Which is why firmware upgrades like how MS/Nintendo/Sony have them are a bad idea.
Actually, especially with the incredible security found on the Xbox 360, it's the only way to secure online gaming from cheaters. Software (and even hardware) can never be 100% bug free, and when problems are found, you need to be able to fix them.
For an example of cheating on an insecure platform, just look at the history of first person shooters on the PC. In the heydays of pre-1.0 counter-strike cheaters, it could get down-right obnoxious, with both actual cheaters polluting servers, as well as witch hunts that end up banning non-cheaters, and the inevitable forum flame war that results. Most users don't want to deal with that crap, they just want to blow off some steam playing a fun game.
And online gaming is definitely a big draw for console gamers these days, and cheaters ruin it for everyone. Sony/Microsoft/etc have to assume that this will translate into less customer satisfaction for the system as a whole. So they have a financial interest in keeping the system secure. Thus they all built in firmware patching systems.
So I would say it is actually the only commercially viable way to make a console these days. And, if as a by product, it allows you to roll out new features for the platform, that's just more value added, and another way to increase user satisfaction.
Rather then just small patches, a lot of them overwrite a lot of the base code.
That's not true. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_System_Software and you'll find that the 360, at least, has a separate file system for system updates, and the firmware that ships with the console is rarely, if ever, touched.
the makers certainly shouldn't prevent you from online play if you don't upgrade
I disagree with this for two reasons: 1. Security - you specifically want to prevent insecure clients from connecting to your servers. It seems to me that, from the end user's perspective, the most consistent way to enforce this is by simply requiring the latest version of the firmware to connect online.
2. Maintenance, performance, and overall stability - if your servers have to support multiple versions of clients, you will have a much more difficult, time consuming, and expensive quality assurance process. Plus, the combinatorial nature of thousands of players, each with potentially different client versions, means there would be a much higher chance of missed bugs, both in client and in the servers themselves. Basically, it is cheaper and easier to force everyone to a single version of the client. And because it's a closed system, it's trivial to enforce it.
And most firmware updates don't *need* to be done in the first place
But really, upgradable firmware in game consoles is just a bad idea to use.
To sum up my arguments: online multiplayer games make system updates necessary. And if you have the functionality to update, using it for feature upgrades doesn't seem like such a bad idea. It keeps the users interested, plus it can help you stay ahead of new competition without forcing the users to go out and buy a new piece of hardware, so it's actually more cost effective for everyone involved.
If your post is really just venting that Sony's QA missed this issue with 2.40, then go ahead and be mad. I just disagree with your argument that allowing system updates in a modern gaming console is a poor design decision.
I spent $850. A similarly equiped Mac Pro is $2800.
Now, I already had the hard drive and optical drive, so to get something comparable to the Mac Pro, there's another $120 for a 320GB 7200RPM SATA drive and a decent DVD burner. Also, that $850 includes $110 for Leopard (which the morally ambiguous may find optional). Plus, I like my computers silent, so that $850 includes a Ninja Copper heatsink and a nice quiet Antec case and quiet, modular power supply.
Also, that's a 2.4GHz Quad, while the Mac has a 2.8Ghz Quad. And my video card is a cheap nVidia 7300 GT 256MB, vs whatever the Mac Pro comes with by default.
Regardless, I guess that's a savings of $2800 - $850 - $120 = $1930, which is pretty sweet.
A couple weeks ago, I tried out a MacMini at an Apple store, and one of the staff there used a Mac for music, and warned me that I would run out of power too quickly with the mini. He actually suggested I find someone with a college ID and order a student priced iMac online instead. After that, and a bit of googling around, I decided it was worth it to try making my own. And the challenge definitely made it more appealing...
I can see this turning/degenerating into a "why doesn't Apple just license MacOS X for PCs?!" discussion awful quick. But just because it's possible doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Apple made the decision that if they can't control the user experience, then they don't want to sell it. That decision is not inherently good or bad, but allowing anyone to run MacOSX on any hardware would mean loss of that control.
