Comment Re:Here's an idea! (Score 1) 203
Retailers today are not any smarter than they were then.
Smarter or not, they won't fall for the same scam again.
Retailers today are not any smarter than they were then.
Smarter or not, they won't fall for the same scam again.
it isn't a cite at all, and you're defending that it is a cite
It isn't properly cited/tagged, but otherwise it is cited.
The list of wikipedia pages that supposedly cite ACM articles is a clear lie
The page makes no such claims, and *I* certainly never referred to it as conclusive document listing cites of ACM publications. You're arguing against something you imagined, and furthermore, something that is completely and totally besides the point of this discussion.
you accuse "bias and/or unwillingness to read TFA," you mean the paywalled article, right?
No, just the WP article. You clearly just found the first external link, and failed to see the part where it is cited.
I checked ONE and it was a lie.
No, it wasn't. It might not have been what you wanted/expected to find, but you're still completely wrong in your claim.
Check first and make sure I accidentally clicked the only lie, before you defend the list on that basis
Completely straw man. Changing the discussion to some perceived flaw in one source of info to distract from the topic. I have not, and never will "defend the list". It is insignificant. You're the one spouting a lot of nonsense.
I suspect, based on other comments here, that this is a typical sort of exchange a person should be prepared to be subjected to whenever discussing the ACM with its few fans.
I have never had any connection to the ACM. I just figured I could very quickly find a bit of objective info to give the discussion some context. You've generously turned it into a lot of pointless distraction and insane rants.
As a researcher in brain computer interfaces (BCI), I have to disagree with the more literal interpretation of your statement that the best games link your brain with pure cerebral responses to gameplay.
Slashdot... it's a lot like Central Park... except PhDs may stop by at any time to painstakingly pick-apart the logical and factual errors in the rant of the crazy homeless guy that's yelling at the pigeons.
Games are not selling because they were overall fucking terrible. Stores lose a ton of money on having merchandise they couldn't sell.
No, stores bought a bunch of fucking terrible games that wouldn't sell, because it was common practice that unsold units could be returned to the manufacturer for refund, so they didn't expect any downside. A ton of sham game companies sprung up over-night, unloaded a ton of merchandise on toy stores, cashed the check, and then closed-up shop before anybody asked about returns.
The stores set themselves up for a failure, and the video game industry was only involved because it was the hot market at the time... kinda like smartphones today.
The last time sharing was the norm, it caused the entire industry to collapse.
It was retailers falling for the stupid scams, that caused the collapse.
Nintendo, as it turns out, were the ones who led the industry's recovery, largely by instituting strict third party licensing. Sid Meier considers the Nintendo "Seal of Quality" one of the three most important innovations in gaming history because of the impact that it had.
Yes, and it was important at the time, when people had very little confidence in the quality of games, games were expensive, and there were no magazines doing reviews, services that allowed gamer rentals, etc., etc.
IMHO, whatever high standards Nintendo may have set in the 80s, were gone in one fell swoop, with the flood of crap games on the PSX.
And PC games never had a central authority, yet they did just fine.
With the Wii they realized they couldn't keep up with the PS and Xbox.
They don't try (at all) to keep up on raw benchmark-type specs. That helps them sell their consoles at a profit instead of a loss. And yet the Wii really caught on, and looked like it was going to take over the world. The pundits were talking non-stop about how genius Nintendo was... until the Kinect and Move were rushed to market in response, and took the wind out of Nintendo's sales.
Instead of trying to get people to buy their consoles for their games they should switch to just making games.
Because that has worked out so incredibly well for Sega over the past decade???
You might as well say that all 3 should pack it in, and just make games for PCs and smartphones/tablets.
Why stick with VMS when you can get the same Dave Cutler design by rotating everything one letter forward, forming the WNT at the core of Windows Server?
And when you want a SpaceX rocket, why not go buy a Tesla car instead?
I am surprised that people still want to use OpenVMS.
