Goodness me, that is the most chafed neckbeard I have ever seen! How do you cope?!
"iPods were popular but shit" is just a weak argument. It works better with hipster glasses, but then, I thought it was all the Apple users who were the hipsters. I get so confused!
The amount of butthurt from nerds on slashdot over the success of the iPod and subsequent iOS devices is hilarious.
oooh. Flamebait if I ever saw one. I think parent was pretty reasonable in his/her comment.
The tangible sense of "not getting it" swirls around like a dark cloud, just because something became popular that wasn't exactly what you wanted from a product, thus it is impossible to believe that the success is down to anything other than marketing to braindead consumers.
Actually, it's quite easy to come up with examples of when the general consumer... consumes... substandard stuff rather than the good stuff.
So.. What makes you so sure parent isn't "getting it"?
both companies offer more CPU processing power than most consumers can use anyway.
Ok. Noted. Either will do fine CPU-wise.
AMD's built-in GPU handily beats Intel's built-in GPU
Ah. Great. So AMD is the better buy then.
Not only that, but it will save ~$100 on the CPU and ~$50 more on the motherboard. That's GREAT advice.
But no.. Then we hear this;
If graphics are a big concern, they should get a cheap discrete card as one under $100 will be good for most games. Thus AMD's advantage is negated.
Ummm.. First you made a good case for AMD, and now you're saying they should pick Intel anyway, and not only that, They should cough up an extra $100 on top of the ~$150 extra they already need to cough up, just to negate AMD's advantage. WTF? Why not just pick AMD in the first place then?
I'm surprised by this.
I program primarily in C#, but I actully prefer 'End (keyword)' to the closing curly braces. This is especially true when I'm debugging legacy/spaghetti code.
Which conveys more information?
Which makes it easier to find where to insert that pesky 'a++' that someone forgot?
Just because he was having a camera, does not mean he is recording anything. Next you will want to assault anyone talking on a smartphone. After all it also has camera and he might be just faking the conversation.
If you're talking in a mobile phone, it doesn't look like you're recording, and people will probably give you the benefit of a doubt. If - on the other hand - you have a head-mounted camera, it looks like you may be recording all the time. (Which he also was, so the perpetrators' misgivings about being filmed were not only easier to understand, they were also correct.)
RTFA. It clearly says that it only records the images when it detects being damaged.
RTFA yourself. Images are being recorded all the time. The images published on the website were saved because they weren't overwritten. That's different from 'not being recorded'.
To me it seems the Mann guy acted like a moron, but I wasn't there, and there's only one source for the story.
One thing that bothers me about his story is the way he touts the 'paper written by his doctor'. The camera is obviously not mounted there for medical purposes, so in what way is it significant that the paper is written by a doctor? It seems Mann uses the doctor-title rather than the contents of the paper to try to trump us into believing it is significant.
Of course, what bothers me most is how he walks around visiting and filming in various places where he shouldn't, just because he himself has designed the glasses so they can't be removed. That the camera is non-removable does not make it OK.
It would be nice if someone could design an EMP generator, mount it in a non-removable fashion to their body, and then go visit this Mann chap, and dissuade any protests from him by touting a paper from a hockey goalie.
Should developers also just plan to ignore Xbox 360?
At least during work hours.
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn