"... you actually need to work out how to prevent the mining."
As I said....."Speak with your mind, voice and dollar, in that order."
The one thing these corporations understand CLEARLY is not giving them your money. I don't just TELL friends and family about the crap that Microsoft pulls, I SHOW them, usually with their own Windows machines. That is usually enough to stop the flow of money from them to Microsoft.
"Ulrich went on to say that he and half a dozen friends were enjoying a bottle of wine at his house and used a file-sharing client (the name of which eluded him) to download the album."
SIX Metal-heads and ONE bottle of wine? Box, maybe, but bottle?
"Therefore, it is our right, nay, our duty to users everywhere to violate those bits of intellectual property at every possible opportunity until it becomes such a legal nightmare for these companies that they are forced to back down. Anything less would be uncivilized. I know this is no Rosa Parks moment, but it still very much necessary for the long-term viability of computing as we know it. Just say no to data format patents."
This is precisely the tactic I encourage everyone I know to use.
These people are no longer playing fair, WHY SHOULD WE?
In this day and age, corporations are, quite simply put, walking right over common sense. There is no more "customer service", but rather corporations simply see us all as resources to be mined.
When these people no longer see reason, no longer work to provide a product without stifling the competition, then "Intellectual Disobedience" is the ONLY route left to address the situation.
Speak with your mind, voice and dollar, in that order.
Sorry for cross-posting, but my post in the other thread was buried. It seems that Google is actually trying to do SOME of what I suggested. Here is the original post. Yes, it IS a wall of text, and I do apologize for that, but it is a complicated issue, and I could't really thin it out.
"From a writers perspective, one of the most satisfying aspects of writing is the permanency of putting words to paper. Generations of people will have the opportunity to enjoy your story. It is, in a sense, a little bit of immortality.
Unfortunately, this is all dependent of the availability of your works. At some point in time, a decline in readership limits the revenue a publisher can realize from further print runs of the work. The work eventually falls by the wayside, and is not really available to the public anymore. Aside from the obvious understandable financial goals of Google, I see them simply trying to keep those books available to the public, and future generations. And, yes, I read TFA.
Were things handled equitably? I do not think so. Allow me to explain.
The agreement made with the Author's Guild, by Google, completely leaves the original author out of the loop of negotiation, and thus the legacy of their work. A limited form of reimbursement, a one-time $300 "settlement" serves nobody but Google (well, the Author's Guild DOES make out like Bandits here).
This settlement, I believe, also stains the credibility of Google in the long run. If they plan on future ventures like this, the people with whom they will be dealing will be far less likely to see any altruistic motivation in Google's plans. They had the opportunity to make a huge impression on a lot of people here, and they failed to take advantage of it. I honestly believe there IS some altruism, on Google's part, involved with this case. But for some reason, possibly something as simple as greed, they squandered that opportunity.
They could have done things totally different, and achieved the goals of everyone involved.
Here is how I would have proposed a deal, to the original authors and the Author's guild.
Initially, NO money changes hands. A list of works is assembled, and the actual authors are determined. Both Google and the Author's guild make an honest, diligent attempt to contact the author of each work. If they are not able to be contacted, they are then put in into a category, possibly labeled "dormant". All other authors are contacted and informed of the process of which I am about to explain, and offered an "opt-in". The authors that "opt-in" are then categorized as "Participants", while the ones that do not "opt-in", are are categorized as "non-participants". None of that default "opt-in" bullshit here either. Keep it clean.
So, now we have all the works, categorized into three groups. From here, each group is interacted with differently, by Google.
Lets get the Non-Participants out of the way first, since they will not be discussed further.
Quite simply, Google doesn't make their works available. They receive no compensation from anyone, Google, or the Authors Guild. Their works continue to languish as they have in the past. The authors of these works gain nothing from the process, nor lose anything. The song remains the same, so to speak.
Now, lets discuss the Participants.
Since the authors have been contacted, they are offered a deal with Google, and their decision to "opt-in" is their agreement to the terms that Google and the Author's Guild have made in advance. Here is how it works.
Google makes the work available, in its entirety(no derivative works), as they see fit, but in accordance with the "opt-in" agreement. Any funds derived from the publishing of the work are divided 3 ways, with proportions agreed to at "opt-in" time. A portion for Google is set aside, say, 80%, a portion for the author is set in a interest bearing trust (19%), and a smaller (the remaining 1%) amount is is set in trust for the Author's Guild.
From a writers perspective, one of the most satisfying aspects of writing is the permanency of putting words to paper. Generations of people will have the opportunity to enjoy your story. It is, in a sense, a little bit of immortality.
