And SL isn't really a game. It's more of a MUD with a GUI.
SL isn't anything like a MUD. MUSH, possibly.
The funny thing, though, is that the horrible usability of Second Life actually makes the horrible usability of most MUDs/MUSHes look pretty good by comparison.
One point I forgot to bring up, but should be apparent: It's pretty obvious that none of the journalist writing about Second Life, and executives demanding online land be purchased, never actually downloaded and played the game.
Second Life has always been a mediocre-to-awful virtual reality primarily filled with furry perverts.
What happened is about 3 years ago, they hired the BEST PR TEAM EVER. They got companies and even some governments to set up shop in there, thinking it was the next big thing. They got stories in the news almost every day-- if you visited this site, you probably remember how often it came up here. It was remarkable, when you consider what product they were actually selling!
Either people actually tried Second Life and realized the marketing was all lies, or their awesome marketing team is gone. For whatever the reason, in the last year or so all the hype has virtually disappeared, and now Second Life is back to being a mediocre-to-awful virtual reality primarily filled with furry perverts again.
Call of Duty "blah blah blah" games are intended for adults, not 11-year-olds.
Not that that is necessarily a rebuttal to what you're saying, but you'd expect games intended for adults to show alerts that adults have no trouble recognizing as fake.
If you were talking about Viva Pinata, or another game intended for 11-year-olds, then it'd be a different story.
Yeah, because it's unthinkable that an adult might play video games, right? Sheesh. I never thought I'd see the "video games are only for kids" sentiment here on Slashdot of all places.
Anyway, let's say an alert pops up that the kid "becomes confused" and ignores it. So what? If the system wasn't in place, they would never have seen the alert, and so the kid's no worse off. On the other hand, if he's the rare kid who doesn't "become confused" by it, it might just save his life.
So I don't really know what you're griping about here.
If Microsoft proposed that, the anti-trust courts would go insane, and the threads in Slashdot would collapse under the weight of so many thousands of Slashdotters posting "convicted monopolist."
I don't know if you were going for "funny" or what, but I'd expect any application that does intense page-layout-type work to use the GPU whenever possible, the benefits are enormous.
Because the standards are created by academics who have no clue how actual people use the web (seriously, it took CSS until version 3 to get columns!?) and simultaneously hate Microsoft. The only Microsoft innovation that's made it back into the standards is xmlHttpRequest. Which is a shame, because I could do some badass scripting if Firefox supported document.readyState.
It doesn't help that competing browsers are (generally) more dedicated to Microsoft hatred than to improving the web experience. Adding innerHTML to Firefox (or the standards) would hurt nothing, and instantly make thousands of IE-only sites Firefox compatible. But they won't add it, because the standard specifies the much worse-named textContent.
But, hey, in another 5 years, if we're lucky, we might have columns.
Uh, isn't the Fiefox add-on system the exact same as IE's add-on system but with a nicer installer and updater? I want to know how Mozilla hypnotized so many Slashdotters into thinking IE has no add-ons-- have you all seriously never seen an IE install with a third-party toolbar?
And I think it's Flash that kills keyboard shortcuts, because I have that same problem with Firefox, but only on pages with Flash.
The second link in the article talks about this, shows how they measure holistic performance for different types of web sites, and includes benchmarks comparing IE9 to other pre-release browsers. I don't suppose it occurred to you to actually read any of the article links.
But of course, clicking links in the summary to see if your question has already been addressed would slow down your posting.
Firstly, the software is not badly written; it complied completely with previous versions of Windows.
Wrong. It worked, IF you were an Administrative user, but it sure didn't comply with any of Microsoft's software guidelines. Those programs did *not* "comply completely" and any halfway-competent QA department should have caught those bugs on the first day.
If you take "previous versions of Windows" to mean "Windows ME," then you're right... kinda.
Vista and beyond introduced a breaking change;
No it didn't, it just enforced "User" permissions for new computer accounts by default. (Basically... it's more complicated, but that's what it amounts to.)
Secondly, the annoyance is in the fact that, in UAC, you ask to do something first, and then Windows asks you for authorization. sudo is less annoying because you authorize first (or at the same time, depending on how you look at it) and then ask to do something.
