8776
DC Gamer Club / Re: The Ball - Portal-like game with a err.. ball
« Last post by wraith808 on December 29, 2010, 01:00 PM »^ And I still haven't played it LOL 
Recent Posts
I put on movies and TV shows that I've already seen while I'm working. They're not new DVDs or anything. I've already seen them, and in many cases, more than once.This. Background noise is what I term it. It can still get distracting during the good scenes. But in general, I've already seen it, so I can miss it with no harm. This is also the reason why I don't use TV, but instead DVDs of movies or TV shows.-Renegade (December 29, 2010, 08:27 AM)
Buffy the Vampire Slayer S06E07 is a favorite as it's a musical, and probably one of the best TV shows of all time.Nothing to do with the topic... but yes, I totally agree.-Renegade (December 29, 2010, 08:27 AM)
1. Browsing the app store, I found a game I loved, and when I saw it had 4 player multiplayer on 1 device, decided to buy it for my mom as a present (so I could play it, of course!). I saw the description, price, and lots of details and reviews about the game (Chu Chu Rocket) but I couldn't figure out how to buy the darn thing! Where's the big "Buy Now!" or "Install" button? I clicked on the game title, on the picture, scrolled all around the page looking for the buy button. Perplexed, I finally clicked on the price, which does not look anything like a button, and then was given the opportunity to okay the sale. But it didn't ask me for any payment details. So now my mom's credit card (or whatever) will be charged for the gift I gave her. ARGH!Hmmm... that's the way that itunes is. It's not a difference from any other platform. /shrugs. And normally, people buy from their own device- if you want to gift her, you have to do it from your device. I rather like not entering CC details on every purchase.-Deozaan (December 26, 2010, 12:58 PM)
2. Since it's essentially a giant iPhone without the phone, browsing websites will automatically take you to the Mobile phone version of sites (that are smart enough to do that), which is stupid and annoying because a lot of the mobile versions of sites are limited in what they allow you to see or do. ARGH! (Though to be fair, I imagine Android tablets have this same problem.)That is annoying, but Safari is annoying, and it's a function of the agent it sends. I don't use it to browse, and the browser I use (iCabMobile) allows you to change your user agent string. It's just also annoying that since Safari is so annoying, that the device doesn't let you change the default browser.-Deozaan (December 26, 2010, 12:58 PM)
3. I really noticed the lack of a "back" or "cancel" button on the device. For instance, I was using the Fandango app to browse local movie showtimes, and I clicked the button to watch a movie preview. But my mom's internet isn't that great so it wouldn't load fast enough to stream. So I ended up stuck on a blank screen with no back button to get back to the Fandango app. Touching the screen wouldn't bring up any options, not even playback options like pause, rewind, seek, etc. I could press the "Home" button to take me back to the "desktop" but if I relaunched Fandango it would remember where I was and just take me back to the black screen. Where's the smurfing back/cancel button to go out of the video preview and back to the app? ARGH!That's a function of the app. The device doesn't really need a back button. If the app starts not responding, if you hold the home button, it will show the running apps and allow you to kill them. Their implementation of multi-tasking leaves something to be desired in the fact that you have to bring up the apps, hold one, then remove the one that you want to kill. But it's there. And it's not something that I do often enough to bother me. There is also another way to force quit an application from the application, but I forget what it is, as I've not had to do it often.-Deozaan (December 26, 2010, 12:58 PM)
4. The iPad's iPod mode is retarded. Now, I've never owned an iPod and don't like using them because the "easy and intuitive" wheel thing never works for me. I have to spin and spin and spin just to try to get it to move one place, but it doesn't go anywhere. Finally when it does move, it goes several spaces and I have to repeat the process all over again, but in the opposite direction, to try to get back to the option I want. So anyway, I don't use iPods, and I don't use iTunes, so maybe this is why this seemed so stupid to me, but while trying to select some music to play, I clicked the Albums button at the bottom of the screen and it popped up a little box showing a bunch of albums, and I selected one and told a song to play. Fine, easy, great! But after that as I wanted to browse the rest of the music, nothing on the screen would respond to anything except that little window with the current album open. I tried clicking off of the window to close it, but that didn't work. I looked for an X or close button (which other iPad apps use on popup windows like that one), but there was none. I clicked all over trying to get that little window to close so I could use the darn machine but there was no clear or visible way to get it to go away. I don't remember for sure now, but I think I ended up clicking on the album name to get it to go away. ARGH!This isn't a function of iPods, because they don't do this as they don't have the screen real estate. You have to click the album picture to get it to close. Not the most obvious thing. You can also click another one of the buttons at the bottom; they still respond.-Deozaan (December 26, 2010, 12:58 PM)
It doesn't make sense. It's not consistent, and my "computer illiterate" mom who thinks Apple products are great because they're "so easy they're perfect for stupid people like [her]" still has to ask me questions about how to do stuff. Then when I try to figure it out for her I can't because it's so smurfing stupidly designed it doesn't make any sense.I wasn't going to respond, but righteous hate I can stand... hate for hate's sake, I'm a sucker for. I'm no Apple apologist. They're devices, just like every other one (including Android tablets) are. Any device is going to have a learning curve, especially as you cross into different hardware form factors. And while apple devices aren't perfect, and they have several major problems, in general, I find them more easy to just use than other devices, when they're used in their narrow intended function (pointing to SB's argument after finally getting an iPad). And this is from someone that at every turn has attempted *not* to get an Apple product. My first music player was a Karma (which I still think was better), but after everyone else started trying to make iPod clones, I got one of those instead of one of the others... My first smartphone was a windows phone... finally got an iPhone after I couldn't stand the lack of direction on the platform. Same with iPad... I finally got one after years of playing around with tablets. I still use my tablet as it's more powerful, even if many years old. But for instant media consumption, I pick up my iPad.
