Well, the first link here http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=open+office&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8/ is not the official one, and in fact wants to charge you ~30 USD for OpenOffice "membership" (I know it's not the German Google, but it's feasible the user in the article used google.com and not google.de). And despite your discerning abilities, not every user automatically suspects a "Sponsored Link" as not being the official site.
Theoretically, I'm not opposed to ad-supported programs. If someone is willing to put up with an advertisement in order to use a program for free, go ahead and let them. It's worked for television, radios, and web sites for quite a while (Tivos and Ad-Block aside).
The problem, obviously, is when uninstalling the adware becomes a major hassle. For example, the author described in the interview how you would have to download a special uninstaller from the net, fill out a survey, and allow them to keep a registry key installed permanently. That is bullshit. Uninstalling shouldn't force any remains of the program to be left behind, period. Yes, in this situation it prevents unintentional (or intentional) reinstalls, but that wouldn't be an issue if adware didn't rely on drive-by downloads and was more upfront in what was being installed with the main program.
To maintain some sense of legitimacy, uninstalling shouldn't be more complicated than a few clicks from using the Add/Remove Programs dialog, and not leave behind any of the program's code.
Ever notice that all these superfulous warning messages always append "...in the state of California"? I'm starting to think it's not the products that are the issue here. Clearly, we just need to stop allowing Californians to buy anything more dangerous than an unbleached paper towel roll.
As mentioned in the blog, the main strategy Microsoft is using is to offer licenses for it's OS/software for cheap, or even free, so that the users will be more likely to buy future products from them in the future.
Ideally, people should be learning how to use computers, not Microsoft software. That way, they would be more open minded toward, and technically capable of, using different software when they get the chance to chose. In government (and school) situations, this is important because it's a waste of money to pay for expensive software licences when free and competitive programs are readily available.
In a world where >85% of PCs are using some form of Windows, however, this doesn't put most users at a disadvantage, as they'll probably never be exposed to alternative software besides Firefox. Or, we get people like Mac converts, who treat a non-MS OS device as the relic of some sort of technological messiah, instead of just a computer with different ways of doing things.
Basically, it's an address bar that automatically suggests things as you type, out of history, web searches, etc. I don't use FF, so I couldn't tell you myself, but it's quite a contentious issue. Many users dislike it, but can't switch back to the old address bar without "downgrading" to FF version 2.
It seems that Google doesn't want to introduce too many similarities, not for lawsuit fears (I also assume the licenses are mostly compatible), but concerned about the browsers being so similar that they don't attract the users that want something different. It's also very likely the Google devs feel they could do better with using mostly their own code.
*Trying to use multimedia outside of it's VCast system (you can't use a video clip/ringtone/wallpaper/application on your phone unless you bought it through VCast).
I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Verizon made it impossible for the user to change the homepage. I'd also suspect them of redirecting all web searches through Microsoft's service, if not for Google being the juggernaut it is.
Fencing uses a scoring system where a buzzer goes off if a circuit is completed between your sword and an opponent's legitimate target areas (varies upon style), which is covered by armor that has electricity flowing through it. You could do a similar ball-body-ground circuit, with the feet and hands electorally inert. Combined with the previously mentioned RFID system, you could have an exact location lined up with the exact time that the play ended.
Of course, the main problems here are creating adiquitly durable, light, and long-lasting battery packs to power the system (fencers are plugged-in while using the powered armor), and making a field able to carry enough power to detect a down, and withstand dozens of men running and tackling on it for hours on end, without turning the turf into a giant bug zapper.
I'm not so certain it's exactly what you're looking for, but Opera offers something similar to this: you can have it request a "Master Password" from you when you open the browser, and it can remember and enter your login info for you, just by clicking a button on the toolbar.
You could also have it not remember info for certain websites, in case you fear someone gaining physical access to your browser. As for making it automatic, I'm sure one could right a script automatically filling in the password when it detects an eligible site you have credentials saved for.
I do agree the price should be a bit lower, but I wouldn't be surprised if the price was higher the individual box. Many people, including Slashdotters, do value the aesthetics of not having a half-dozen boxes cluttering their entertainment center, each with their own power cord and remote.
Also, not everyone has a TV with multiple high-def inputs. Owning a Blu-Ray player, a Tivo, and a game console, may force you into compromising the quality of one by using a composite cable.
