Forgot this was happening in Vancouver around now, or I'd have gone along. Oh well, next year.
2468 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
So what you're saying is, so few people have bothered buying Chromebooks that no-one had one to practice on?
Re: Stick with Civ 5?
Does Civ 5 work? Civ revolution marked the end of me as a EA customer, as the endgame was bugged to hell to the extent it ruined most games and despite releasing updates that updated *something* they never fixed that.
Revolution nearly cured me of my Civ addiction, the console-cuddling piece of shit. Civ 5, however, has reaffirmed it, and as far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with EA. Registers on Steam, has full integration with it, and works perfectly - it *can't* be an EA game.
Every EA game I've bought in recent years has had major bugs that have never been patched. Alice: Madness Returns illustrated their disgusting customer attitude perfectly for me. It had several game breaking bugs reported in chorus in their customer forums. Did they patch the game? No, they shut the forums!
Downloaded Gatling Gears off Steam the other day. No Steam integration for achievements, no hub....hmm....I wonder who published this, then?
"Please log in to your EA account to continue."
Ah, that explains it. Wonder what happens if I put the licence key into Origin...
"Thank you for registering Gatling Gears! Your product is ready for download."
Disgusting, abusive business practices from EA? No, surely not!
What amazes me is that people still bought the fucking thing, especially given the Diablo III saga last year. EA wants to sell you something you neither own nor control, and shut it down when they, not you, get bored of it. But they still want full price for the game, plus microtransactions.
I could rant all day about EA's horrible attitude toward its customer base, but I have stuff do so, so I'll be more succinct:
Fuck EA. Fuck them in the ear.
Why throw it out if you like the underpinnings? Just install KDE/Gnome/whatever and carry on.
I'm in two minds on this one. If Mark can drag Linux kicking and screaming past its current desktop boundaries into popular relevance, that will most likely benefit it as a whole. He's interested in making it popular, and whether or not you like Unity, it's shiny, and shiny appeals to the end user. (It's a reality I despise, but Apple's kinda proven once and for all that end users are magpies.) Besides, just because newbies use a Linux distro isn't going to suddenly turn the kernel into Windows ME.
On the other hand, Linux bods have long since resented moves that are overtly commercial, and if he's going to continue to make Ubuntu popular, he needs the support of Linux's broad base. Move the system too far from that base, or piss people off too much, and he risks losing contributions.
It's difficult, but I'm continuing to support him thus far. Unity isn't the horrendous system-breaker people pretend it is, no more than Metro is on Windows 8 - those are just knee jerk reactions, and I'm guilty of them too. The plan's ambitious, and he has a Molyneux-style habit of talking up shit he hasn't built yet, but if he can pull it off it'll be bloody impressive. Mithras knows, I'm begging for a proper Linux OS on a proper smartphone, like I used to have before Nokia went batty nuggets.
Remember, no matter what vitriol you can hurl at his UI, at its core the distro is still very good. When Ubuntu has done things differently in the past, it's generally worked pretty well. I still run Kubuntu on everything I own - the solid Ubuntu base with the KDE I like over the top. (I did this long before Unity arrived.) No matter what happens at this point, it'd be impossible for him to take that solid base away from us.
from badly digitally recreating Arnold in his prime
Aside from the claw hammer I'll be throwing at you for mentioning that film, I fixed your post for you. Same goes for Jeff Bridges.
Downvote away, fanboys. It won't change the reality that the Star Wars franchise hasn't put out anything worthwhile in a loooooooong time.
But then the franchise was always rather massively overrated...
Ah, the usual sloped foreheads in this comments section, eh?
And goddamn, this film sounds more and more like a disaster every time I hear about it.
Re: But does it work for local PDFs?
Not much use unless it opens when you double click a local PDF, you'd still need Reader or whatever.
Depends whether you're running an OS that's bothered to include such a basic tool. Okular is installed by default on my machine, for example.
Re: I've been trying it.
I see you are unaware of the dozens of memory corruption exploits firefox has been victim to.
I see you need to read his comment again. What part of "Mozilla's approach to security" means "Mozilla has never had a security bug"?
Go away, troll.
Re: too bad the Gecko engine is half-baked bloatware
which can't even render correctly half the pages.