Unfortunately, this is all dependent of the availability of your works. At some point in time, a decline in readership limits the revenue a publisher can realize from further print runs of the work. The work eventually falls by the wayside, and is not really available to the public anymore. Aside from the obvious understandable financial goals of Google, I see them simply trying to keep those books available to the public, and future generations. And, yes, I read TFA.
Were things handled equitably? I do not think so. Allow me to explain.
The agreement made with the Author's Guild, by Google, completely leaves the original author out of the loop of negotiation, and thus the legacy of their work. A limited form of reimbursement, a one-time $300 "settlement" serves nobody but Google (well, the Author's Guild DOES make out like Bandits here).
This settlement, I believe, also stains the credibility of Google in the long run. If they plan on future ventures like this, the people with whom they will be dealing will be far less likely to see any altruistic motivation in Google's plans. They had the opportunity to make a huge impression on a lot of people here, and they failed to take advantage of it. I honestly believe there IS some altruism, on Google's part, involved with this case. But for some reason, possibly something as simple as greed, they squandered that opportunity.
They could have done things totally different, and achieved the goals of everyone involved.
Here is how I would have proposed a deal, to the original authors and the Author's guild.
Initially, NO money changes hands. A list of works is assembled, and the actual authors are determined. Both Google and the Author's guild make an honest, diligent attempt to contact the author of each work. If they are not able to be contacted, they are then put in into a category, possibly labeled "dormant". All other authors are contacted and informed of the process of which I am about to explain, and offered an "opt-in". The authors that "opt-in" are then categorized as "Participants", while the ones that do not "opt-in", are are categorized as "non-participants". None of that default "opt-in" bullshit here either. Keep it clean.
So, now we have all the works, categorized into three groups. From here, each group is interacted with differently, by Google.
Lets get the Non-Participants out of the way first, since they will not be discussed further.
Quite simply, Google doesn't make their works available. They receive no compensation from anyone, Google, or the Authors Guild. Their works continue to languish as they have in the past. The authors of these works gain nothing from the process, nor lose anything. The song remains the same, so to speak.
Now, lets discuss the Participants.
Since the authors have been contacted, they are offered a deal with Google, and their decision to "opt-in" is their agreement to the terms that Google and the Author's Guild have made in advance. Here is how it works.
Google makes the work available, in its entirety(no derivative works), as they see fit, but in accordance with the "opt-in" agreement. Any funds derived from the publishing of the work are divided 3 ways, with proportions agreed to at "opt-in" time. A portion for Google is set aside, say, 80%, a portion for the author is set in a interest bearing trust (19%), and a smaller (the remaining 1%) amount is is set in trust for the Author's Guild.
The portion set aside for Google is theirs to do with as they see fit.
The portion set aside for the Author's Guild is available to them for overhead costs, basically to be used as they see fit.
The portion set in trust for the author is accessible on the second day of each month, and can be cleaned out, by the auth
About a dozen friends of mine and I had been awaiting Darkfall Online for quite some time. Many of us lurked in the forums for years. The listed features on their extremely limited webpage were enticing, and this from an old Ultima Online player. I missed the days of Pre-Trammel. From what they were saying, the Devs of DFO did too.
Since shortly before release, I have been watching developments very closely, getting information from MANY sources, but primarily from beta tester leaks and forum posts.
Here is what I can gather.
They did NOT recreate Pre-Trammel UO. They recreated the PvP aspect of it, and NOTHING MORE. In contrast, the crafting is not even comparable, there is no player housing(just placeholder buildings in a clan city, no real purpose but to increase the number total of people that can "bind" to the city--think limited recall runes, based on the number of houses built), etc, etc.
Fully half of the claimed features(the ones that have been claimed on their website for YEARS) are missing from the game. Including mobs. There is the bare minimum of mobs, just enough to farm anew set of gear, and some non-soloable mobs for group PvE. Essentially, PvE is NOT a viable playstyle in DFO. Period. Neither is soloing.
To make matters worse in this regard, during beta, when all the testers asked "Where are all the features and mobs?", the reply was "The server is in debug mode, all that will be turned on later, as we don't want to clog the logs with information not useful to our present testing needs.". OK, we can handle that, say the testers, but once the server goes live, IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS BETA. It was blatent misinformation to hide the fact that all the features and mobs were actually not in the game. In essence, they lied.
That in itself was enough to entirely turn me off of the game. But it doesn't end there.
The graphics, while pretty slick, in some ways, require too high-end of a machine to play in any stable fashion. The shadow system has been lauded by many, but it seems about half the players in posts have to turn it off to get a decent framerate.
