That sounds about right, thanks!
That sounds about right, thanks!
Part of what I view what has happened with Slashdot, and it is not alone, is that forums are everywhere today. And not just forums but all sorts of different takes on the genre.
I'm going to say some pretty obvious things but back when I 1st discovered the site there was no Facebook or some means of having a forum type discussion on every website. (I honestly don't remember when I 1st made this login but it was a long time ago now. Rob still had links to his favorite sites as part of the content.) So having not only having a forum that was dedicated to "News for Nerds" that also incorporated a system that tried, oh how it has tried over the years, to self moderate the comments was a pretty unique thing.
I don't envy you the challenge of keeping
Not trying to come across as combative but I felt the need to say as there has been a strong push by many corporations to monetize every part of their IP/data/etc. And I'm not looking for some promise of how exactly you will make
Then you fail to understand the problem. Disney HAD to make a film that reminded everyone of why they loved Star Wars. After the debacle that was the prequels, they needed to come back to basics. THEN they can start doing more creative things going forward. But they had to repair the damage first and get people enthused about the franchise again. I suspect they'll get more adventurous in the future but doing so for this movie would have been idiotic.
I'm here too as well. The Force Awakens is a very safe movie but given that Disney has to recoup the 4 billion for the rights to the franchise alone, never mind the cost of making the high end movies, they had to go safe. So not only did they have to think about the health of the overall franchise but the ROI as well.
It was a fun movie that has flaws but so did the originals as well. And that is a good start after the prequels and I believe they deserve some leeway in what they had to do with this movie. Further once they release the next one that will be the time when breaking out the torches and pitchforks will be valid if they mess it up badly.
Yes actually. I currently use FF, IE, and Chrome. FF for my primary browser, IE for my 2nd monitor media browser (YouTube/Twitch/etc), and Chrome as my backup browser that has no extensions installed in case I need to look at something and it is not working in my NoScript/AdBlock browsers.
Now am I a fan of what FF has done for some time now, not at all. In fact my FF is modded via extensions and the config files to resemble something usable to me. If for whatever reason I lost all of that I likely would just ditch it and look elsewhere for a main browser rather than go though all the hassle of re-configuring it all back to a usable state. (I honestly don't even remember all the changes I've had to make over the years.)
I also still, and I could be wrong about this, think that FF's extension pool is the most robust. However as I said I could be fully wrong about that because my IE's AdBlock works just fine and I know I could do even more with it and or Chrome. So if FF's extension's waver at any point I'll likely join one of the many who will switch away for good.
I agree. Jar Jar was bad but not the real problem. The whole midichlorians, the way Qui-Gon Jinn acts, and of course all the nonsense with messing with the previous episodes is what the issue is.
...as I could tell from the pictures I saw before I paid for it.
You actually claim to have seen the actual unit that you were buying online? Not saying it did not happen just that the likelihood is very very low.
The theory is sound I'll give you that but in practice most of the time you don't know what you are getting. A laptop that did just sit docked nearly all the time and was well taken care of or one that just barely passed its re certification.
Honestly, brand new cheap laptops are not that hard to find. You will spend more than $200, and no it won't say Alienware on it either but really?, but you will have the warranty to back up if the thing comes DOA due to a bad HD or surface mounted chip.
And... I guess we're still calling it a "jetpack" even though it's just using turbofans? I guess there's no other commonly-known term to describe it?
I guess. What else do we call it? TurboFanPack...FanPack?
I don't like it any of it.
Of all the things MS is trying to shoehorn Azure into, Minecraft is actually not a bad one. Minecraft was built from the ground up to be a client/server setup and so it is a logical thing for MS to offer such a service for.
That is IF, the big IF, they don't screw up the client/game. And their track record for that is not good.
I just fired up Win10 in my VM to remember if I'd missed anything about it. And no...still is not that great.
As others have said it is just a SP to Win 8/8.1 with a lesser version of the Win7 Start Menu. And to boot it looks pretty awful for desktop users still. The flat/square theme might look ok on a tablet, I would not know as I've yet to use it on such a device, but it is pretty bad compared to the Win7 theme.
Also lost functionality is the local backup system that went away in 8.1 and Media Center. I've no problem with the idea of remote backup, provided it's done right, but not having local backup functionality as well is bad. And Media Center was actually a pretty nice thing that seems to have totally gone away.
So yeah, Win10 is more of the same bad that Win8 was/is and likely will meet a similar fate.