OpenVMS is the most mature microkernel OS out there. You can have flaky hardware, flaky drivers, flaky software, and it'll just keep running perfectly, restarting whatever services as need, as often as needed. You can't make it panic.
It also has more advanced clustering than most people believe exists... A server's full state is replicated in real-time, so a hardware failure doesn't even need to be handled by applications, they just think everything has been running for the past decade...
OpenVMS has ridiculous uptimes, over a decade, even on heavily utilized systems. Far longer than anything else out there.
And when it was rumored that Chrysler was introducing another brand in the early 2010s, we "knew" that Plymouth was coming back. It didn't. RAM was split from Dodge instead.
Wow, news to me. Seriously, I am not being sarcastic. I just went to dodge.com and RAM Truck was an option: but it took me to a different site with a warning that I was leaving dodge.com. I was not aware of this until this evening.
cron. And it turns out, it has an ACM link in the external links, but it does NOT cite an ACM article, properly or otherwise
Yes, it does cite an ACM article from the late 70s, as the inspiration for improved versions of crond, which performed better, and were extended to all system users, not just root as early crond did.
And is the link related to cron? I'm going with no, because it doesn't sound related
That's just your own bias and/or unwillingness to read TFA.
"Robert Brown, reviewing this [ACM] article, [...] created an implementation [...] and this multi-user cron went into use at Purdue in late 1979."
It seems that rather than all those wiki pages citing ACM publications, somebody from ACM has spammed all those articles with unrelated links.
You checked on ONE out of hundreds, completely misunderstood everything about it, and are jumping to a conclusion that requires paranoid conspiracy fantasies.
Here's a quick list of Wikipedia articles which probably cite ACM publications:
That's based on the premise that the model T was less expensive than a horse
No, it's based on the premise of the Model-T being the cheapest possible automobile.
It's not obvious that the automobile would take off, though the piles of horse feces in city streets should have been a hint. But it is obvious that the best chance anybody has, starting a new market, is to go for the least-expensive possible vehicle.
otherwise Ford wouldn't have been the only one in the USA doing it so cheaply/successfully for the better part of 10 years.
Ford found a way to do it very cheaply, that had escaped all others. There were plenty of other car makers out there, and once they adopted the assembly-line model, they started competing with Ford, too.
I don't see it. I see the article as saying more that Hitler was horrible, and Bush is even worse than that.
The reason why Bush is worse is because Hitler meant well. That's what it says. That's what I am talking about.
It's a false dilemma to assume this means the writer thinks Hitler's dishonorable acts were ok
I never said that. I said that in comparison to Bush, he's not as bad, which is what you agree he said.
Of course, as pointed out by both smitty and I, the writer is factually wrong that Hitler meant well.
And I agree with that.
I find your mockery wanting
I find your understanding of it to be wanting.
and it is more likely to backfire and make the left stronger.
No, it's not.
Taking weak and cheap shots makes your side appear petty and unable to field a better argument.
Mocking the left for taking cheap shots, by pretending to take a cheap shot, is an actual cheap shot?
The old Henry Ford saying goes (not that he necessarily said it) "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses".
Of course faster horses weren't an option. And what were the early cars, other than bare-bones "horseless carriages"? It's not as if the Model-T was a Ferrari in an age of wagons.
Consumers almost always choose "cheaper" when the price is significant. Designing the cheapest possible car, within the confines of the engineering of the day, seems like an obvious choice, and basically what they did.
Half of your customers buy the iPhone. All those people who said, "Oh, I'm going to buy QWERTY," boom, take them out of the equation."
Funny, because Sprint has pushed the iPhone harder than anyone. The cut-rate prices with the iPhone, even on already-cut-rate services like Sprint's Virgin Mobile, are tempting. They practically PAY YOU to take an iPhone. There were articles about how they were contractually required to sell X iPhones from their deal with Apple, but it sounds like they had to undermine the rest of their business to get it done.
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker
