What is it with the US and this obsession with devising new and more efficient ways to wage war?
My theory is this: If you are a lying, cheating dick and make everybody hate you, you need big guns to stay alive. That's what the US have been doing for the last couple of decades.
They lie, they cheat, they deceive and they stick their noses in other peoples business while their own country runs wild and goes down the pooper.
I don't know if they'll ever fix this but the military is probably not the reason if it happens eventually.
Mod me flamebait if you like but it's the truth and you know it.
Dude, calm down. The old Diablo games (and I'm still playing D2 btw.) have a shadow system that gives you a "fog of war" type of effect. Remember? The minimap gets blocked out until you discover stuff and enemies that are further away are invisible because of the shadows. Sure thing, the game itself is beautifully colored but the one thing that wasn't in the videos of Diablo 3 so far is the shadows and sightline restrictions. And I believe that's where the whole debate comes from.
The first two had this eerie claustrophobia about them because you (at least with a low level character) couldn't see very far. That made perfect sense for the dungeon/cave gameplay and the athmosphere. So no, no angst colored glasses. Though I really wonder what color that would be.
nor the previous ones look "cartoonish".
Read the post, I never said the two earlier games looked cartoonish, that's what I liked about them. It's the art style in D3 that looks like WoW with the colorful textures and strangely proportioned characters and enemies. Please look at some screenshots of WoW and D3, compare and then tell me that doesn't look like a cartoon and/or really similar. I don't say that I hate it but I would have wished it looked more like Diablo and less like WoW but that's the new Blizzard I guess.
The current art style give it that weird World of Warcraft cartoonish look. Doesn't quite suit what I am used to from the other Diablo games and not really what I expected. But overall I don't care as long as it comes out soon.
OM was already trumped by Apple and Google, they need to get a good production model to the consumers quickly or just give up.
I disagree, they still have no competition in what they do. Google didn't deliver anything. There's not one Android phone available for consumers that I'm aware of. I'm glad if someone could show me one that is affordable because I'd really like to get a free phone platform. Apple and Google don't even play in the same league as OpenMoko.
Apples software architecture is a golden cage and Google doesn't yet succeeded in implementing standards so a viable hardware base could be produced.
From my perspective, to date, OpenMoko is the only platform that delivers hardware and software alike and is available NOW with an affordable price. The question is how long it will take them to produce a competitive hardware revision that can outgun the iPhone and when their software is ready for a broad market. There's no reason considering "to give up" at this point. It takes some more time. That's all. As you might have noticed free architectures usually don't get that much attention from the investors because the pay off is really long term. So they have to make small steps but at least they're moving.
Like I said Android is a promising project but none of it has actually manifested in the consumer world so far. I'm not buying into the hype as long as they can't get a handset onto the market.
I wish Google or someone would come out with a phone which is based on a completely open OS like Linux and where people can write their own programs and so on for it.
OpenMoko is the more complete of the two. Android is promising but so far nothing has really materialized. On the other hand the OM guys even got their own dedicated hardware manufacturer and open hardware philosophy. It's still not quite there unfortunately but I think this model is the future anyhow so a couple more years to wait isn't that big of a deal.
Your version,
Their version,
the Truth and
what actually happened.
If that works out will I see a big red pulsating "This is all bullshit" label on the Scientology or any Creationist homepage? I doubt any admin in their self-righteous mind would put something like that on their site. In the specific idiology what is true in reality is a lie in their world. So who's to decide who gets one of those and ranked by what? And you had to rule out all of the parties and congress's website. What about Whitehouse.gov? There should have been one of these "untruthful" markers for eight years now. Where is it?
This will NEVER work. Since everyone makes their own truths nowadays there will be just as many ranking systems as there are opinions.
Unless this form of DRM is radically different from its predecessors, it will only be supported on closed-source browsers, which eliminates Firefox, Chrome, and Konqueror.
Which would eliminate all the customers using these platforms from your revenue stream and that's just plain stupid and will never happen.
This new plan looks like a great way for DECE to profit from licensing and certification fees, but not much else.