With the rise of social media sites that allow for the vast collection of data one people it was only natural that a company like Google that does just that wanted in on that game. So for them to want to establish G+ as a service is no surprise to anyone.
They way they did it however was pretty terrible and they deserved to fail. First of all they had to address the fact that some people are not going to want to join such a service; period. They don't want Facebook, never wanted MySpace, delete those annoying emails from LinkedIn, etc. They might know that they are not being given a service as much as they are being used as a product. Regardless of the reason why there will be some people that will not want, and resent if you try to make them, join such a service.
And with Google's campaign that was trying to force people to join G+ you built up resentment. A lot among the people who did not want the "service" in the first place and others who could have gone either way. The gamble Google was making here was that people would get over that resentment after a time because of how awesome G+ was going to be!
But forcing people to join the service was not enough. They wanted to make sure that this "service" was really a good product for them with their real name policy. The idea of giving out your real name worked for Facebook, and other services, because the whole concept of these social "services" was relatively new. People did not realize that they in fact were the product. By the time G+ was trying their hard sell enough of the population that might have been interested in G+ decided to give it a pass.
And that is pretty much were I think it stands now. Their track record with G+ is bad with their hard sell tactics and aggressive desire to make it a product for themselves rather than more of a service, people know exactly what is up with data collection, and other options exist that don't have such issues. G+ is a failure and likely never will be much more than that.
You are correct and I stand corrected for saying/implying/everything about Win9x running "on top of DOS".
I was looking for some way to talk about how the Win9x series had its own set of issues due to the way it worked vs the transition to the NT mechanics of WinXP and everything else that is of that ilk. And I did so by saying something that was not correct.
I still do stand by my points about how XP was, and still is, a decent OS and I'm no MS fan either. Was right here on
MS of course can get it right if they just design a solid desktop OS. They have come a long way in stability while maintaining pretty much their desktop monopoly. All they have to do is update the OS for the current tech and continue to polish the desktop UI that has been progressing for years.
But they don't want to do that. They want to use that desktop monopoly to force their way into the mobile market and thus we had Windows 8. And even with that failure they can't just let it go. And I've used the Win10 preview and it still is not as good a UI as Windows 7. It does make a fair amount of concessions to getting back to more of a Windows 7, non-mobile UI, desktop but it still sucks compared to Win7.
And the real thing that I don't understand it this obsession with trying to merge two different UI formats into one. When I'm using a mobile device that has no keyboard/mouse then of course I want a UI that is designed for that. But when I am on a computer with a keyboard and mouse I freaking want a UI designed for that!
I'll finish with an obligatory car analogy. When I'm driving a car I expect that the controls reflect what I'm trying to do. But when I'm in a boat, while similar, the controls are changed to suit that vehicle's needs. UI's should be the same way. And there is no reason why MS should accept that they can have two UI's for their OS.
>Windows 8.1 isn't in need of being fixed, really. It's better than Windows 7, which was better than Windows 2000 (windows XP was a heaping pile of dung).
Huh? Your UID is not so high that you should be making such comments. But lets deconstruct it for the lols.
XP was a heaping pile of dung? XP had its issues, like every OS, but compared to having to run the OS on top of DOS like Windows was previously doing it was a huge improvement. Further the staying power of XP alone is a good indicator that it was not bad at all.
Next you say that 8.1 is better than 7. Why? What exactly does 8 (or 8.1) offer in technical terms beyond what 7 offers? There are a few things I'll grant it does offer but it does not offset the fact the awful UI that it has. A UI not designed with a desktop workflow in mind but rather a power play by MS, that failed, to force people into accepting such a UI for all devices.
Because the system that regulates it is corrupt! At the federal level it is pretty much a given at this point. Go lower to the state level and it is not as bad but it is still not good, ALEC and such, and down to city/county level you likely have less volume/size but you also have less oversight.
Until, starting at the top, we remove the money = speech corruption that started in the 70's we will see "solutions" continue to be be how can we word our new form of corruption in a way that sounds legit.
This game smacked to me of Titanfall marketing. And appears to have delivered the same level game. Nothing bad but not anything near the level of hype that the marketing inspired.
But the marketing DID deliver the hype level sales and that is all that matters to the publishers. So while the culture of pre-orders based on marketing hype that is backed up by paid for "reviews" exist this cycle will repeat.
Getting the job done is no excuse for not following the rules. Corollary: Following the rules will not get the job done.