I don't see any practical difference between the two. You're just used to the sudo behavior.
I can dig deeper, but that is by far not the only isolated incident.
The article you just linked said it was. The issue doesn't apply to any other version of IE. (That is, versions of IE used by sane people.)
The issue here about the previous search results (prior comment) is that they are showing other OS's first, and MS is nowhere to be found.
That's not evidence of rigged results.
I wasn't even specifying an OS, so why or how would it magically put in linux and mac as insecure
What makes you think it "magically put in linux and mac as insecure" (whatever that means?) You've demonstrated absolutely nothing here.
You could be noticing a pattern, for example: articles about Windows don't include the term "OS" as often as articles about Linux and Macintosh. That might be a reasonable conclusion to draw, and has nothing to do with some paranoid conspiracy theory you've brewed up.
The only thing you've concretely shown is that Google and Bing don't have identical search results. Whoop-de-shit.
(re: your reply to me)The other issue here is, when I'm looking for something I don't need bing to tell me what I want to find, that by searching google I don't need it to automatically assume I don't know how to type google.com., which is what it's essentially defaulting.
That's because millions and millions of users do, in fact, type "google.com" into a search box to get to Google. This just proves you're completely out-of-touch with the search industry, and know nothing about the average user.
Likewise with Microsoft. I don't want "all about Microsoft from Microsoft's webpage", because a company's own view will always be skewed. I want "all about Microsoft from everyone else in the world other than Microsoft". This is a failure of the search engine for me.
Have you ever tried to use Sourceforge? It's slow, ugly, constantly gives vague errors, image uploads constantly fail, terrible UI, forgets which page you were on before logging in, awful bug tracking with insultingly-named fields (canned response!)...
A better question is, "why would any project actually interested in user feedback use Sourceforge?"
why don't you read my other comments buddy, I have plenty of links to MS skewing. the "where's your cites" thing is a waste of my time. I'll copy my own cites from my other comments. Oh right, here it is. http://www.bing.com/search?q=least+secure+os&go=&form=QBRE&qs=n&adlt=strict . How's that? I can add cites for everything I've done, but then again I don't need to.
That doesn't show that Bing is *biased*, that shows that it has a different search algorithm than Google does. You haven't proved bias-- the top 5 of Bing's results have the term "Least Secure OS" in the title, and it's even smart enough to look up "operating system" (a term you didn't provide) in addition to "OS".
You can't prove bias by typing in a term and eye-balling the results, especially when all of the results *contain the term you typed in*. Christ.
Very few results = 1. search for google on bing (just the word), and there is 1 result unless you hit show more. How many is 1. It's not 202 million, you putz. Counting is good, you know. Even the word Microsoft on bing shows more results. Remind me, do tell. Or remind me that there might be things I want other than just google's homepage when I search for google?
Ok, here's two concepts:
* Number of results found * Number of results displayed
Do you understand that these are two different things? I feel like I'm hosting an episode of Sesame Street having to explain something so completely basic and obvious.
Bing finds 202 million results (more or less.) It displays one. Google finds more results, and it displays 10. By your (retarded) logic, Bing "found" 1 result, and Google "found" 10 results.
More relevant to the quality of the search engine, is the one result Bing displays most relevant to the search term? I would say so.
I hope you sperg out and earn a trip to jail for something stupid, due to typing up a response without using logic in a clearly inflammatory and trollish manner.
"Sperg out?" WTF.
Oh, and I since I'm apparently trolling, I also notice that you haven't talked about your complete bullshit lies about IE changing its default search provider. Do you have any evidence for that particular piece of FUD? Why not come clean and admit it's never happened, you hack.
Reasons? Sure. Any result on things is skewed if it relates to MS. How can you call that "reliable"?
You can't just say things and expect people to believe them, especially on this site crammed with bullshit. How about you provide at least a little evidence?
I'd rather choose my own thing not have *constant* hijacking during every IE security update.
Liar. Either that or delusional.
No IE update has ever changed your default search provider.
Also it sure is interesting that very few search results show up when I put the term google into bing, isn't it?.
Yeah. Bing reports "only" 202,000,000. Google reports 2,100,000,000.
Do you seriously think 202 MILLION search results merits the description "very few?"
I can keep searching more reasons if you want, but the end result is that the quality of results and accuracy is piss poor.
The only *actual* reason you've given that wasn't a gross exaggeration or flat-out lie is your complaints about the layout. Which is more a personal preference thing than anything.
Ugh, I just hate posts like yours. How do you even respond to someone who describes 202 million results as "very few?" Who lies about the behavior of IE patches? You're so biased that there's no way to even have a debate. There's no way in hell you'd ever give Bing a fair chance. It's just... frustrating. I feel like there's no point to even replying.
Since Google counts embedded searches from apps that have a Google search box, why shouldn't Bing count them as well? If you can find good numbers of marketshare *not* including embedded search boxes, I'd love to see it. (I doubt such a beast exists.) But in this case, you're basically complaining that they're comparing apples-to-apples.
Anyway, what's the problem with Google having some real competition? Look at how IE development picked up once Firefox/Safari/Chrome became competitors on Windows. Competition is *good*, you should be encouraging it.
If nothing else, Bing'll eventually prod Google into improving their Image and Video searches, since Bing's searches in those categories are so much better than Google's.
Slashdot Mirror
Also we track usage rate, pirates tend to only launch once or twice, as if they're sampling the app.
I'm guessing that legitimately-purchased iPhone software is only launched once or twice, too.
However, this time the ban does not just kick you off online multiplayer, it also disables functionality to install games on the included HDD! Games
Yes, that's an Xbox Live feature. Disconnecting you from XBL disables an XBL feature? SHOCKING!
Games already installed on that HDD will not be accessible anymore.
You need the disk to play them anyway. Just delete it from your console's memory blade, then shove the disk in. And stop whining.
Hey Einstein, they added the MagSafe adaptors specifically because the power cord kept snapping off at the mainboard.
Blizzard has more money invested in their urinals than SLs makers have even dared to dream about.
Note: Blizzard buys only urinals of pure silver with ruby flush handles.
And SL isn't really a game. It's more of a MUD with a GUI.
SL isn't anything like a MUD. MUSH, possibly.
The funny thing, though, is that the horrible usability of Second Life actually makes the horrible usability of most MUDs/MUSHes look pretty good by comparison.
One point I forgot to bring up, but should be apparent: It's pretty obvious that none of the journalist writing about Second Life, and executives demanding online land be purchased, never actually downloaded and played the game.
Also, no post about Second Life would be complete without the brilliant Wonderella comic on the topic: http://www.graphicsmash.com/comics/wonderella.php?view=archive&chapter=14739&mpe=0
Second Life has always been a mediocre-to-awful virtual reality primarily filled with furry perverts.
What happened is about 3 years ago, they hired the BEST PR TEAM EVER. They got companies and even some governments to set up shop in there, thinking it was the next big thing. They got stories in the news almost every day-- if you visited this site, you probably remember how often it came up here. It was remarkable, when you consider what product they were actually selling!
Either people actually tried Second Life and realized the marketing was all lies, or their awesome marketing team is gone. For whatever the reason, in the last year or so all the hype has virtually disappeared, and now Second Life is back to being a mediocre-to-awful virtual reality primarily filled with furry perverts again.
Call of Duty "blah blah blah" games are intended for adults, not 11-year-olds.
Not that that is necessarily a rebuttal to what you're saying, but you'd expect games intended for adults to show alerts that adults have no trouble recognizing as fake.
If you were talking about Viva Pinata, or another game intended for 11-year-olds, then it'd be a different story.
And?
The point I was making is that they exist. I didn't say anything about availability or pricing, neither of which is under Microsoft's control.
Yeah, because it's unthinkable that an adult might play video games, right? Sheesh. I never thought I'd see the "video games are only for kids" sentiment here on Slashdot of all places.
Anyway, let's say an alert pops up that the kid "becomes confused" and ignores it. So what? If the system wasn't in place, they would never have seen the alert, and so the kid's no worse off. On the other hand, if he's the rare kid who doesn't "become confused" by it, it might just save his life.
So I don't really know what you're griping about here.
If Microsoft proposed that, the anti-trust courts would go insane, and the threads in Slashdot would collapse under the weight of so many thousands of Slashdotters posting "convicted monopolist."