And here is the big one for me. They TOTALLY ignored the worst developer pitfall of the very game they intended to emulate. They put FAR too much of the game CLIENT-side. Exactly like UO did. The problem with this is that there is no means for them to stop Bots, 3rd party apps, and every other cheat, speedhack, etc. that anyone cares to throw at it. One notable 3rd party app group managed to get into Beta and had their app all ready for release. There have been many posts regarding Teleport/Speed hacks already in use in the game, as well as they fact that Botters will be the death of any real economy even before it has a chance to BE. There is no way to fix all of this clientside stuff, short of a complete game overhaul. The game is basically as hackable as UO remains to this day.
A forum full of rude kids, a totally botched release, no customer support to speak of, a billing partner that STILL doesn't have things working properly, etc, etc are among the MANY reasons I will not be playing.
I had high hopes, but they have been dashed to pieces.
All that being said, I reactivated my EQ2 account. Its a nice mix of WoW, Everquest with additional systems in place, such as player housing. The game looks nice, runs superb, and, to be honest, has the most mature player base I have encountered in 10 years of MMOing. As someone said in a previous post, all the whining little kids got bored and went to WoW.
Fine by me!
I also noticed nobody mentioned this before, DFO released in a limited fashion. Only sold 10K accounts, maybe even less. They also only have ONE server up at the time of this writing(which does NOT include a login server....*sigh*) and I have seen no mention of any being specifically set to be opened anytime soon.
I don't know about everyone else, but having magnetic objects anywhere near digitally stored data devices was, to the best of my knowledge, a very bad idea.
Did these guys forget about all that, or did they find a solution?
Even if the device itself is immune to the effects of a strong magnetic field, what about the other machines you hook it up to, say, for example, a USB external HDD?
I use Netflix, both the delivery by mail system, and the Instant View.
I "upgraded" to Silverlight when the service required me to do so.
The video quality is better. It is not interrupted nearly as often by network congestion as the old player was, and the "backwards/Forward" slider actually works without rebuffering the entire movie again. It also remembers where I left off when I close the IE. I can come back a week later and pick up right where I left off. The "free" service works better, by far.
But what about Windows Media player being borked? Until I read the summary, IT DIDN'T MATTER. Why?
Quite simple. I don't use Windows Media Player for ANYTHING BUT NETFLIX! Matter of fact, I don't use Internet Explorer for anything but Netflix as well!
As a matter of fact, Netflix is the only reason either of them are even installed on my machine. So, in essence, there was a net effect of ZERO, other then the above-mentioned benefits.
Good thing the OpenOffice.org is bi-directionally compatible with Microsoft Office products.
Seriously, other then the operating system, most people irritated enough to want XP over Vista are running non-Microsoft apps anyways. At least the ones I encounter.
I am sure there are quite a few people out there, just like me, that hang onto XP ONLY so they can run popular games on their machines(as opposed to WINE emulatuion).
I admit I still use Process Explorer(Microsoft owned now...Boo! Hiss!). Anyone got a link to the last Pre-Microsoft version?
I actually misquoted him in my first post....here is an accurate description of his results.
Decide for yourself which measurements get results.
"Wow, I just spent two hours making a UHF antenna from driftwood and coat hangers, in hopes of picking up some digital TV reception. It turns out it matters which antenna input is used for DTV. Anyhow, end result is that I've gone from 15 mostly fuzzy stations, like just half the local VHF networks, to 90 crystal clear stations, including several variants of each local network and PBS station, including many in 1080i in wide-screen with Dolby Sound...on an indoor coat-hanger and driftwood antenna."
He is basically getting as many stations as I do with Comcast cable. But he is also dead-center Los Angeles County.
"It's really not that tough to make. You could make one yourself just as easily in an hour or two. Construction is as follows:
Make eight Vs from 16" lengths of coat hanger, with stripped insulation at the point(EDIT: Guess he means the plastic coated coathangers). The mouths should open about 3.25".
On a 33" or longer stick, about 2" wide and ½" thick, measure off 8" increments on both sides of the ruler. At each of these marks use a wood screw and washer to hold down a V. It should look like four cats stacked head on head when the stick is upright. These V's, now lying flat, should be pulled forward about 20-35. Just pull on one wire at a time to reduce strain on the screw.
Next the Vs need connected with two more coat hangers. Each of these hangers is bowed, connecting to the two center Vs on one side, and the two end Vs of the opposite side. Insulation needs removed at all eight woodscrew junctions, but must be intact where the wires cross over each other between the end and center bows.
Finally, at the center of these two bows (which should be the width of a ruler apart), also strip insulation, insert two additional screws, and attach a UHF-VHF transformer. This is $2 radio shack item which allows one to hook a 300 ohm spade-lug antenna to 75ohm threaded-tube coax cable. The ideal one should be small tube with male threads at one end, and the two spades at the other end which you will screw to the antenna.
