactly why this particular Google engineer is being a complete jackass.
My situation is pretty funny, unique. Our company is very forward-moving, not only are we already transitioning to Windows 7, we have probably 40-50% of the desktop on Vista currently*. Additionally, we get moved to new versions of Outlook and Office regularly-- I'd say computers around here are never more than about 2 years behind the state-of-the-art.
Now we've gotten taken over by a company that does the exact opposite. They install XP (SP2 of course!) and Office 2003 on crappy-ass cheap laptops. They use Novell for networking, and Lotus Notes for email (seriously.) They're also planning to roll-out this shitty configuration to a company of people used to the latest and greatest.
There's going to be physical violence.
* For the hardware they buy us, Vista runs really well. No Vista snarks, please.
Frankly, given how utterly boring Dungeon Siege 1 was, I'm amazed it got a single sequel, much less two. Seriously... people enjoyed that game? I only even finished it because I felt like giving up on the snorefest would be a waste of money.
I agree completely that speed limits should be set sensibly to the road, and that it often isn't the case now, but do you really think that lack of enforcement is the best way to solve that problem?
Enforcement by human beings? Or enforcement by cameras and computers?
Jobs in the keynote mentioned that they don't approve apps that crash. Hah! Explain how Safari got on the phone then, Steve. Oh, I guess that rule only applies to non-Apple apps... talk about double-standards.
4. The only people with (plugged-in) landline phones are elderly, lonely people. They appreciate someone "to talk to," even if they are just a tape recorder.
If you don't play the game, the commentary is hilariously incomprehensible. If your drink is alcoholic, or your snack is pot brownies, that alone is pretty entertaining. It's also done over some sub-Skype crappy VOIP system.
Of course the images are equally incomprehensible.
I don't have an issue with it. I checked my usage, and I've only gone over 2 GB once. When I get the chance, I'm going to switch my plan and save a few bucks a month.
Oh, and just to further antagonize the Slashdot gestalt, I get good reception and speeds with ATT where I live.
Exactly how did you play Nethack that it became tedious?
Ran the program and realized you have to memorize 20,000 keystrokes with absolutely no on-screen help or tutorial before you can do anything at all? In what way is that not "tedious?"
I actually have an extremely similar game on my old Mac, Mission: Thunderbolt (and its sequel, Mission: Firestorm), that was the same genre and basic setup, but had a *gasp* GUI and was *gasp* actually easy-to-use. I enjoyed that game. (Also: the old Gold Box D&D Dungeon Hack was a somewhat similar game, which I enjoyed.)
So you see, I don't have anything against the genre or setup of Nethack, but the execution is crap. In My Humble Opinion, of course. Now you can go ahead and insult me for not being "hardcore" enough, or whatever bullshit Nethack players come back with when people tell them the UI sucks.
And nobody said that, for example, System Shock 2 wasn't art. They said that nobody will be playing it eventually, which is true.
I doubt it. That's like saying that in 20 years, nobody will be watching Casablanca or The Grapes of Wrath. It won't have the mass appeal it once did, but it'll still be played and appreciated by a select few.
Although it is true that the article is a lot more likely now to be positive towards Microsoft (or at least neutral) than previously, when it would never be posted unless it contained at least one accusation of baby-eating.
As an old school Mac OS user, I think the most amazing thing was how thoroughly Slashdot ignored Mac until OS X came out. Hell, I bet the Amiga got more stories during that era.
Slashdot Mirror
Two companies in the same market, facing the same problems, decide on the same solutions... this is "collusion?" And not, say, "duh?"
I'm all for being pro-consumer, but at least try to do it intelligently. The ATT plan is cheaper for the vast majority of their customers... for those who need more data, they can pay for it a gigabyte at a time. It sounds fair to me, frankly, and I also don't understand the frothing-at-the-mouth over the change.
So, if there is any tip I can give to anyone making a web-game for kids: it's appeal to that social interaction and competitiveness that keeps kids playing webgames, keeps jocks playing football, and keeps nerds playing WoW.
And rip-off Pokemon! Oh wait...
Ha ha ha you are so original I've never heard that joke before wow you should write for sitcoms or something please mod up to +30000 Funny because that's the only score that comes close to how hilarious and original this joke is.
Link to the photo, in case you were curious like I was.
When did slashdot become infected with morons?
I'm guessing the instant the first person signed on with an opinion different than yours. Because obviously anybody not toeing your line is a moron.
Am I right?
Look, there's tons of *valid* opinions about how this guy handled the bug disclosure. Calling people morons doesn't help the discussion and just makes you look like an asshole.
The basic movement keys any 4 year old that has ever used vi will know,
So... zero people. Good to know.