As a web developer with a not-insignificant amount of front-end experience, bollocks. Gecko is more consistent than anything else. I'm sure some tool will now link me to the Mozzy bug tracker, as if that proved something over every other browser that totally doesn't have a bug tracker.
But then I'm still wondering how your second sentence is justification for the first.
I've not run into any of those problems and I use FF heavily on a daily basis for web development. I'm loaded up with lots of plugins too.
Snap. I use it under Linux, where it doesn't have some of the Windows-based optimisations, and it's rock solid. And really, on my development machine, which is currently using 1.5GB of my 8GB RAM to run Netbeans and an attached Tomcat instance, do you think I give two shits about my bajillion Firefox tabs using 400MB?
Re: Go Gecko Go!
Mozilla's rendering engine is called Gecko. IE has Trident, Apple and Google use WebKit (though different versions), and Opera - until now - used Presto.
Re: WebKit alone
One browser engine to rule them all won't fix your problems. There'll always be bad implementations and different versions of WebKit about, and if WebKit is the only engine out there then the incentive to fix problems is gone.
I have nothing against WebKit. I've got plenty of browsers that use it and most of them are fine. I have something against whatever buggy, unfixed version of WebKit they cram into Chrome in order to claim all the latest gadgets and buzzwords.
Re: WebKit alone
Exactly! Mozzy stormed up the market share charts through a fight-back against a monoculture. Why the hell would they willing step back towards one?
I do hope you're trolling. I could spend the time to refute your post, but you are literally too stupid to challenge.
Re: How does this help Opera's market share?
Oh look, an Opera fanboy! I was wondering where you were in all this. I expect the rest are weeping in a corner.
FF and Chrome both provide bare-bones browsers that require third-party extensions to come close to Opera's native feature set.
That would be the extension framework that Opera insisted it didn't need, then added anyway? And where do you get off calling the two browsers that caned everyone else for years "bare bones"?
Besides, maybe not everyone requires that functionality in the browser. Better to leave it slim and provide optional installers than let it get bloated.
When those browsers do get more built-in functionality it tends to be cut-down versions of stuff Opera added a few releases back (compare Chrome or FF's New Tab layouts copied from the far-superior Speed Dial in Opera).
See, this is the hipster mindset at work. You complain that other browsers don't have features that Opera has, which is fair enough. Then they add those features, and you complain that they "copied them", and refuse to accept the improvement.
Everyone rips off everyone else and you know it. IE7 was a blatant point-for-point copy of Firefox. Everyone and their mother has ripped off Firebug for their developer toolset. Firefox and IE swiped Chrome's minimalist interface (though I turned it off back in FF4, so I can't honestly say if it still looks that way). Firefox went for Chrome's stupid 6-week release cycle (though Jetpack came of that, and Jetpack is awesome). If I were to go back, I'm willing to bet that I can find features in Opera that other browsers had first - so what?
Windows 8 finally added ISO mounting. OMG, how dare they rip off Linux??!
Re: Another one down
Opera's rendering engine being killed off in favour of Google's
Webkit belongs to Google now? When the fuck did that happen? Last I checked, Apple spun it off from KHTML.
* And no, Nets^h^h^h^h Firefox is not worth mentioning, too many people have been burned there.
If by "burned" you mean "have enjoyed a consistently accurate rendering engine".
I don't mind Opera using Webkit, so long as they don't use whatever buggy-as-hell bleeding-edge version Chrome uses. I'll keep using Gecko though.
Re: Maybe he read Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion"
Richard Dawkins comes across as an arrogant asshole
It's possible for a man to be arrogant and correct.
Not until it's tested in court. Getting a Trademark doesn't really seal the right until it's actually tested and tried under the rigours of a Judge.
Then given the requirement for them to protect the trademark, they are forced to take this current action, right? Who they went after doesn't matter (except to you lot, who I guarantee wouldn't be bleating so much if this wasn't a little indie guy). The principle is the same.
The laughably small amount of research I've done suggests that it is in fact a registered trademark of GW's. Doesn't trademark law require them to make good efforts to protect the mark?
Boom, here you go
Christ, you'd think all the people banging on about this could at least run a search...