ARGH! I hate Apple products so much!-Deozaan (December 26, 2010, 12:58 PM)
I just opened up a new Firefox instance and managed to get this:
(see attachment in previous post)
WTF?
I like my about:blank page...-Renegade (December 23, 2010, 09:43 PM)
Germany is an interesting case. Incidentally, they just finished paying back WWI reparations a little while ago.Well, I'm not saying it could have been stopped. But what I'm saying is the damage could have been mitigated somewhat, had people acted first, and especially dealt with Germany on a different level, rather than as everyone else. Like you said, they were given a lot of latitude. Germany knew its plans- no one else did.
But WWI was sparked by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, and not much would have stopped that. But there was no "right" or "wrong" in WWI, unlike WWII where Germany was simply evil. For Germany, WWII was justified as getting back for WWI injustices, and nothing would have stopped Germany then. Yalta was a mess. But it laid the foundation for half a century of tenuous peace.
In WWII, Hitler would not allow the use of chemical weapons on the battle field as he thought it was inhumane/dishonorable/whatever. Kind of messed up as he had no problems using it elsewhere.
Nobody wanted another war, and letting Germany run all over Austria and the east (until Poland) was a lot of slack. (Austria welcomed Germany, so there was no real issue there.) The sitzkrieg wasn't really by choice as the allies had no real power to do anything at the time (debatable, but close enough).-Renegade (December 18, 2010, 06:20 AM)
"Up to now we have succeeded in leaving the enemy in the dark concerning Germany's real goals, just as before 1932 our domestic foes never saw where we were going or that our oath of legality was just a trick... They could have suppressed us. They could have arrested a couple of us in 1925 and that would have been that, the end. No, they let us through the danger zone. That's exactly how it was in foreign policy, too... In 1933 a French premier ought to have said (and if I had been the French premier I would have said it): 'The new Reich Chancellor [Hitler] is the man who wrote Mein Kampf, which says this and that. This man cannot be tolerated in our vicinity. Either he disappears or we march!' But they didn't do it. They left us alone and let us slip through the risky zone, and we were able to sail around all dangerous reefs. And when we were done, and well armed, better than they, then they started the war!"
I'm rambling there, and I'm not really seeing the relevance of WWI & II there. Are you suggesting that Wikileaks could spark something like another world war? I can't see anyone letting that happen. There's too much at stake. Chemical and biological weapons are in play, and they would be used by someone. Nobody wants to see that, except for the lunatics that would use them.Nothing like that... just that dealing with other countries that don't have the same goals as you in the open way described hoping that they will follow suit is folly to the highest degree.-Renegade (December 18, 2010, 06:20 AM)
But espionage is always ongoing and never stops. THIS time the espionage is for EVERYONE and not just for a "side", though it is against a side, the US. I hope there is more of it against other "sides" for everyone.I'll agree with the always ongoing and unstopping nature of espionage, but I will say that the espionage was not for everyone as stated. It was for everyone other than the United States government. Just because you release the findings, doesn't reduce the harm it does to the country in question. To an extent it also was not for some of those mentioned, as it hurt their ties, or made them take public action to save face when perhaps they wouldn't have, and undermined efforts (especially in Russia) to the detriment of those working for more normalized relationships. It lent authenticity to the 'See, there's no use in trying a different approach' crowd.-Renegade (December 18, 2010, 06:20 AM)
Battery life is not its strong suit, however...Battery life is one of the most important issues with smartphones, as they are made for mobility, right?-Darwin (December 17, 2010, 09:01 AM)-Tuxman (December 17, 2010, 09:04 AM)
You mean the *ends* don't justify the means? How many laws do you know of that you perceive to be unnecessary, unfair, or downright morally wrong? I can think of quite a few. Just because something is a law doesn't mean it's "right". Does it need to be followed? Yes, if you don't want to be arrested and prosecuted. This is tricky stuff though, because legality doesn't equate to morality or "rightness"; legality should not be a universal shield behind which any wrong or right can be obscured. A right can still be right, even if illegal, and a wrong can certainly still be wrong even if legal. What is anyone to do when they see a right being punished or a wrong going unpunished due to issues in the current legal system? Petition their congressman? Good luck with that. When the system has a selfish interest in the status quo and maintenance of power, it's hard to trust it to enact meaningful change. So what options are left?...-JavaJones (December 16, 2010, 03:01 PM)