This parallels the bundling of integrated bluetooth and wifi on laptops: You may save money by buying a USB dongle, and gain the ability to imbue any other system of yours with wireless capabilities. However, it would occupy one of a limited number of USB ports, plus stick out the side/back, and give you one more thing to worry about carrying around or losing. Because of this, many users prefer the convenience of an integrated unit instead.
forced deaths:
Where you have die to advance the story. Especially when it's non-obious, so you replay the same peice over and over before you realize there's no way to win.
Even worse is that sometimes I expect this when I shouldn't. Sometimes when I'm fighting a massively overpowering boss, or other situation, I start to get the idea that I'm supposed to die, or that there's an alternative method of killing him/her (like attacking the platform the boss is on, or something). Of course, when I stop wasting supplies and let my character die, I just end up really dieing. It turns out the boss is REALLY hard on purpose, and I just don't have the right gear/spells/levels/etc. yet.
Silent Hill 1 (PS1), first encounter of the game. You walk down an alleyway and get attacked by child ghosts with knives. At this point you have nothing but a lighter, and the path behind you closes up once they appear. There's no cutscene or other instruction given that you're supposed to die, except for your lack of other actions.
While a mass-transit train system works in many situations, America is not one of them. Much of America was developed around the idea of living in the suburbs, and driving many miles to the city where you do your work. It's not like Europe, where towns and cities are arranged from pre-industrial revolution days, or Japan, where cities where built, after World War Two, with the goal of placing modern westernized cities in a cramped island nation.
Unless you built train stations with only a few miles separating each, most commuters would rather drive their cars, not wanting to put up with the hassle and waiting. Trains are only feasible for cross-country trips (including freight), as an alternative to air travel, or as subways/light rail inside cities. Look at the northeastern US: despite investment in rail systems to accommodate the daily commuter, highways like I95 and the Long Island Expressway are still heavily used.
The only way to alleviate this problem of transportation would be to restructure the way Americans work and live, by being employed locally. For many people, this may mean a choice between a more desirable career, or a more desirable living environment. It's a waste of energy to transport yourself for hours between home and work everyday. This American ideal has only been sustained due to decades of relatively cheap energy. Now that other nations are starting to compete for what's left, things are gonna change, one way or another.
The reason games like Res. 4, Silent Hill Homecoming, and Left4Dead aren't proper survival horror is that your first reaction to seeing an enemy is to kill it. In the original Resident Evil or Silent Hill, killing everything in your path would result in you running out of ammo quickly, and/or taking massive injuries due to bashing them up close in melee.
While you could interpret survival horror as being about, as the name implies, surviving scary situations, the genre is supposed to achieve this by making you feel vulnerable and desperate. This was achieved, as stated before, by limiting your supplies so much your were forced to sneak around and avoid enemies, or by making you dread the situation, fearful you could be overwhelmed at any moment.
Silent Hill achieved both of these rather well, especially with the radio and flashlight. Keeping the flashlight off prevented enemies from finding you, but you could barely see. The radio would keep you on your toes, looking around frantically for the enemy the that is there, but you can't yet see. The general inhumanity and psychological implications of the monsters, as opposed to the zombies of Resident Evil, also added to the creepy atmosphere.
Going through with the attitude you could kill everything would easily get you killed. Survival horror is about surviving because you do so against all odds, not because of good combat skills. So, as the genre evolves into action horror, it is definitely not the same as survival horror.
It's not that often, but I notice many websites have a faux-3D model of something, basically a dozen photos from different angles, and you "rotate" it, basically viewing the next jpg 45 degrees over. Motorola.com does that for their phones, for example. It's not special 3D code either; it's done with today's technology.
Its crucial that we not only allow operators to manage their networks, but to not tie their hands with prescriptive regulations. And make no mistake, net neutrality as network management is sometimes referenced in Washington and among political discussants, if implemented in its strictest form, will tie the hands of network operators. Digital fingerprinting and watermarking would not be possible if net neutrality is enforced in its harshest form.
I'm pretty sure New_Movie.avi would still contain their precious watermarks, regardless of how they throttled your connection. Unless, of course, they are hoping the ISPs reroute "unauthorized" destinations and protocols to their own servers.
After you click "connect to server", a progress bar appears as it loads the game. Under the progress bar there's a small banner ad. I guess I don't play that much, because the only ads I've ever seen were for Left 4 Dead, or a placeholder banner, I guess because no one bought the ad space yet.