No shit sherlock, what do you think the music industry is about? Do you think the CEO of Sony Music can play an instrument? It's ALL about licenses and certificates. Why do you think they introduce a new system? The old one doesn't work that well anymore so they have to come up with some new mind-boggling scheme to make clueless people pay them for unnecessary technology. As you said, nothing new here.
Ceramics Compound Steel with NanoMesh stabilizing support.
Or a couple of layers of transparent aluminium... oh wait, we ain't supposed to have that yet.
So every one of these chips has to be synched with a central database? Good luck speeding up clocking times with that. And if there are multiple databases you surely could also circumvent one to make a chip work for you.
Why not just give me a key for anything again? At least that can't be copied just by walking past my pocket.
Ignorance filter circumvented.
GTFO, first RTFA then RTFM and then STFU.
Smart people need to use acronyms, it's like learning. Complex things just can't be properly conveyed by repeating the same way too long expression over and over again. If you leave them out you confuse things.
At least I can rest assured that you'll never work at the UN, WTO, BMW, DMV, KBR or NASA.
Have we tried all feasible methods already? I don't see any solar panels or wind mills in my neighborhood.
OK, go ahead, produce billions of kilowatts of energy to melt steel to make into giant boats that will roam all the oceans to do some ineffective mumbo-jumbo. That way at least it'll be over quickly. Couldn't stand another few millenia with you guys. Sheesh.
You certainly appear to be attacking ISPs for only expecting "a mere 1%".
And what is wrong about that? If you power company told you you could draw only 1% of your lines capability into your house what would you say to that? Fine?
It runs at 6Mbit 24/7. What it might NOT allow is for you to download the maximum theoretical volume this equates to. Bandwidth and volume are two separate things.
And why is that? Unlike water or electricity data only needs to be replicated not generated. Let me abuse another utility analogy. If you, for whatever reason, rented a water line that delivered 6000 Gallons of water a day to your house because you wanted just that and the company selling you the line would tell you you could only get 300 gallons a month out of it. What good is that line then? I can understand when a depletable resource like water can't be supplied that rapidly but like I said, data isn't generated nor is it limited, it's transferred. The only thing blocking the flow here is the lack of processing/shifting power in the infrastructure. How can data be subject to "volume" if there is no volume to be generated which would be the only thing besides the infrastructure that could limit the supply? All they need to do is put enough valves in to shift the vast amount of flow.
That is a *massive* amount of data for a home user (shit, it'd be a large amount even for a business). The average customer would download around an order of magnitude less.
I don't know, 150 Gigs is all traffic down and up in a 90/60 ratio, I stream a ton of free HD content (Revision3 and Youtube-like makes up for half of my downstream traffic) then I share/get lots of OS distro isos over torrent protocol, maintain several gaming consoles and computers over the same line. It's not really hard to hit that number. Especially when more than one person uses that line for Multimedia.
No-one sells a (consumer-level) service (internet or otherwise) expecting it to be fully utilised 100% of the time. It would be insanely stupid.
Well then don't they shouldn't be allowed to advertise with "unlimited download/unlimited surfing etc." My ISP specifically advertised "unlimited download" and then they tell me "oh yeah, there is a limit but we don't tell you that before you sign up for the 24 month contract".
They haven't paid for a 100% utilised, 6Mbit network connection. They've paid for a 6Mbit connection.
And when exactly does "works as expected" start for you? To me a 6Mbit line has to perform 6Mbit operations on a constant basis otherwise it's useless to advertise it as such. They admit that they can't provide all of the bandwidth all of the time in the fine print. Transfer rates are "maximally possible" figures. It's still not acceptable in my opinion.
Running a (modest, by todays standard) 6Mbit connection at 100% (or, hell, even 50%) utilisation will cost a hell of a lot more than 10 bucks a month. More like thousands.
And how do the Scandinavians do what they do? They have well built infrastructure and they can maintain 100/100 Mbit almost Ethernet like connections for large parts of the population. And the prices are marginally higher than here. Interesting fact: My ISP, the one that complained about me multiple times and tried to bribe me to leave their company for using my line the way it was advertised, lately offered me to get the same internet speed with free telephone and mobile calls for 10 bucks LESS a month. If it's that much more expensive to run hi-bandwith operation why do they lower the price for an even more complex application then? And they refuse to upgrade me to a lower price for internet only, to boot.