I never said that all laws were right, nor that legality equates to morality. I only said that the Rule of Law must be maintained, or what is the use of having laws? And I said that legal channels should be followed whenever possible. The reason that people that bring the true wrongdoings that cannot be taken through correct channels are termed 'heroes' are for having the fortitude to risk everything standing against injustice- and they do so in pursuit of that same Rule of Law. To apply it without regard cheapens the risks and sacrifices those that expose true criminality make, IMO.The similarities are in how the government is responding. I'm more trying to just understand what your perspective is though. It *seemed* like you were against people breaking their national security agreements to reveal confidential information. Is that correct? If so does that hold true in the case of Ellsberg? I don't think we'll ever totally agree here, I just want to understand what your actual position is, and it seems rather murky at present to me. Maybe just a summary of your stance.-JavaJones (December 16, 2010, 02:34 PM)
Wraith, I don't really understand your answer. Can you be more direct? How does your answer apply to the case at hand with Assange and Wikileaks as a whole?-JavaJones (December 16, 2010, 12:04 AM)
I've never been really paranoid about my passwords... but I'm getting there. I just don't want to use a password generator/manager. I started along that path with 1Password, but just never got to the using it part. I do like the idea of using a passphrase, though.Wraith, do you think Daniel Ellsberg should have gone to prison for what he did then?-JavaJones (December 14, 2010, 10:36 PM)
On second thought, I think I will end my input here as it seems to be getting a little too personal for you. Politics and religion and all that; guess it's true!-J-Mac (December 14, 2010, 09:56 PM)
We'll probably never see eye-to-eye on this.Perhaps you're right. But I continue to try to see the point.-Renegade (December 13, 2010, 09:25 AM)-wraith808 (December 13, 2010, 11:04 AM)
That part I quoted was from the article, so to say it's not there is... puzzling. What a 'cable' (and I put it into quotes for the very reason that it is called into question) is, is a classification (or to make it clearer, a nomenclature, perhaps?) that refers to e-mails that have information in them, and is stored for those that have security clearance to be able to access. That was the part that I referred to.By definition, the cables are secret-related, even if not 'classified' rating. A good write-up on what a cable is was done by Slate.
From that article:Cables, on the other hand, usually contain more important information that's meant to be accessible to other diplomatic and military staff with the appropriate security clearance.-wraith808 (December 14, 2010, 01:33 PM)
There is no such definition of cable classification, in that article or anywhere else. "meant to be" is what the article says, yet federal regulations call for any restricted communication to receive a classification designation. And 15,652 (6%) of the cables were indeed classified as Secret as noted in my last post. The rest were not.-J-Mac (December 14, 2010, 09:56 PM)
What?!? Ummm... ok. Maybe it's my fault. Again, for the sake of clarification, maybe if I had used the word trawled (which indeed is an alternate version of troll?) I would have thought that context would have made the intent clear, but I guess not?And no, I haven't trolled the release, other than a few documents and news media outlets such as NPR and such. (the very nature of the release means that to do so would take a lot of time I don't have, so I leave it to those that do).
Hmm.. And here I consider that people have "read" or "perused" the released documents. You seem to be implying that to do so is trolling...-J-Mac (December 14, 2010, 09:56 PM)
But that's what I meant by in your (and the slanted view of those that report this) view- nothing as a slight. But if the gatherers of the information deemed it to be placed in such regard, then who are we to say that they aren't, not knowing the full picture?
OK, "nothing as a slight", and yet you call my view "slanted" along with others who report this? Slanted compared to what? Your view? Which I guess is "normal" or "standard"? Please explain.-J-Mac (December 14, 2010, 09:56 PM)
the market is glutted with tons of self-published technical e-books. About 30% are good. The remaining 70% are pitiful and have had the unfortunate effect of damaging the reputation of the entire tech e-book market.
So unless you can interest a publisher (Que, O'Reilly, SAMS, Wrox, Prentice-Hall, APress, etc.) to sign you on, it's going to be a tough sell to the consumer since they don't know you.
Absolutely true! I can't tell you how frustrating it is to sift through the thousands of free eBooks (PDF, mobi, Kindle, etc.), only to discover that most of what you've downloaded is rubbish.-kyrathaba (December 14, 2010, 11:56 AM)
Most certainly is NOT my opinion. Why are you assuming that? Have you even seen any of the documents? Do you have any idea of what their classifications are? Or are you just extending your "doctor-patient relationship top secret" presumption across all possible leaked documents? (A senseless analogy when in fact the actual classification of the documents is known!)
The 251,287 documents released are classified as follows:That's why I stated "non-Secret-related but embarrassing documents" in my previous post. That is what many of them are. Definitely more so than are "Secret".
- Just over half of the cables are not subject to classification.
- 40.5 percent are classified as "confidential".
- Only 6 percent or 15,652 dispatches as "secret".
- The release contains 4,330 messages which are "not meant for foreigners".
-J-Mac (December 13, 2010, 11:26 PM)
Cables, on the other hand, usually contain more important information that's meant to be accessible to other diplomatic and military staff with the appropriate security clearance.