They have a complete list somehwere in the Steam forums, but the Crysis expansion does have this limit, as does Far Cry 2. Furthermore, it will say in a game's system requirements panel if it uses DRM, so you can be informed before you buy the product. It's not like Steam tries to hide it from the customer.
For all the power Valve seems to have, you think they'd be more resistant to the inclusion of DRM on the third party games they sell. I understand the publishers would probably play hardball, saying "keep the DRM attached or you can't sell or game," Valve isn't exactly hurting for money. I'd expect them to simply refuse to carry games with DRM systems attached, caring more of the reputation of their service and benefit of their users than making a bit more money.
I was especially surprised at the several games which featured install limits, despite being offered through Steam. Firstly, one of the key features Steam advertises being able to install and play any game anywhere, as long as you can get online. A five install, let alone a five PC, limit directly contradicts this. Secondly, Steam only allows a user to be logged in one PC at a time. If the publishers fear you buying the game and then installing it on your friend's PC, basically allowing two people to play the game for the price of one, Steam would make this unable to happen. It works even better than the DRM systems normally in use. It'd be impossible for you to install the game, then log into your friend's PC, install the game there, and both play the game simultaneously. You can't have a situation where two people are playing the game for the price of one.
If you and your friend both shared the account, and logged in and predetermined different times, then yeah, that would work. But then, there's no functional difference than if you and your friend met up and took turns on the one PC it was installed on, and Steam wouldn't be any worse at preventing this than whatever DRM is packaged with the game normally, unless it also institutes an IP limit or something.
You can definitely play offline, but you have to log in and connect to their servers before first playing, and then manually pick "Offline Mode". After that, you never have to connect again if you can't or don't want to.
While that does seem like an interesting weapon system, I see nothing there about the cost of a round, let alone the launcher. Also, according to that page, the weapon is still in development/testing, so I'd expect costs to be higher than when it is being fully produced and deployed.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the first link here http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=open+office&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8/ is not the official one, and in fact wants to charge you ~30 USD for OpenOffice "membership" (I know it's not the German Google, but it's feasible the user in the article used google.com and not google.de). And despite your discerning abilities, not every user automatically suspects a "Sponsored Link" as not being the official site.
Theoretically, I'm not opposed to ad-supported programs. If someone is willing to put up with an advertisement in order to use a program for free, go ahead and let them. It's worked for television, radios, and web sites for quite a while (Tivos and Ad-Block aside).
The problem, obviously, is when uninstalling the adware becomes a major hassle. For example, the author described in the interview how you would have to download a special uninstaller from the net, fill out a survey, and allow them to keep a registry key installed permanently. That is bullshit. Uninstalling shouldn't force any remains of the program to be left behind, period. Yes, in this situation it prevents unintentional (or intentional) reinstalls, but that wouldn't be an issue if adware didn't rely on drive-by downloads and was more upfront in what was being installed with the main program.
To maintain some sense of legitimacy, uninstalling shouldn't be more complicated than a few clicks from using the Add/Remove Programs dialog, and not leave behind any of the program's code.
Ever notice that all these superfulous warning messages always append "...in the state of California"? I'm starting to think it's not the products that are the issue here. Clearly, we just need to stop allowing Californians to buy anything more dangerous than an unbleached paper towel roll.
As mentioned in the blog, the main strategy Microsoft is using is to offer licenses for it's OS/software for cheap, or even free, so that the users will be more likely to buy future products from them in the future.
Ideally, people should be learning how to use computers, not Microsoft software. That way, they would be more open minded toward, and technically capable of, using different software when they get the chance to chose. In government (and school) situations, this is important because it's a waste of money to pay for expensive software licences when free and competitive programs are readily available.
In a world where >85% of PCs are using some form of Windows, however, this doesn't put most users at a disadvantage, as they'll probably never be exposed to alternative software besides Firefox. Or, we get people like Mac converts, who treat a non-MS OS device as the relic of some sort of technological messiah, instead of just a computer with different ways of doing things.
Definitely out long before June '08, you can, with the push of a button, turn Autoplay on or off at any time during gameplay.
...never mind that it has no cut scenes or plot because it's just a DDR clone, but this feature sounds just like what Nintendo's patent describes.
...Life jackets mandatory with every .torrent file?
Basically, it's an address bar that automatically suggests things as you type, out of history, web searches, etc. I don't use FF, so I couldn't tell you myself, but it's quite a contentious issue. Many users dislike it, but can't switch back to the old address bar without "downgrading" to FF version 2.