And there *is* a built-in help system, I'm not sure what failure of a school shat you out to not be able to figure it out, but everyone else in the world that has played nethack can use it.
Screw you, too.
The point is that the game would be a lot more *fun* if it was easier to play. Since there's no reason it has to be hard (for example: Mission: Thunderbolt has the same features, but an above-average usable UI), I can only assume it's difficult because the developers don't give a shit.
The simple fact is:
1) Any developer who cares about security is already following best-practices and doesn't need this tool
2) Any developers who doesn't care about security will never seek out a tool like this
Seems like a waste of time to me.
Well, if we're comparing apples to apples (it plays the same games and whatnot) then I think it's fair to bring the physical design into consideration.
I'm saying:
1) This isn't even remotely close to apples-to-apples in the first place, thus (by your own admission) it's not fair to bring physical design into consideration. The systems have vastly different game selections, completely different motion controllers. The only thing similar is capabilities, but even on the most technical level. (For example, both have download game stores, but the quality of the two stores is vastly different.)
2) Even if you did bring the design into consideration, the *size* of it? WHO THE FUCK CARES? It's "entertainment center size", just like your DVD player, just like your Blu-Ray, just like your receiver, just like your cable box or whatever. It doesn't freakin' matter what size it is, as long as it fits into your entertainment center.
The funny thing is that people used to gripe about the first Xbox for the same reason, and since it was one of the best consoles ever released, I still can't fathom why.
My theory: wags who want to irrationally bash Microsoft bring it up so they have something to argue with when they can't think of anything better.
Anyway, thanks for admitting that you were factually wrong, but that aside, let's skip the criticism on the pointless trivialities and focus on the features of the actual product.
check out the new hardware! That thing is hideous. Leave it to microsoft to come out five years later with a hardware rev that is larger than the original.
You mean the HD? Would you prefer they come out with a smaller HD than the last-gen? Sure, 250 GB isn't going to blow anybody away, but the first-gen shipped with 20 GB and that's a good-sized bump.
Oh, wait, you're referring to... physical dimensions? Care to explain to me why the holy shit that even slightly matters? Of all the things to criticize the Xbox about, "the hardware is slightly larger" strikes me as by far the dumbest.
I'm not sold on Gates' motives. He sounds more like a lobbyist than a sage omen of caution like Einstein was.
At the time, Einstein was just a lobbyist too. He only became a "sage omen of caution" in retrospect.
I understand this is Slashdot, but maybe we could ratchet-back the Gates hate a tiny bit and have a civil discussion for once? I think he brings up an interesting point.
If a industry leading OS vendor who has a legally declared monopoly doesn't have a process in place to fix serious reported bugs in 5-7 days, after what 10-15 years as an OS company, then they deserve everything they get.
First of all, could people stop throwing out "legally declared monopoly" (or the even worse "convicted monopolist") in threads where it's utterly irrelevant? It just makes me think you're a fucking idiot. Idiot.
Secondly, do you think the fact that Microsoft runs so many computers is perhaps the *reason* they can't fix serious bugs in 5-7 days? (And I'll note that this time they only got 3 *business* days, and when their security team was already working on a major patch release.)
Microsoft does this thing you may have heard of, it's called "QA." They test everything. Regression testing, fuzz testing, code reviews, etc. There's no way any company that follows those procedures, on a product as big as Windows, would be able to create a working patch in 5 days. No way in fucking hell.
Now you probably work at a small software company that has shitty QA and puts out shitty products. Most do. (Either that or you're completely ignorant of software development, but posting here as an 'expert' anyway.) Fine. But don't extrapolate your experience to Microsoft.
Microsoft is the largest software company in the world.
No they aren't.
But it's good to know that you have no shame about posting easily-verifiable bullshit to this forum. I think it puts the rest of your little screed here into perspective.
They should have had a team in place for years to deal with these kinds of reports and have a process in place to get a "hotfix" out within a few days and a serious stable long term solution with a week or two max.
What makes you think they don't?
If Microsoft can't manage that then they simple just don't care, and aren't willing to spend the money to fix the problems that are their own creation.
Arguably they don't (and shouldn't) care-- about a flaw in IE6 and Windows XP! Support for it ends in a couple years, and we'll all be happy to get rid of the fucking thing. If you care about security, upgrade! Windows 7 and IE8 are significantly more secure.
That is simply putting profits above the health of their customers computer systems and networks.
Or maybe it's "doing the best that is humanly possible." Do you have any *proof* of this accusation? Or are you just posting more bullshit?
