Comment Re:Failures? (Score 1) 177
The third is Rock Band Unplugged on the PSP. They've improved the controls a bit and added a 4th button to the mix, and you get the benefit of the Rock Band library for the music.
The third is Rock Band Unplugged on the PSP. They've improved the controls a bit and added a 4th button to the mix, and you get the benefit of the Rock Band library for the music.
This is because Sony finally stepped in between the two publishers and told them to stop breaking the compatibility, because they realized it was causing people that owned multiple systems to buy the games for the 360 instead (as I did). Personally, I would have preferred to buy the games for the PS3, since at the time the 360 didn't have the hard drive install option and the drive noise drove me nuts when I was playing the games, but I didn't want to have to buy a second guitar controller for Rock Band when I already had the GH3 controller.
OS X does have UI standards and it somehow pushes them to developers, on Windows, it is not the same deal.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511258.aspx
Windows does have UI standards readily available for developers in the place a Windows developer would be most likely to look for them. They can also be downloaded in PDF format, and they used to publish it as a book, too.
Of course, there are a lot of guidelines that a lot of people ignore, and a few that are in direct conflict with Apple's guidelines for OS X. The conflicts especially are where Apple either ignores the guidelines for Windows applications or simply falls back on consistency across platforms, rather than consistency on the current platform (something MS got bashed for with one of the 9x versions of Office for Mac OS).
This is a Renter's issue. If I lease out an office space to people whom I know are dealing cocaine, I get put in prison too unless I notify authorities and cooperate with the investigation. The host being penalized for knowingly hosting a website dealing illegally in IP is analogous. What's the hubbub about? Seems reasonable to me.
No one suggested the host had to take-down the site, the host probably should have notified the IP holder and worked with authorities. It's not the host's responsibility to kick his leasees out of his office space, in fact the host has a legal obligation to not interfere with a leasee's space unless invited in during the terms of the lease. The IP holder has no authority to demand a takedown, only a judge does, but you can cooperate to get to the bottom of the issue instead of being an antisocial asshat that ignores everyone. A simple call a lawyer "I've been notified that a website I host is dealing in illegal items and I'm calling to cooperate with any investigations currently underway or that you will initiate." Not so hard.
According to TFA (reality may exist separately from what the article's author has written), they were expected to take down the site when they were notified of the "illegal activity". Now the fact that the web hosts were sued and found guilty leads me to believe that it is more likely they were being stubborn and not helping the investigation. However, the article didn't really make that clear.
What the article did seem to make clear, though, was that the web host's lawyers seemed to rely on existing DMCA law and case law, while Vuitton's lawyers relied on existing trademark law as applied to the physical realm. How they made the stretch from cooperating with a legal investigation to, for instance, give police access to a rental property where someone believes counterfeit goods are sold or manufactured, vs. taking down a web site where someone alleges counterfeit goods are being sold, I don't know. I would imagine the web host's lawyers thought they were in the right in advising their client, but I would hope he also followed the steps put in place by the DMCA to comply with a takedown notice, rather than just filing it in the junk mail.
Don't most windows solidify when maximized? Maybe I'm just imagining it, since I don't have transparent windows available on this machine to check, and don't use maximized windows enough at home to really remember.
You don't really need it if Escape actually stops when you want it to, either, because Enter and CTRL+R already work perfectly fine for Go and Reload.
If you fill the width with tabs, you end up with about a slightly less than 2/3-sized title bar. Of course, if you only have 1 or 2 tabs open, you end up with about a 1.5x-height title bar for a portion of the window. Additionally, the window function buttons are the smaller size of the title bar.
Umm grabbing and moving the tab does not do the same thing as grabbing and moving the title bar, and double-clicking the tab appears to do nothing. If I manage to grab the small space above the tab I get the functionality I would expect from the title bar, but that makes for a much smaller than usual target.
Of course, if you sit around with your browser in full screen mode all day, the only one of these that applies is double-clicking the bar.
While I agree that both OS X and international issues should be important, it should probably also be remembered that some users would like the Windows version of Firefox to conform to Windows UI standards, too, even if IE and Office don't bother to do so (and who knows how many other MS apps).
I usually use multiple applications side-by-side on a widescreen monitor, or multiple MDI windows side-by-side within a larger window maximized to the screen. While I can understand the use of the vertical space, I find it more useful for using applications full-screen than for my personal use scenarios, and when I do full-screen an app it usually is to run video
There would be an a missing from "all" if you were spelled "ya". Thanks for playing, though.
Of course, in-house resources can screw things up badly too, but high-dollar consulting/contracting deals seem to have a special knack for it. Some places have great results with outsourcing/contracting, but others make it impossible to get high-quality work done in a reasonable time.
I'd be interested in hearing from an MBA-type about what the actual rationale for hiring third party IT help is. I know it's usually driven by raw costs and the fact that "IT's not strategic." But what is it that's actually taught in business school that has every executive that drives the whole outsourcing push? Or is it really just "my golf buddy is doing it at his company."?
Disclaimer: In the government case, I can definitely see the need for contract help. Projects would probably have a really hard time surviving administration changes, internal squabbles, etc.
I'm not an MBA type, but I have a pretty good idea about these issues.
1) High-dollar consulting/contracting deals are usually made to handle things that have the in-house people scratching their heads, or that appear to be harder to do and are usually ill-defined in the first place. Usually it's the combination of a moving target and trying to do something that may actually be difficult that screws up these types of projects, but there's also the chance that the consultant or contractor was less competent than they let the client believe.
2) Generally the idea for outsourcing is that you go to a fairly reputable consultant firm that says they can get you the expertise you need to get the job done, without having to hire someone that you don't think you'll need after the job is finished. One of the big problems here, though, is that someone usually has to maintain these systems after the consultant is gone, and no one understands it if it was setup by an outside entity.
3) In the case of government work, these problems are just as bad when they contract the work out, because the government often expects to be able to change what they're asking for after the contract is signed. The terms are usually vague enough that they can get away with it, but if their feet are held to the fire and someone managed to get a contract that works in their favor when holding the government to it, the government ends up with something that doesn't do what they had originally wanted because no one bothered to do the analysis necessary to determine what needed to be done. Of course, if it were left up to the government workers themselves, there's a good chance nothing would ever change, which is part of the reason government contractors have such a hard time in the first place (since they're an outside entity bringing unwanted change, there will be little or no cooperation from the people that could help things go smoothly).
I think he means that "you" would be written "ya", in which case there are no letters missing from the first word in the contraction.
"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."