It seems that Google doesn't want to introduce too many similarities, not for lawsuit fears (I also assume the licenses are mostly compatible), but concerned about the browsers being so similar that they don't attract the users that want something different. It's also very likely the Google devs feel they could do better with using mostly their own code.
Unless the phone is retarded
Being Verizon, this is the rule, rather than the exception:
*Using Bluetooth for anything other than a headset is impossible, unless you start hacking the phone.
*Proprietary mini-usb ports that artificially only allow Verizon-produced chargers to charge the device. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMU_connector/.
*Trying to use multimedia outside of it's VCast system (you can't use a video clip/ringtone/wallpaper/application on your phone unless you bought it through VCast).
I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Verizon made it impossible for the user to change the homepage. I'd also suspect them of redirecting all web searches through Microsoft's service, if not for Google being the juggernaut it is.
Fencing uses a scoring system where a buzzer goes off if a circuit is completed between your sword and an opponent's legitimate target areas (varies upon style), which is covered by armor that has electricity flowing through it. You could do a similar ball-body-ground circuit, with the feet and hands electorally inert. Combined with the previously mentioned RFID system, you could have an exact location lined up with the exact time that the play ended.
Of course, the main problems here are creating adiquitly durable, light, and long-lasting battery packs to power the system (fencers are plugged-in while using the powered armor), and making a field able to carry enough power to detect a down, and withstand dozens of men running and tackling on it for hours on end, without turning the turf into a giant bug zapper.
I'm not so certain it's exactly what you're looking for, but Opera offers something similar to this: you can have it request a "Master Password" from you when you open the browser, and it can remember and enter your login info for you, just by clicking a button on the toolbar.
You could also have it not remember info for certain websites, in case you fear someone gaining physical access to your browser. As for making it automatic, I'm sure one could right a script automatically filling in the password when it detects an eligible site you have credentials saved for.
I do agree the price should be a bit lower, but I wouldn't be surprised if the price was higher the individual box. Many people, including Slashdotters, do value the aesthetics of not having a half-dozen boxes cluttering their entertainment center, each with their own power cord and remote.
Also, not everyone has a TV with multiple high-def inputs. Owning a Blu-Ray player, a Tivo, and a game console, may force you into compromising the quality of one by using a composite cable.
This parallels the bundling of integrated bluetooth and wifi on laptops: You may save money by buying a USB dongle, and gain the ability to imbue any other system of yours with wireless capabilities. However, it would occupy one of a limited number of USB ports, plus stick out the side/back, and give you one more thing to worry about carrying around or losing. Because of this, many users prefer the convenience of an integrated unit instead.
Unless you don't read the mail, it gets stored in your browser's cache, at least for a short while.
forced deaths: Where you have die to advance the story. Especially when it's non-obious, so you replay the same peice over and over before you realize there's no way to win.
Even worse is that sometimes I expect this when I shouldn't. Sometimes when I'm fighting a massively overpowering boss, or other situation, I start to get the idea that I'm supposed to die, or that there's an alternative method of killing him/her (like attacking the platform the boss is on, or something). Of course, when I stop wasting supplies and let my character die, I just end up really dieing. It turns out the boss is REALLY hard on purpose, and I just don't have the right gear/spells/levels/etc. yet.
Silent Hill 1 (PS1), first encounter of the game. You walk down an alleyway and get attacked by child ghosts with knives. At this point you have nothing but a lighter, and the path behind you closes up once they appear. There's no cutscene or other instruction given that you're supposed to die, except for your lack of other actions.
While a mass-transit train system works in many situations, America is not one of them. Much of America was developed around the idea of living in the suburbs, and driving many miles to the city where you do your work. It's not like Europe, where towns and cities are arranged from pre-industrial revolution days, or Japan, where cities where built, after World War Two, with the goal of placing modern westernized cities in a cramped island nation.
Unless you built train stations with only a few miles separating each, most commuters would rather drive their cars, not wanting to put up with the hassle and waiting. Trains are only feasible for cross-country trips (including freight), as an alternative to air travel, or as subways/light rail inside cities. Look at the northeastern US: despite investment in rail systems to accommodate the daily commuter, highways like I95 and the Long Island Expressway are still heavily used.
The only way to alleviate this problem of transportation would be to restructure the way Americans work and live, by being employed locally. For many people, this may mean a choice between a more desirable career, or a more desirable living environment. It's a waste of energy to transport yourself for hours between home and work everyday. This American ideal has only been sustained due to decades of relatively cheap energy. Now that other nations are starting to compete for what's left, things are gonna change, one way or another.