Installation. Hook a 75ohm coax cable between the antenna and the 75ohm air-antenna connector of your tuner. A brass hook in one end of the stick, and another in the ceiling is a convenient method of installation. Mounting it to a pole on the roof would provide even better reception, but then would be difficult to aim if not all your TV stations come from the same direction. Here they all come from Mount Wilson which is 41 East of North from me. Directions of your stations from your zip code and signal strengths can be found at tvfool.com. The cat faces aim at the stations. I pick up all stations with a signal strength of 41 Db or more (the ones shaded in green)."
I guess he used a cool piece of driftwood for structure.
I wasn't implying they would shut them down. Simply control them.
If they can offer ad slots to BOTH mediums to a prospective client, all the better, not to mention issues of conflicting political agendas. They would also be able to maintain "exclusive" programming slots(premium programming confined to cable service).
Closing them down would just open the market for someone else to move in.
THIS THREAD HAS BEEN LOCKED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.stop UNITED STATES LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ACTION, AS SAID DISCLOSURE MAY BE A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY.stop REFER ALL ENQUIRIES REGARDING THIS ACTION TO:stop http://www.defenselinks.mil/faq/comment.html stop
My brother hooked up an antennae at his place in LA, and now gets somewhere around 60 channels. All in perfect clarity.
Considering how much I HATE paying a cable company for ads(what happened to Ad-supported?), this is looking very much like something I am going to try out. Fuck Comcast.
But how will cable companies respond when broadcast stations start taking back business?
One time, a friend and I tried to actually be helpful in a World of Warcraft battleground (Arathi Basin) without doing a single point of direct damage to anyone on the opposing team, with a level 31 Undead Warlock and a level 32 Undead Priest. Lowest level toons for the ranked Battleground(think "cannon-fodder").
Short of fearing everyone repeatedly(just pissed everyone off, and the first guy with a trinket would kill us) or simply kiting them around to waste their time, we only found ONE method of actually killing someone without doing direct damage.
I'd park my succubus right next to the flag at the lumbermill, have her go invisible and then just stand there. Then I'd go and hide behind this rock real far away, but close enough to see the flag. The Priest would do the same, but closer in.
I'd wait for some unsuspecting soul to walk up, start to take the flag, then seduce them with the succubus(WTF!?........), then have my buddy the Priest come out of hiding, race up to them, cast mind control, then run the poor slob right off the towering cliff next to the flag. I could usually run up to the edge of the cliff just in time to see them hit, far below.
It wasn't us that killed them, it was the landing!
But seriously, MOST games are based on doing damage to something. This study just says that MOST game developers are simply ignoring a possible playerbase-- the ones that don't really care about doing damage to something.
She should be including companies like Dell and Gateway that sold machines with 1GB of RAM, and came with Windows Vista Home Premium (1GB of RAM system requirement) installed on it.
Why the FUCK did they sell machines that couldn't do anything but turn on?
And what about the middleman retailers that sold them?
Windows Vista was a fraudulent, should-be-criminal mess that was started by Microsoft, spread by manufacturers, and perpetuated by retailers. They should ALL be held accountable.
I remember being in a position once where I was stranded(had my wallet stolen) and the only way out of the situation was to make a phone call, only my phone battery was almost dead. I made the call, but got cut-off right after I explained my situation, but before I could relay my location. I ended up having to hunt for someone to borrow a phone from(easier said then done).
With this phone, it wouldn't have been a problem. I could simply have sat down in the sun, and waited to be able to make a call.
I can also think of situations in the back-country, where a tower is accessible for a signal, but no place to charge a battery.
I was trying to figure out what this had to do with keeping rats from eating data cables, then I realized, by your example, that the answer is quite simple.
Slashdot Mirror
....Please torrent/seed these timetables.
That'll show them.
"... you actually need to work out how to prevent the mining."
As I said....."Speak with your mind, voice and dollar, in that order."
The one thing these corporations understand CLEARLY is not giving them your money. I don't just TELL friends and family about the crap that Microsoft pulls, I SHOW them, usually with their own Windows machines. That is usually enough to stop the flow of money from them to Microsoft.
"Ulrich went on to say that he and half a dozen friends were enjoying a bottle of wine at his house and used a file-sharing client (the name of which eluded him) to download the album."
SIX Metal-heads and ONE bottle of wine? Box, maybe, but bottle?