If they actually have a trademark on "Space Marine" (did the article address this?) then surely they also have a point? I mean, for all the talk of rip-offs in this thread, GW themselves have been ripped off before. *Cough* Warcraft *Hack*
What a surprise, a web-designer suggesting a site should be redesigned.
Surely updating your site's interface to use CSS properly (which isn't necessarily the same as redesigning it) is much less effort than creating and support multi-platform apps?
I'm prototyping an RWD version of our website at the minute, and despite having barely any styling yet, it matches the layout of the original well enough that at first glance it looks like the same site - until you try to view it in a browser that isn't a fullscreen desktop app.
Re: "Responsive Design"
So I'm not the only one who thinks that RWD is another good (if slightly obvious) idea surrounded by bullshit terminology and a design luvvie circlejerk?
Re: "Long Awaited"?
Internet Explorer at any version is still the same crappy browser on a Trident rendering engine.
Granted, IE9 and IE10 have improved, but a turd is a turd no matter how you polish it.
See what I mean? "Derrr, it's just shit because it's IE. It doesn't matter if they re-wrote the whole thing, its IE, so it must be shit. Guuuh, more sticky plasters for my knuckles pleeeze."
Re: Nah, just a ploy to get us to upgrade to Win 8
The above is fiction but I can't help but think that this is the case.
Except that them releasing it contradicts your entire post...
It can't be that hard to port it now can it?
Nah, it's not like Windows 8 had an entirely new interface or anyt-....oh, right.
Re: "Long Awaited"?
Not at all. I'm personally thrilled that new and improved versions of IE are coming out. It's the lowest common denominator, and I have to work to it (at work, anyway). The more new versions come out, and the more people move to them, the closer I am to ditching every IE hack in my code and telling IE8 and lower to fuck off forever.
In that respect, IE9 and above really are a god-send in terms of coding for the web.On top of that, they're vastly improved browsers in themselves. Anyone who's paid any attention to my ramblings on here knows I'm a Mozzy man, but if I'm in a situation where I have to use IE9 or IE10, I no longer feel like I want to throw the machine through a wall.
They're really not bad; they're just still seen as "uncool" because all the hipster kids moved to Chrome. </trollface>
Re: Resistance to online only gaming?
@Andy - Thanks for the condescension, but the reason I don't want a download-only console is because the publishers will use it as a method to screw me over. EA and the like have not and will not drop their prices to compensate for the reduced costs and content of digital distribution. Hell, they moved off Steam because Valve don't treat their customers badly enough for EA's tastes. At launch, the latest FIFA game was 20 quid more expensive online than in a high street store. That is disgusting, and that's why I don't want an online-only console; it'll be too expensive to play on.
I buy lots and lots and lots of games online, but from Steam, Desura, GoG, etc. Having multiple marketplaces on the PC means competition between them, and as a flag-bearer for the industry Valve were pretty bloody exemplary. The result is a convenient, customer-focused system that benefits me. On a console, you have one marketplace, and you're constantly bombarded with loyalty tests to prove you're not some scum-sucking pre-owned game purchaser (which I am).
Re: I already have a PC
What I didn't realise was how much more expensive the games are. Because, thanks to Steam, I appear to have to buy two copies of every game now.
OK, look, I have a shitload of consoles, and a massive gaming PC that I built oodles of years ago for oodles of money. Given the option, I always buy stuff on PC, because my PC is just better, and the games are cheaper, by miles. Light years. Parsecs.
Name a game, and I can almost guarantee that the PC version is cheaper on launch. A month or two after release, the PC game is probably available for half the price of the console version. As soon as a Steam sale hits, it's probably a third of the price. That's where I make back the money on my expensive gaming PC, and the part that clueless console feckwits like the guy a few posts back always fail to grasp.
For example, last year I bought every single GTA game ever released on PC, including GTA4, expansion packs and all for....5 quid. Try that on PS3. A month or two ago NiGHTs Into Dreams got a PS3 release. I was going to buy it for 8 quid, then realised I could get it on PC two weeks later for 3.50. So I did.