This can only mean that the people creating/maintaining the infrastructure are responsible for basing their prices on false assumptions that they still design for the average lo-end user. So
I'm not even saying I run the line 24/7 on full speed. With the lack of proper server output that's practically impossible. But can't I assume that for 8-12 hours a day the line I'm paying for does what it's supposed to do? I seldomly break 150 Gigs a month. All I'm saying is that most ISPs sell products their system can't even handle and they put the pressure on the people not using their lines much even though they paid for it. Now if all customers started demanding what they actually paid for the system breaks down.
I would call that a flawed system. Either they need to charge me 10 bucks more a month for guaranteed throughput or stop whining about their terrible infrastructure calculation.
Come to think of it btw. a while back my provider here in Germany tried to buy "power users" out of their contracts for a 100â bonus. I courteously but firmly declined the two letters and several phonecalls they gave me. During one of the telephone conversations though I was told that for my 6Mbit line the average calculated downstream "should not exceed 20GB/month" in their calculation. So they rent lines to people that are supposed to do a mere 1% (6Mbit 24/7 = ~1800GB a month / 20 = ~0.01) of their theoretical throughput. In my calculation that's about a fifth of what I actually use. And a lot of bullshit.
It's not the customers, it's the bad price calculation on the ISP side.
My three gig movies and online games work just fine...
In other words: Build better infrastructure, all the providers try to sell broadband HD content and Triple-Pay. How can they complain about 5% using what they are trying to market to everybody? Hypocrites.
Slashdot Mirror
My theory is this: If you are a lying, cheating dick and make everybody hate you, you need big guns to stay alive. That's what the US have been doing for the last couple of decades.
They lie, they cheat, they deceive and they stick their noses in other peoples business while their own country runs wild and goes down the pooper.
I don't know if they'll ever fix this but the military is probably not the reason if it happens eventually.
Mod me flamebait if you like but it's the truth and you know it.
And they even developped a prototype that could be seen at last years Chaos Communication Camp: http://ccc.simongallus.de/d/2173-3/CCC_070710_0529_001.jpg ;P
The first two had this eerie claustrophobia about them because you (at least with a low level character) couldn't see very far. That made perfect sense for the dungeon/cave gameplay and the athmosphere. So no, no angst colored glasses. Though I really wonder what color that would be.
nor the previous ones look "cartoonish".
Read the post, I never said the two earlier games looked cartoonish, that's what I liked about them. It's the art style in D3 that looks like WoW with the colorful textures and strangely proportioned characters and enemies. Please look at some screenshots of WoW and D3, compare and then tell me that doesn't look like a cartoon and/or really similar. I don't say that I hate it but I would have wished it looked more like Diablo and less like WoW but that's the new Blizzard I guess.
The current art style give it that weird World of Warcraft cartoonish look. Doesn't quite suit what I am used to from the other Diablo games and not really what I expected. But overall I don't care as long as it comes out soon.
OM was already trumped by Apple and Google, they need to get a good production model to the consumers quickly or just give up.
I disagree, they still have no competition in what they do. Google didn't deliver anything. There's not one Android phone available for consumers that I'm aware of. I'm glad if someone could show me one that is affordable because I'd really like to get a free phone platform. Apple and Google don't even play in the same league as OpenMoko.
Apples software architecture is a golden cage and Google doesn't yet succeeded in implementing standards so a viable hardware base could be produced.
From my perspective, to date, OpenMoko is the only platform that delivers hardware and software alike and is available NOW with an affordable price. The question is how long it will take them to produce a competitive hardware revision that can outgun the iPhone and when their software is ready for a broad market. There's no reason considering "to give up" at this point. It takes some more time. That's all. As you might have noticed free architectures usually don't get that much attention from the investors because the pay off is really long term. So they have to make small steps but at least they're moving.
Like I said Android is a promising project but none of it has actually manifested in the consumer world so far. I'm not buying into the hype as long as they can't get a handset onto the market.