"Therefore, it is our right, nay, our duty to users everywhere to violate those bits of intellectual property at every possible opportunity until it becomes such a legal nightmare for these companies that they are forced to back down. Anything less would be uncivilized. I know this is no Rosa Parks moment, but it still very much necessary for the long-term viability of computing as we know it. Just say no to data format patents."
This is precisely the tactic I encourage everyone I know to use.
These people are no longer playing fair, WHY SHOULD WE?
In this day and age, corporations are, quite simply put, walking right over common sense. There is no more "customer service", but rather corporations simply see us all as resources to be mined.
When these people no longer see reason, no longer work to provide a product without stifling the competition, then "Intellectual Disobedience" is the ONLY route left to address the situation.
Speak with your mind, voice and dollar, in that order.
Sorry for cross-posting, but my post in the other thread was buried. It seems that Google is actually trying to do SOME of what I suggested. Here is the original post. Yes, it IS a wall of text, and I do apologize for that, but it is a complicated issue, and I could't really thin it out.
"From a writers perspective, one of the most satisfying aspects of writing is the permanency of putting words to paper. Generations of people will have the opportunity to enjoy your story. It is, in a sense, a little bit of immortality.
Unfortunately, this is all dependent of the availability of your works. At some point in time, a decline in readership limits the revenue a publisher can realize from further print runs of the work. The work eventually falls by the wayside, and is not really available to the public anymore. Aside from the obvious understandable financial goals of Google, I see them simply trying to keep those books available to the public, and future generations. And, yes, I read TFA.
Were things handled equitably? I do not think so. Allow me to explain.
The agreement made with the Author's Guild, by Google, completely leaves the original author out of the loop of negotiation, and thus the legacy of their work. A limited form of reimbursement, a one-time $300 "settlement" serves nobody but Google (well, the Author's Guild DOES make out like Bandits here).
This settlement, I believe, also stains the credibility of Google in the long run. If they plan on future ventures like this, the people with whom they will be dealing will be far less likely to see any altruistic motivation in Google's plans. They had the opportunity to make a huge impression on a lot of people here, and they failed to take advantage of it. I honestly believe there IS some altruism, on Google's part, involved with this case. But for some reason, possibly something as simple as greed, they squandered that opportunity.
They could have done things totally different, and achieved the goals of everyone involved.
Here is how I would have proposed a deal, to the original authors and the Author's guild.
Initially, NO money changes hands. A list of works is assembled, and the actual authors are determined. Both Google and the Author's guild make an honest, diligent attempt to contact the author of each work. If they are not able to be contacted, they are then put in into a category, possibly labeled "dormant". All other authors are contacted and informed of the process of which I am about to explain, and offered an "opt-in". The authors that "opt-in" are then categorized as "Participants", while the ones that do not "opt-in", are are categorized as "non-participants". None of that default "opt-in" bullshit here either. Keep it clean.
So, now we have all the works, categorized into three groups. From here, each group is interacted with differently, by Google.
Lets get the Non-Participants out of the way first, since they will not be discussed further.
Quite simply, Google doesn't make their works available. They receive no compensation from anyone, Google, or the Authors Guild. Their works continue to languish as they have in the past. The authors of these works gain nothing from the process, nor lose anything. The song remains the same, so to speak.
Now, lets discuss the Participants.
Since the authors have been contacted, they are offered a deal with Google, and their decision to "opt-in" is their agreement to the terms that Google and the Author's Guild have made in advance.
Here is how it works.
Google makes the work available, in its entirety(no derivative works), as they see fit, but in accordance with the "opt-in" agreement. Any funds derived from the publishing of the work are divided 3 ways, with proportions agreed to at "opt-in" time. A portion for Google is set aside, say, 80%, a portion for the author is set in a interest bearing trust (19%), and a smaller (the remaining 1%) amount is is set in trust for the Author's Guild.
The portion set aside for Google
From a writers perspective, one of the most satisfying aspects of writing is the permanency of putting words to paper. Generations of people will have the opportunity to enjoy your story. It is, in a sense, a little bit of immortality.
Unfortunately, this is all dependent of the availability of your works. At some point in time, a decline in readership limits the revenue a publisher can realize from further print runs of the work. The work eventually falls by the wayside, and is not really available to the public anymore. Aside from the obvious understandable financial goals of Google, I see them simply trying to keep those books available to the public, and future generations. And, yes, I read TFA.
Were things handled equitably? I do not think so. Allow me to explain.
The agreement made with the Author's Guild, by Google, completely leaves the original author out of the loop of negotiation, and thus the legacy of their work. A limited form of reimbursement, a one-time $300 "settlement" serves nobody but Google (well, the Author's Guild DOES make out like Bandits here).