How the hell are the games you're buying more expensive than console? I couldn't spend more on a PC game than a console game if I tried. And what's this "buying games twice" stuff? A retail game might come with a Steam code, but you still bought it once. I honestly don't understand what you're saying.
The truth is, over the course of its lifetime a gaming PC I build will span two console generations, and in that time, I will save more than the PC's value in game discounts. There's a reason that Steam sales always abuse my wallet: they're worth it. On top of that, online play on a PC has always been superior to a console, as well as free. Patches and mods aren't just readily available, but even encouraged by many developers. It's just a better ecosystem to be gaming in, where I'm treated as a customer and not a criminal, and the notion of after-sales support still exists (unless you're buying from EA, in which case fuck you, you filthy PC pirate).
Re: Will buy when
What about inFAMOUS 3? :-(
I hope it doesn't happen, personally. The story is done. Just because a game series is good doesn't mean you have to keep producing sequels until you run it into the ground.
If you need a new inFamous fix, go play Festival of Blood.
Not having to pay the extra premium to a shop for the privilege of paying minimum wage clerks will save consumers cash
Er, no it bloody won't. EA and the like want rid of that overhead, but not so they can charge less for games. Their games aren't any cheaper online, and are often more expensive, because the profit margins rapidly increase in size.
Honestly, with the way most publishers are treating the customer like shit these days, overcharging for release content while simultaneously holding more content back for DLC - even stuff already made and on the disc you bought - along with their many other heinous practices, I think we may be heading for the second video game crash. There's only so far you can push people.
Bring it on.
I can't imagine that anyone would make a games console these days that relies on a person walking to a shop to buy a piece of plastic.
"Relies on" != "has the option of"
This is Sony we're talking about. Their store is allowed to be so horrendously expensive that the games in it are often 20 quid more on launch day than the physical copies in the shop down the road.
Re: Not just the foam strike
Interesting. This is the one I have:
THANK YOU! I long since dealt with the IE6 bugs in our site. These days all I ever fix is Chrome bugs. People love it because it's quick, but bloody hellfire that browser is bugged. That's what you get when you try to release three times a week just that you can have the biggest version number.
Re: What I got out of this article
How dare those bastards include an optional extra that adds functionality to your site and doesn't break it for anyone else? SCUMBAGS, I say!
Re: someone please tell me
Trademark, not patent. Doesn't make it any less ludicrous, but the rules are different. Trademarks are even more litigious.
The prevailing opinion from many here seems to be "it's Windows, it can't possibly be any good, and anyone saying that it is is a fanboy."
Alright then, I'm a developer, and I use Linux 95% of the time. I also don't like tablets, because I want a device that expensive to be good at creating content as well as viewing it, and to me an iPad is an expensive picture frame.
I quite like the Surface. In fact, I'm quite fond of Windows 8, which is already running in the triple-boot setup on my Mac - I'm posting from it now - and I'll be buying a copy today (upgrading an old copy of XP so I can keep my retail 7 licence). I had a play with a Surface the other week and it's nifty. It's quick, easy to use and - admit it - attractive. I've been thinking this about Metro ever since I got my hands on a Windows Phone. It's very accessible and stupidly fast, two things I wouldn't normally associate with MS.
The Surface Pro appeals to me more because it can drop to desktop and run proper stuff. It might not be the right choice for me in the end because 5 minutes into doing any work on it, I'm going to want a Linux terminal (can you dual-boot them?). But to use, they're really quite good.
Windows 8 is a lot better than people say it is. It's faster, has some useful tools built straight in now, such as ISO mounting, and Metro isn't nearly as intrusive as I thought it would be. Same goes for the Surface; it's a lot better than the general haven't-used-one-but-its-Microsoft-so-it-must-be-shit consensus says.
Re: I don't want to turn off my brain, ever
You seem to be providing a pretty decent impression that it's already switched off.
Fancy providing an actual argument, oh intellectual superior? Not sure how you get unintelligent from my post, however sarcastic.
Then read a flippin' book! "Sci fi" films have rarely if ever been more than lasers, explosions, and special effects, you are never going to get a proper thoughtful sci fi film out of Hollywood. Star Wars is fun for the light sabers, space ships, and engaging characters, it's a swashbuckling adventure and nothing more. Don't expect anything any deeper than that.