I wish Google or someone would come out with a phone which is based on a completely open OS like Linux and where people can write their own programs and so on for it.
OpenMoko
Android
OpenMoko is the more complete of the two. Android is promising but so far nothing has really materialized. On the other hand the OM guys even got their own dedicated hardware manufacturer and open hardware philosophy. It's still not quite there unfortunately but I think this model is the future anyhow so a couple more years to wait isn't that big of a deal.
He can't be that far, he's in a wheelchair after all.
kthxbai
As we know there are at least four:
Your version,
Their version,
the Truth and
what actually happened.
If that works out will I see a big red pulsating "This is all bullshit" label on the Scientology or any Creationist homepage? I doubt any admin in their self-righteous mind would put something like that on their site. In the specific idiology what is true in reality is a lie in their world. So who's to decide who gets one of those and ranked by what? And you had to rule out all of the parties and congress's website. What about Whitehouse.gov? There should have been one of these "untruthful" markers for eight years now. Where is it?
This will NEVER work. Since everyone makes their own truths nowadays there will be just as many ranking systems as there are opinions.
Unless this form of DRM is radically different from its predecessors, it will only be supported on closed-source browsers, which eliminates Firefox, Chrome, and Konqueror.
Which would eliminate all the customers using these platforms from your revenue stream and that's just plain stupid and will never happen.
This new plan looks like a great way for DECE to profit from licensing and certification fees, but not much else.
No shit sherlock, what do you think the music industry is about? Do you think the CEO of Sony Music can play an instrument? It's ALL about licenses and certificates. Why do you think they introduce a new system? The old one doesn't work that well anymore so they have to come up with some new mind-boggling scheme to make clueless people pay them for unnecessary technology. As you said, nothing new here.
A compost pile is an ecosystem. So I'm suggesting HEAP - Helpless Effort to Accumulate Profit (of shit)
Your hat just turns black,
when you stab someone's back,
But your hat will be white,
if you do it all right,
an' nobody's crying at night.
Ceramics Compound Steel with NanoMesh stabilizing support. Or a couple of layers of transparent aluminium ... oh wait, we ain't supposed to have that yet.
The collider. It's quoted as the "biggest machine ever built by man(kind)". So I would think it's like the B in BFG.
http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/ Check the site source :p
So every one of these chips has to be synched with a central database? Good luck speeding up clocking times with that. And if there are multiple databases you surely could also circumvent one to make a chip work for you. Why not just give me a key for anything again? At least that can't be copied just by walking past my pocket.
It seems you never encountered Slashdot's comment filter.
Well I haven't actually, that's a good thing then?
Ignorance filter circumvented.
GTFO, first RTFA then RTFM and then STFU.
Smart people need to use acronyms, it's like learning. Complex things just can't be properly conveyed by repeating the same way too long expression over and over again. If you leave them out you confuse things.
At least I can rest assured that you'll never work at the UN, WTO, BMW, DMV, KBR or NASA.
Little known fact about script blockers: You can actually unblock stuff to make it work. D'uh. Site works no problem with privoxy/noscript.
Have we tried all feasible methods already? I don't see any solar panels or wind mills in my neighborhood. OK, go ahead, produce billions of kilowatts of energy to melt steel to make into giant boats that will roam all the oceans to do some ineffective mumbo-jumbo. That way at least it'll be over quickly. Couldn't stand another few millenia with you guys. Sheesh.
You certainly appear to be attacking ISPs for only expecting "a mere 1%".
And what is wrong about that? If you power company told you you could draw only 1% of your lines capability into your house what would you say to that? Fine?
It runs at 6Mbit 24/7. What it might NOT allow is for you to download the maximum theoretical volume this equates to. Bandwidth and volume are two separate things.