This settlement, I believe, also stains the credibility of Google in the long run. If they plan on future ventures like this, the people with whom they will be dealing will be far less likely to see any altruistic motivation in Google's plans. They had the opportunity to make a huge impression on a lot of people here, and they failed to take advantage of it. I honestly believe there IS some altruism, on Google's part, involved with this case. But for some reason, possibly something as simple as greed, they squandered that opportunity.
They could have done things totally different, and achieved the goals of everyone involved.
Here is how I would have proposed a deal, to the original authors and the Author's guild.
Initially, NO money changes hands. A list of works is assembled, and the actual authors are determined. Both Google and the Author's guild make an honest, diligent attempt to contact the author of each work. If they are not able to be contacted, they are then put in into a category, possibly labeled "dormant". All other authors are contacted and informed of the process of which I am about to explain, and offered an "opt-in". The authors that "opt-in" are then categorized as "Participants", while the ones that do not "opt-in", are are categorized as "non-participants". None of that default "opt-in" bullshit here either. Keep it clean.
So, now we have all the works, categorized into three groups. From here, each group is interacted with differently, by Google.
Lets get the Non-Participants out of the way first, since they will not be discussed further.
Quite simply, Google doesn't make their works available. They receive no compensation from anyone, Google, or the Authors Guild. Their works continue to languish as they have in the past. The authors of these works gain nothing from the process, nor lose anything. The song remains the same, so to speak.
Now, lets discuss the Participants.
Since the authors have been contacted, they are offered a deal with Google, and their decision to "opt-in" is their agreement to the terms that Google and the Author's Guild have made in advance.
Here is how it works.
Google makes the work available, in its entirety(no derivative works), as they see fit, but in accordance with the "opt-in" agreement. Any funds derived from the publishing of the work are divided 3 ways, with proportions agreed to at "opt-in" time. A portion for Google is set aside, say, 80%, a portion for the author is set in a interest bearing trust (19%), and a smaller (the remaining 1%) amount is is set in trust for the Author's Guild.
The portion set aside for Google is theirs to do with as they see fit.
The portion set aside for the Author's Guild is available to them for overhead costs, basically to be used as they see fit.
The portion set in trust for the author is accessible on the second day of each month, and can be cleaned out, by the auth
About a dozen friends of mine and I had been awaiting Darkfall Online for quite some time. Many of us lurked in the forums for years. The listed features on their extremely limited webpage were enticing, and this from an old Ultima Online player. I missed the days of Pre-Trammel. From what they were saying, the Devs of DFO did too.
Since shortly before release, I have been watching developments very closely, getting information from MANY sources, but primarily from beta tester leaks and forum posts.
Here is what I can gather.
They did NOT recreate Pre-Trammel UO. They recreated the PvP aspect of it, and NOTHING MORE. In contrast, the crafting is not even comparable, there is no player housing(just placeholder buildings in a clan city, no real purpose but to increase the number total of people that can "bind" to the city--think limited recall runes, based on the number of houses built), etc, etc.
Fully half of the claimed features(the ones that have been claimed on their website for YEARS) are missing from the game. Including mobs. There is the bare minimum of mobs, just enough to farm anew set of gear, and some non-soloable mobs for group PvE. Essentially, PvE is NOT a viable playstyle in DFO. Period. Neither is soloing.
To make matters worse in this regard, during beta, when all the testers asked "Where are all the features and mobs?", the reply was "The server is in debug mode, all that will be turned on later, as we don't want to clog the logs with information not useful to our present testing needs.". OK, we can handle that, say the testers, but once the server goes live, IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS BETA. It was blatent misinformation to hide the fact that all the features and mobs were actually not in the game. In essence, they lied.
That in itself was enough to entirely turn me off of the game. But it doesn't end there.
The graphics, while pretty slick, in some ways, require too high-end of a machine to play in any stable fashion. The shadow system has been lauded by many, but it seems about half the players in posts have to turn it off to get a decent framerate.
And here is the big one for me. They TOTALLY ignored the worst developer pitfall of the very game they intended to emulate. They put FAR too much of the game CLIENT-side. Exactly like UO did. The problem with this is that there is no means for them to stop Bots, 3rd party apps, and every other cheat, speedhack, etc. that anyone cares to throw at it. One notable 3rd party app group managed to get into Beta and had their app all ready for release. There have been many posts regarding Teleport/Speed hacks already in use in the game, as well as they fact that Botters will be the death of any real economy even before it has a chance to BE. There is no way to fix all of this clientside stuff, short of a complete game overhaul. The game is basically as hackable as UO remains to this day.
A forum full of rude kids, a totally botched release, no customer support to speak of, a billing partner that STILL doesn't have things working properly, etc, etc are among the MANY reasons I will not be playing.