You haven't watched enough sci-fi. Try some 2001, Blade Runner, A Scanner Darkly - hell, even Gattaca.
I can do action and explosions, too, but it needs a coherent narrative or it's just noise.
Re: Instructions for enjoying Sci Films
Thank you for your Knuckle-Dragger's Guide to Film, complete with MULTIPLE EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!11!!!11!1*
I don't want to turn off my brain, ever. Present a film with a straight face and I'll view it the same way. Your argument boils down to "it's great, so long as you ignore all its flaws and just watch the pretty lights." That's not good enough for me, and defences like that are the mark of a really shitty film.
If all you want is lasers and explosions, then good luck to you. I like to have some kind of coherent narrative along with it. Maybe I'm the lunatic here, but to me good sci-fi is mind-expanding, not mind-limiting.
*CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL
Re: James Bond
hmmm so a few films later what do we think?
That the whole re-working of Bond was to emulate the superior Bourne movies? And I'd rather watch Bourne any day of the week?
It wasn't called ST 9. You're idealising ST to a ridiculous level, the original has none of those things you talk about. You're seriously trying to defend a show which had William Shatner as the lead as being serious, well-written TV?
The original doesn't have any diplomacy? Any idealism at all? You're seriously trying to tell me that Gene Roddenberry conceived of anything even slightly in line with Star Trek XI? Did you watch Star Trek at any point? Do you know what the Federation is supposed to stand for? Don't be a moron.
And if you're going to have a cry about how it's totally not related to the original Star Trek because it doesn't have the number XI in the title, then
a) understand what number XI is before whining, so you look less of an idiot, and
b) explain the part at the beginning of the film where Abrams bends over backwards to connect the film to its predecessors, then writes them off and pisses on their graves
Christ, I'm not even that big a Star Trek fan, but I've seen the majority of it. More than enough to know just how afwul Star Trek XI is.
Gah, don't mention the name Abrams... And don't you dare call him Star Trek's "saviour".
Star Trek XI was an atrocity. Even if you can summon the mental gymnastics to overcome the plot holes, the adherence to the "spiky haired young people who inexplicably know kung fu" demographic, the eye-burning abuse of lens flares and the utter stupidity required to write off decades of existing Trek, it looked, sounded and acted nothing like Star Trek. No diplomacy, no intellect, no sense of wonder or exploration, just BLOW SHIT UP!
Star Trek XII can go fuck itself.
Fortunately, I've long since given up on Star Wars. It was overrated to begin with, and the prequel trilogy was hilariously bad.
Re: YouTube would need to offer a better way to find content
I wouldn't pay for YouTube as it is because there is so little content that is of any quality
Oh, I wouldn't say that. It's become a veritable archive for forgotten/unreleased TV shows. Everything from Horizon documentaries to 80s cartoons.
There are also a number of talking heads on YouTube that are actually worth listening to. Separate the camwhores from the skilled reviewers and you can find people like TotalBiscuit doing pretty good stuff.
Re: Do they honestly think younger people dont read?
I dont think i could stand reading for too long on a tablet, my good old Kindle however i can sit for hours and read (and do). Am i nearly dead? At 31 I hope not.
I'm five years younger still (shocker for some of the old grumps on this thread) and I use my e-reader daily. My tablet? Oh, that's right, I don't own one.
But then I had one of these modern progressive educations, so I'm reading silly stuff like Verne and Wells, rather than the proper classics, like 50 Shades of Grey.
Re: I'm sorry...
Why would companies leave France if they are still making profit after the new taxes?
Because if France get away with it, then other tax-loving countries (like ours) will follow suit. Our public are currently acting in a fashion that seems demented to me; flat out demanding taxation from the government. They could totally put this into action here.
I didn't realise the phrase "rock solid reliable" was that common.
I was thinking of calling fake, that looks so much like an iPhone.
Still, gimme! Mozzy's way of doing things like this never ceases to appeal to me.
Perhaps if you didn't constantly mollycoddle your children away from even the slightest mention of sex, they wouldn't be so fascinated with it?
Also, puberty. Let me tell you how this is: porn doesn't make teenagers horny. Teenagers are horny, therefore porn.