And why is that? Unlike water or electricity data only needs to be replicated not generated. Let me abuse another utility analogy. If you, for whatever reason, rented a water line that delivered 6000 Gallons of water a day to your house because you wanted just that and the company selling you the line would tell you you could only get 300 gallons a month out of it. What good is that line then? I can understand when a depletable resource like water can't be supplied that rapidly but like I said, data isn't generated nor is it limited, it's transferred. The only thing blocking the flow here is the lack of processing/shifting power in the infrastructure. How can data be subject to "volume" if there is no volume to be generated which would be the only thing besides the infrastructure that could limit the supply? All they need to do is put enough valves in to shift the vast amount of flow.
That is a *massive* amount of data for a home user (shit, it'd be a large amount even for a business). The average customer would download around an order of magnitude less.
I don't know, 150 Gigs is all traffic down and up in a 90/60 ratio, I stream a ton of free HD content (Revision3 and Youtube-like makes up for half of my downstream traffic) then I share/get lots of OS distro isos over torrent protocol, maintain several gaming consoles and computers over the same line. It's not really hard to hit that number. Especially when more than one person uses that line for Multimedia.
No-one sells a (consumer-level) service (internet or otherwise) expecting it to be fully utilised 100% of the time. It would be insanely stupid.
Well then don't they shouldn't be allowed to advertise with "unlimited download/unlimited surfing etc." My ISP specifically advertised "unlimited download" and then they tell me "oh yeah, there is a limit but we don't tell you that before you sign up for the 24 month contract".
They haven't paid for a 100% utilised, 6Mbit network connection. They've paid for a 6Mbit connection.
And when exactly does "works as expected" start for you? To me a 6Mbit line has to perform 6Mbit operations on a constant basis otherwise it's useless to advertise it as such. They admit that they can't provide all of the bandwidth all of the time in the fine print. Transfer rates are "maximally possible" figures. It's still not acceptable in my opinion.
Running a (modest, by todays standard) 6Mbit connection at 100% (or, hell, even 50%) utilisation will cost a hell of a lot more than 10 bucks a month. More like thousands.
And how do the Scandinavians do what they do? They have well built infrastructure and they can maintain 100/100 Mbit almost Ethernet like connections for large parts of the population. And the prices are marginally higher than here. Interesting fact: My ISP, the one that complained about me multiple times and tried to bribe me to leave their company for using my line the way it was advertised, lately offered me to get the same internet speed with free telephone and mobile calls for 10 bucks LESS a month. If it's that much more expensive to run hi-bandwith operation why do they lower the price for an even more complex application then? And they refuse to upgrade me to a lower price for internet only, to boot.
This can only mean that the people creating/maintaining the infrastructure are responsible for basing their prices on false assumptions that they still design for the average lo-end user. So
I'm not even saying I run the line 24/7 on full speed. With the lack of proper server output that's practically impossible. But can't I assume that for 8-12 hours a day the line I'm paying for does what it's supposed to do? I seldomly break 150 Gigs a month. All I'm saying is that most ISPs sell products their system can't even handle and they put the pressure on the people not using their lines much even though they paid for it. Now if all customers started demanding what they actually paid for the system breaks down. I would call that a flawed system. Either they need to charge me 10 bucks more a month for guaranteed throughput or stop whining about their terrible infrastructure calculation.
Come to think of it btw. a while back my provider here in Germany tried to buy "power users" out of their contracts for a 100â bonus. I courteously but firmly declined the two letters and several phonecalls they gave me. During one of the telephone conversations though I was told that for my 6Mbit line the average calculated downstream "should not exceed 20GB/month" in their calculation. So they rent lines to people that are supposed to do a mere 1% (6Mbit 24/7 = ~1800GB a month / 20 = ~0.01) of their theoretical throughput. In my calculation that's about a fifth of what I actually use. And a lot of bullshit. It's not the customers, it's the bad price calculation on the ISP side.
My three gig movies and online games work just fine ...
In other words: Build better infrastructure, all the providers try to sell broadband HD content and Triple-Pay. How can they complain about 5% using what they are trying to market to everybody? Hypocrites.
This is so old the dolphin has died of arthritis: http://fast-world.com/index.php/Interesting/Dolphin-Submarine.html
Why not show a few newer pictures: http://www.bionicdolphin.com/cms/
http://www.gizmag.com/go/4095/
Jeez, compared to the news this part of Slashdot is even more outrageous.