No, it's really not.
I don't know if you were going for "funny" or what, but I'd expect any application that does intense page-layout-type work to use the GPU whenever possible, the benefits are enormous.
Sorry, meant to type innerText. Both browsers already support innerHTMl.
Because the standards are created by academics who have no clue how actual people use the web (seriously, it took CSS until version 3 to get columns!?) and simultaneously hate Microsoft. The only Microsoft innovation that's made it back into the standards is xmlHttpRequest. Which is a shame, because I could do some badass scripting if Firefox supported document.readyState.
It doesn't help that competing browsers are (generally) more dedicated to Microsoft hatred than to improving the web experience. Adding innerHTML to Firefox (or the standards) would hurt nothing, and instantly make thousands of IE-only sites Firefox compatible. But they won't add it, because the standard specifies the much worse-named textContent.
But, hey, in another 5 years, if we're lucky, we might have columns.
Uh, isn't the Fiefox add-on system the exact same as IE's add-on system but with a nicer installer and updater? I want to know how Mozilla hypnotized so many Slashdotters into thinking IE has no add-ons-- have you all seriously never seen an IE install with a third-party toolbar?
And I think it's Flash that kills keyboard shortcuts, because I have that same problem with Firefox, but only on pages with Flash.
The second link in the article talks about this, shows how they measure holistic performance for different types of web sites, and includes benchmarks comparing IE9 to other pre-release browsers. I don't suppose it occurred to you to actually read any of the article links.
But of course, clicking links in the summary to see if your question has already been addressed would slow down your posting.
Firstly, the software is not badly written; it complied completely with previous versions of Windows.
Wrong. It worked, IF you were an Administrative user, but it sure didn't comply with any of Microsoft's software guidelines. Those programs did *not* "comply completely" and any halfway-competent QA department should have caught those bugs on the first day.
If you take "previous versions of Windows" to mean "Windows ME," then you're right... kinda.
Vista and beyond introduced a breaking change;
No it didn't, it just enforced "User" permissions for new computer accounts by default. (Basically... it's more complicated, but that's what it amounts to.)
Secondly, the annoyance is in the fact that, in UAC, you ask to do something first, and then Windows asks you for authorization. sudo is less annoying because you authorize first (or at the same time, depending on how you look at it) and then ask to do something.
I don't see any practical difference between the two. You're just used to the sudo behavior.
London has had the status of having the most CCTVs per capita for ages. Does anyone have a comparison between the cities?
This whole point of this article is that nobody knows exactly how many cameras the city is looking at, since they won't disclose the number.
So I'm pretty sure nobody has a comparison between the cities.
you've never heard of IE changing default search to bing? http://searchengineland.com/internet-explorer-6-forces-bing-as-default-search-provider-20398
Huh, you got me there.
I can dig deeper, but that is by far not the only isolated incident.
The article you just linked said it was. The issue doesn't apply to any other version of IE. (That is, versions of IE used by sane people.)
The issue here about the previous search results (prior comment) is that they are showing other OS's first, and MS is nowhere to be found.
That's not evidence of rigged results.
I wasn't even specifying an OS, so why or how would it magically put in linux and mac as insecure
What makes you think it "magically put in linux and mac as insecure" (whatever that means?) You've demonstrated absolutely nothing here.
You could be noticing a pattern, for example: articles about Windows don't include the term "OS" as often as articles about Linux and Macintosh. That might be a reasonable conclusion to draw, and has nothing to do with some paranoid conspiracy theory you've brewed up.
The only thing you've concretely shown is that Google and Bing don't have identical search results. Whoop-de-shit.
(re: your reply to me)The other issue here is, when I'm looking for something I don't need bing to tell me what I want to find, that by searching google I don't need it to automatically assume I don't know how to type google.com., which is what it's essentially defaulting.
That's because millions and millions of users do, in fact, type "google.com" into a search box to get to Google. This just proves you're completely out-of-touch with the search industry, and know nothing about the average user.
Likewise with Microsoft. I don't want "all about Microsoft from Microsoft's webpage", because a company's own view will always be skewed. I want "all about Microsoft from everyone else in the world other than Microsoft". This is a failure of the search engine for me.
Then hit "more results," the link's right there.
Have you ever tried to use Sourceforge? It's slow, ugly, constantly gives vague errors, image uploads constantly fail, terrible UI, forgets which page you were on before logging in, awful bug tracking with insultingly-named fields (canned response!)...
A better question is, "why would any project actually interested in user feedback use Sourceforge?"
Yah I just hate it when people ruin a joke.
I know that but, "dancing baby animation that was later featured and popularized on the television show Ally McBeal" ruined the pacing of the joke.
Just because I don't type every single detail about topic X doesn't mean I'm ignorant. It just means I didn't type them. Just a little FYI there.
why don't you read my other comments buddy, I have plenty of links to MS skewing. the "where's your cites" thing is a waste of my time. I'll copy my own cites from my other comments. Oh right, here it is. http://www.bing.com/search?q=least+secure+os&go=&form=QBRE&qs=n&adlt=strict . How's that? I can add cites for everything I've done, but then again I don't need to.
That doesn't show that Bing is *biased*, that shows that it has a different search algorithm than Google does. You haven't proved bias-- the top 5 of Bing's results have the term "Least Secure OS" in the title, and it's even smart enough to look up "operating system" (a term you didn't provide) in addition to "OS".
You can't prove bias by typing in a term and eye-balling the results, especially when all of the results *contain the term you typed in*. Christ.
Very few results = 1. search for google on bing (just the word), and there is 1 result unless you hit show more. How many is 1. It's not 202 million, you putz. Counting is good, you know. Even the word Microsoft on bing shows more results. Remind me, do tell. Or remind me that there might be things I want other than just google's homepage when I search for google?
Ok, here's two concepts:
* Number of results found
* Number of results displayed
Do you understand that these are two different things? I feel like I'm hosting an episode of Sesame Street having to explain something so completely basic and obvious.
Bing finds 202 million results (more or less.) It displays one. Google finds more results, and it displays 10. By your (retarded) logic, Bing "found" 1 result, and Google "found" 10 results.
More relevant to the quality of the search engine, is the one result Bing displays most relevant to the search term? I would say so.
I hope you sperg out and earn a trip to jail for something stupid, due to typing up a response without using logic in a clearly inflammatory and trollish manner.
"Sperg out?" WTF.
Oh, and I since I'm apparently trolling, I also notice that you haven't talked about your complete bullshit lies about IE changing its default search provider. Do you have any evidence for that particular piece of FUD? Why not come clean and admit it's never happened, you hack.
Reasons? Sure. Any result on things is skewed if it relates to MS. How can you call that "reliable"?
You can't just say things and expect people to believe them, especially on this site crammed with bullshit. How about you provide at least a little evidence?
I'd rather choose my own thing not have *constant* hijacking during every IE security update.
Liar. Either that or delusional.
No IE update has ever changed your default search provider.
Also it sure is interesting that very few search results show up when I put the term google into bing, isn't it?.
Yeah. Bing reports "only" 202,000,000. Google reports 2,100,000,000.
Do you seriously think 202 MILLION search results merits the description "very few?"
I can keep searching more reasons if you want, but the end result is that the quality of results and accuracy is piss poor.
The only *actual* reason you've given that wasn't a gross exaggeration or flat-out lie is your complaints about the layout. Which is more a personal preference thing than anything.
Ugh, I just hate posts like yours. How do you even respond to someone who describes 202 million results as "very few?" Who lies about the behavior of IE patches? You're so biased that there's no way to even have a debate. There's no way in hell you'd ever give Bing a fair chance. It's just... frustrating. I feel like there's no point to even replying.
Why shouldn't/wouldn't they?
Since Google counts embedded searches from apps that have a Google search box, why shouldn't Bing count them as well? If you can find good numbers of marketshare *not* including embedded search boxes, I'd love to see it. (I doubt such a beast exists.) But in this case, you're basically complaining that they're comparing apples-to-apples.
Anyway, what's the problem with Google having some real competition? Look at how IE development picked up once Firefox/Safari/Chrome became competitors on Windows. Competition is *good*, you should be encouraging it.
If nothing else, Bing'll eventually prod Google into improving their Image and Video searches, since Bing's searches in those categories are so much better than Google's.