Way to be paranoid. It's good to be cautious, but NCSoft isn't exactly some obscure outfit with questionable origins.
Could it not be the case the Linux computer runs the same as the Windows XP equivalent, at each price level, even with different hardware specs?
The reason games like Res. 4, Silent Hill Homecoming, and Left4Dead aren't proper survival horror is that your first reaction to seeing an enemy is to kill it. In the original Resident Evil or Silent Hill, killing everything in your path would result in you running out of ammo quickly, and/or taking massive injuries due to bashing them up close in melee.
While you could interpret survival horror as being about, as the name implies, surviving scary situations, the genre is supposed to achieve this by making you feel vulnerable and desperate. This was achieved, as stated before, by limiting your supplies so much your were forced to sneak around and avoid enemies, or by making you dread the situation, fearful you could be overwhelmed at any moment.
Silent Hill achieved both of these rather well, especially with the radio and flashlight. Keeping the flashlight off prevented enemies from finding you, but you could barely see. The radio would keep you on your toes, looking around frantically for the enemy the that is there, but you can't yet see. The general inhumanity and psychological implications of the monsters, as opposed to the zombies of Resident Evil, also added to the creepy atmosphere.
Going through with the attitude you could kill everything would easily get you killed. Survival horror is about surviving because you do so against all odds, not because of good combat skills. So, as the genre evolves into action horror, it is definitely not the same as survival horror.
It's not that often, but I notice many websites have a faux-3D model of something, basically a dozen photos from different angles, and you "rotate" it, basically viewing the next jpg 45 degrees over. Motorola.com does that for their phones, for example. It's not special 3D code either; it's done with today's technology.
Its crucial that we not only allow operators to manage their networks, but to not tie their hands with prescriptive regulations. And make no mistake, net neutrality as network management is sometimes referenced in Washington and among political discussants, if implemented in its strictest form, will tie the hands of network operators. Digital fingerprinting and watermarking would not be possible if net neutrality is enforced in its harshest form.
I'm pretty sure New_Movie.avi would still contain their precious watermarks, regardless of how they throttled your connection. Unless, of course, they are hoping the ISPs reroute "unauthorized" destinations and protocols to their own servers.
After you click "connect to server", a progress bar appears as it loads the game. Under the progress bar there's a small banner ad. I guess I don't play that much, because the only ads I've ever seen were for Left 4 Dead, or a placeholder banner, I guess because no one bought the ad space yet.
They have a complete list somehwere in the Steam forums, but the Crysis expansion does have this limit, as does Far Cry 2. Furthermore, it will say in a game's system requirements panel if it uses DRM, so you can be informed before you buy the product. It's not like Steam tries to hide it from the customer.
For all the power Valve seems to have, you think they'd be more resistant to the inclusion of DRM on the third party games they sell. I understand the publishers would probably play hardball, saying "keep the DRM attached or you can't sell or game," Valve isn't exactly hurting for money. I'd expect them to simply refuse to carry games with DRM systems attached, caring more of the reputation of their service and benefit of their users than making a bit more money.
I was especially surprised at the several games which featured install limits, despite being offered through Steam. Firstly, one of the key features Steam advertises being able to install and play any game anywhere, as long as you can get online. A five install, let alone a five PC, limit directly contradicts this. Secondly, Steam only allows a user to be logged in one PC at a time. If the publishers fear you buying the game and then installing it on your friend's PC, basically allowing two people to play the game for the price of one, Steam would make this unable to happen. It works even better than the DRM systems normally in use. It'd be impossible for you to install the game, then log into your friend's PC, install the game there, and both play the game simultaneously. You can't have a situation where two people are playing the game for the price of one.
If you and your friend both shared the account, and logged in and predetermined different times, then yeah, that would work. But then, there's no functional difference than if you and your friend met up and took turns on the one PC it was installed on, and Steam wouldn't be any worse at preventing this than whatever DRM is packaged with the game normally, unless it also institutes an IP limit or something.
You can definitely play offline, but you have to log in and connect to their servers before first playing, and then manually pick "Offline Mode". After that, you never have to connect again if you can't or don't want to.
While that does seem like an interesting weapon system, I see nothing there about the cost of a round, let alone the launcher. Also, according to that page, the weapon is still in development/testing, so I'd expect costs to be higher than when it is being fully produced and deployed.