I had high hopes, but they have been dashed to pieces.
All that being said, I reactivated my EQ2 account. Its a nice mix of WoW, Everquest with additional systems in place, such as player housing. The game looks nice, runs superb, and, to be honest, has the most mature player base I have encountered in 10 years of MMOing. As someone said in a previous post, all the whining little kids got bored and went to WoW.
Fine by me!
I also noticed nobody mentioned this before, DFO released in a limited fashion. Only sold 10K accounts, maybe even less. They also only have ONE server up at the time of this writing(which does NOT include a login server....*sigh*) and I have seen no mention of any being specifically set to be opened anytime soon.
Man. I love Slashdot.
I ask an honest question, and get several informative, seemingly honest answers. All without a single flame or troll.
Thanks!
A magnetic case?
I don't know about everyone else, but having magnetic objects anywhere near digitally stored data devices was, to the best of my knowledge, a very bad idea.
Did these guys forget about all that, or did they find a solution?
Even if the device itself is immune to the effects of a strong magnetic field, what about the other machines you hook it up to, say, for example, a USB external HDD?
What am I missing here?
I use Netflix, both the delivery by mail system, and the Instant View.
I "upgraded" to Silverlight when the service required me to do so.
The video quality is better. It is not interrupted nearly as often by network congestion as the old player was, and the "backwards/Forward" slider actually works without rebuffering the entire movie again. It also remembers where I left off when I close the IE. I can come back a week later and pick up right where I left off. The "free" service works better, by far.
But what about Windows Media player being borked? Until I read the summary, IT DIDN'T MATTER. Why?
Quite simple. I don't use Windows Media Player for ANYTHING BUT NETFLIX! Matter of fact, I don't use Internet Explorer for anything but Netflix as well!
As a matter of fact, Netflix is the only reason either of them are even installed on my machine. So, in essence, there was a net effect of ZERO, other then the above-mentioned benefits.
I have to agree with this. What happened to established security protocol?
Its sounds like, if anything, someone transfered the data to a non-secure machine.
What sounds a LOT more plausible is that this is all an attempt to further demonize P2P. And, I say this with my tinfoil hat still on the hat rack.
The source alone brought up green nasties for me. MSNBC?
...Let me be the first to say, "Its about fucking time".
Good thing the OpenOffice.org is bi-directionally compatible with Microsoft Office products.
Seriously, other then the operating system, most people irritated enough to want XP over Vista are running non-Microsoft apps anyways. At least the ones I encounter.
I am sure there are quite a few people out there, just like me, that hang onto XP ONLY so they can run popular games on their machines(as opposed to WINE emulatuion).
I admit I still use Process Explorer(Microsoft owned now...Boo! Hiss!). Anyone got a link to the last Pre-Microsoft version?
I actually misquoted him in my first post....here is an accurate description of his results.
Decide for yourself which measurements get results.
"Wow, I just spent two hours making a UHF antenna from driftwood and coat hangers, in hopes of picking up some digital TV reception. It turns out it matters which antenna input is used for DTV. Anyhow, end result is that I've gone from 15 mostly fuzzy stations, like just half the local VHF networks, to 90 crystal clear stations, including several variants of each local network and PBS station, including many in 1080i in wide-screen with Dolby Sound. ..on an indoor coat-hanger and driftwood antenna."
He is basically getting as many stations as I do with Comcast cable. But he is also dead-center Los Angeles County.
"It's really not that tough to make. You could make one yourself just as easily in an hour or two. Construction is as follows:
Make eight Vs from 16" lengths of coat hanger, with stripped insulation at the point(EDIT: Guess he means the plastic coated coathangers). The mouths should open about 3.25".
On a 33" or longer stick, about 2" wide and ½" thick, measure off 8" increments on both sides of the ruler. At each of these marks use a wood screw and washer to hold down a V. It should look like four cats stacked head on head when the stick is upright. These V's, now lying flat, should be pulled forward about 20-35. Just pull on one wire at a time to reduce strain on the screw.
Next the Vs need connected with two more coat hangers. Each of these hangers is bowed, connecting to the two center Vs on one side, and the two end Vs of the opposite side. Insulation needs removed at all eight woodscrew junctions, but must be intact where the wires cross over each other between the end and center bows.
Finally, at the center of these two bows (which should be the width of a ruler apart), also strip insulation, insert two additional screws, and attach a UHF-VHF transformer. This is $2 radio shack item which allows one to hook a 300 ohm spade-lug antenna to 75ohm threaded-tube coax cable. The ideal one should be small tube with male threads at one end, and the two spades at the other end which you will screw to the antenna.