Look, if you have a hard job to do, throwing money at it won't make it go any quicker. You're living in some strange fantasy-world if think otherwise... it's well documented that adding more people to a software development job makes it *slower*. Paying existing people more doesn't make them miraculously able to type or think more quickly.
What are you expecting the money to be able to do, exactly? Call down miracles from heaven?
Which is in my opinion crappy ethics, and being a poor American corporate company.
You're welcome to hold whatever opinion you like, but it would be nice if it wasn't based on complete bullshit.
And yet how many times has microsoft "fixed" a vulnerability by band-aiding over *one* instance of an exploit while leaving many other related attack vectors wide open?
As far as I know, zero.
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and show otherwise?
They could've at least released a bulletin.
For what purpose?
You're saying instead of a Google engineer spilling the beans in 5 days, Microsoft should have spilled the beans in does not work. Things like that are exactly *why* the process takes longer than 5 days, and exactly why this particular Google engineer is being a complete jackass.
My situation is pretty funny, unique. Our company is very forward-moving, not only are we already transitioning to Windows 7, we have probably 40-50% of the desktop on Vista currently*. Additionally, we get moved to new versions of Outlook and Office regularly-- I'd say computers around here are never more than about 2 years behind the state-of-the-art.
Now we've gotten taken over by a company that does the exact opposite. They install XP (SP2 of course!) and Office 2003 on crappy-ass cheap laptops. They use Novell for networking, and Lotus Notes for email (seriously.) They're also planning to roll-out this shitty configuration to a company of people used to the latest and greatest.
There's going to be physical violence.
* For the hardware they buy us, Vista runs really well. No Vista snarks, please.
Frankly, given how utterly boring Dungeon Siege 1 was, I'm amazed it got a single sequel, much less two. Seriously... people enjoyed that game? I only even finished it because I felt like giving up on the snorefest would be a waste of money.
Plus, how do we know woman in the 1840s weren't just lying about when they first got their periods?
I agree completely that speed limits should be set sensibly to the road, and that it often isn't the case now, but do you really think that lack of enforcement is the best way to solve that problem?
Enforcement by human beings? Or enforcement by cameras and computers?
It's a very, very different answer.
Jobs in the keynote mentioned that they don't approve apps that crash. Hah! Explain how Safari got on the phone then, Steve. Oh, I guess that rule only applies to non-Apple apps... talk about double-standards.
You seriously don't recognize "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"?
Christ almighty, get to Netflix POST-HASTE. One of the best movies from the best director ever.
4. The only people with (plugged-in) landline phones are elderly, lonely people. They appreciate someone "to talk to," even if they are just a tape recorder.
Wow, those guys are assholes. They even turned off the display during a game competition.
Good for Apple banning them. Now everybody else needs to ban their asses from... everything.
If you don't play the game, the commentary is hilariously incomprehensible. If your drink is alcoholic, or your snack is pot brownies, that alone is pretty entertaining. It's also done over some sub-Skype crappy VOIP system.
Of course the images are equally incomprehensible.
I don't have an issue with it. I checked my usage, and I've only gone over 2 GB once. When I get the chance, I'm going to switch my plan and save a few bucks a month.
Oh, and just to further antagonize the Slashdot gestalt, I get good reception and speeds with ATT where I live.
Exactly how did you play Nethack that it became tedious?
Ran the program and realized you have to memorize 20,000 keystrokes with absolutely no on-screen help or tutorial before you can do anything at all? In what way is that not "tedious?"
I actually have an extremely similar game on my old Mac, Mission: Thunderbolt (and its sequel, Mission: Firestorm), that was the same genre and basic setup, but had a *gasp* GUI and was *gasp* actually easy-to-use. I enjoyed that game. (Also: the old Gold Box D&D Dungeon Hack was a somewhat similar game, which I enjoyed.)
So you see, I don't have anything against the genre or setup of Nethack, but the execution is crap. In My Humble Opinion, of course. Now you can go ahead and insult me for not being "hardcore" enough, or whatever bullshit Nethack players come back with when people tell them the UI sucks.
And nobody said that, for example, System Shock 2 wasn't art. They said that nobody will be playing it eventually, which is true.
I doubt it. That's like saying that in 20 years, nobody will be watching Casablanca or The Grapes of Wrath. It won't have the mass appeal it once did, but it'll still be played and appreciated by a select few.
What Slashdot were you reading?
Although it is true that the article is a lot more likely now to be positive towards Microsoft (or at least neutral) than previously, when it would never be posted unless it contained at least one accusation of baby-eating.
As an old school Mac OS user, I think the most amazing thing was how thoroughly Slashdot ignored Mac until OS X came out. Hell, I bet the Amiga got more stories during that era.