Installation. Hook a 75ohm coax cable between the antenna and the 75ohm air-antenna connector of your tuner. A brass hook in one end of the stick, and another in the ceiling is a convenient method of installation. Mounting it to a pole on the roof would provide even better reception, but then would be difficult to aim if not all your TV stations come from the same direction. Here they all come from Mount Wilson which is 41 East of North from me. Directions of your stations from your zip code and signal strengths can be found at tvfool.com. The cat faces aim at the stations. I pick up all stations with a signal strength of 41 Db or more (the ones shaded in green)."
I guess he used a cool piece of driftwood for structure.
Hope this helps.
I wasn't implying they would shut them down. Simply control them.
If they can offer ad slots to BOTH mediums to a prospective client, all the better, not to mention issues of conflicting political agendas. They would also be able to maintain "exclusive" programming slots(premium programming confined to cable service).
Closing them down would just open the market for someone else to move in.
Meh.
It's Warcraft.
Dwarf-Tossing (our favorite targets) is not possible in any other game, as far as I know.
Kudos to Blizzard for including this wonderful feature. I hope they expand on this feature with future expansions.
timestamp:Feb. 14 2009 14:47:32
sender:DOD
return: false
THIS THREAD HAS BEEN LOCKED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.stop
UNITED STATES LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ACTION, AS SAID DISCLOSURE MAY BE A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY.stop
REFER ALL ENQUIRIES REGARDING THIS ACTION TO:stop
http://www.defenselinks.mil/faq/comment.html stop
end
My brother hooked up an antennae at his place in LA, and now gets somewhere around 60 channels. All in perfect clarity.
Considering how much I HATE paying a cable company for ads(what happened to Ad-supported?), this is looking very much like something I am going to try out. Fuck Comcast.
But how will cable companies respond when broadcast stations start taking back business?
My guess, they will start BUYING them.
One time, a friend and I tried to actually be helpful in a World of Warcraft battleground (Arathi Basin) without doing a single point of direct damage to anyone on the opposing team, with a level 31 Undead Warlock and a level 32 Undead Priest. Lowest level toons for the ranked Battleground(think "cannon-fodder").
Short of fearing everyone repeatedly(just pissed everyone off, and the first guy with a trinket would kill us) or simply kiting them around to waste their time, we only found ONE method of actually killing someone without doing direct damage.
I'd park my succubus right next to the flag at the lumbermill, have her go invisible and then just stand there. Then I'd go and hide behind this rock real far away, but close enough to see the flag. The Priest would do the same, but closer in.
I'd wait for some unsuspecting soul to walk up, start to take the flag, then seduce them with the succubus(WTF!?........), then have my buddy the Priest come out of hiding, race up to them, cast mind control, then run the poor slob right off the towering cliff next to the flag. I could usually run up to the edge of the cliff just in time to see them hit, far below.
It wasn't us that killed them, it was the landing!
But seriously, MOST games are based on doing damage to something. This study just says that MOST game developers are simply ignoring a possible playerbase-- the ones that don't really care about doing damage to something.
Think Portal.
She should be including companies like Dell and Gateway that sold machines with 1GB of RAM, and came with Windows Vista Home Premium (1GB of RAM system requirement) installed on it.
Why the FUCK did they sell machines that couldn't do anything but turn on?
And what about the middleman retailers that sold them?
Windows Vista was a fraudulent, should-be-criminal mess that was started by Microsoft, spread by manufacturers, and perpetuated by retailers. They should ALL be held accountable.
My point is that it is better then NO battery juice.
While it may take awhile, your not totally screwed.
Better then dying at the bottom of a cliff, after lingering there miserably for days, all because your phone battery was dead.
I remember being in a position once where I was stranded(had my wallet stolen) and the only way out of the situation was to make a phone call, only my phone battery was almost dead. I made the call, but got cut-off right after I explained my situation, but before I could relay my location. I ended up having to hunt for someone to borrow a phone from(easier said then done).
With this phone, it wouldn't have been a problem. I could simply have sat down in the sun, and waited to be able to make a call.
I can also think of situations in the back-country, where a tower is accessible for a signal, but no place to charge a battery.
Could actually save a life.
I was trying to figure out what this had to do with keeping rats from eating data cables, then I realized, by your example, that the answer is quite simple.
You ignore them.
I am thoroughly amused by articles like this that essential start out as:
"Hey, look we got! Yackkity, yakkity, yak, yak..." ...And end with something along the lines of...
"...Well, its pretty damn useless considering xxxxx and xxxx are already in use and defeat it completely."
Why do people even bother printing such useless information, much less invest millions of dollars into such a product?