If you look at Microsoft, they cannot guarantee the user experience. Any hardware producer can produce a buggy product with buggy drivers, or a product with conflicts when combined with some other product, etc, and if a consumer ends up with problems, either because they built a system with conflicting hardware, or, more likely, they bought a cheap computer that someone else built with conflicting hardware, they are likely to blame Windows.
Sure, you can still get that with Apple, but with the huge variety of hardware available for Windows, it is far more likely that someone will find two pieces that don't like each other. Plus Apple doesn't let you buy your own motherboards and power supplies, for example, both of which can cause all kinds of exotic problems.
And Microsoft really wants to try to gain some of the control that Apple has, but when they do stuff like try to enforce signed drivers, it makes the enthusiasts unhappy, because it is seen as a freedom that is being taken away. From Microsoft's point of view, they are trying to ensure a pleasant user experience.
Apple has avoided most all of that by just making all the (important) hardware themselves. I imagine their compatibility testing labs are infinitely smaller than Microsoft's. And unless Apple revisits that decision (which seems unlikely as long as Steve Jobs has anything to say about it), they will not market (or probably even license) Mac OSX as an OS that can be bought and installed on off the shelf hardware.
I'm currently browsing slashdot in Firefox running in OSX 10.5.2 on an Asus P5W DH Deluxe board with an Intel Q6600 Quad 2.4Ghz proc, 4GB RAM, and a DigiRack 002 Pro Tools LE rig. And yes, I have legally purchased my copy of Leopard (I was worried they wouldn't sell stand alone retail copies, since it normally comes with the hardware, but NewEgg had 'em, so now I do).
It definitely takes a lot of tweaks to get right. For example, if my Apple brand USB keyboard is plugged directly into the USB ports on the back of the motherboard, then the machine will not properly wake from sleep. I had to run the keyboard first through a Belkin 7 port hub. That one took me a couple of (frustrating) days (including buying a second video card to rule that out) to figure out.
The Pro Tools/DigiRack had previously only been run through Windows, and although it installed and recognized the hardware OK, I was having problems with playback and crashes until I went back and did even more BIOS tweaking (I think disabling SpeedStep was the key, although I also turned off everything else I could find that said it might automatically throttle the CPU or RAM). Now even that seems to be running smoothly.
Summary: not for the faint of heart, and it could break with any Apple software update, but when it works, it is brilliant.
There is nothing wrong with C++. There is nothing wrong with C.
I think that epine has it right, that a lot of the rancor over C and C++ is due to abuses of the languages made by unskilled hands. Just as you need the right tool for the job, you also need the right worker for the job. Even with the best tools, you still need an experienced plumber to keep the water in the pipes, and an electrician to keep high voltages out of people, etc.
C is hugely popular, and probably always will be. C++ was created to reap the benefits of C, while allowing people to code in ways that would improve productivity, if so desired, without abandoning all that code that was already written in C.
And it's been my experience that proper C++ (along with competent co-workers) does improve productivity. That doesn't mean it's right in every situation, or that all C code could be "improved" by using the features unique to C++. It also doesn't mean they got it perfect the first time, which is why people are working on new standards.
About 5 years ago I had a Dell Inspiron laptop, and I spilled Jones soda on the keyboard, which resulted in some permanently stuck keys, but zero damage otherwise. I was able to get the part from Customer Service by just asking for the keyboard for the specific model of Inspiron I had. It cost me maybe $25, and arrived within the week.
However, an important note (and I had been warned about this by a friend ahead of time), don't get sucked into Tech Support Hell. I originally talked with a Tech Support guy, and he said I couldn't replace the keyboard myself (even though I had already removed it and replaced it a couple times while trying to clean it), and that instead I'd have to mail the whole laptop in, and it'd be $100 for parts and $200 for labor to get a new keyboard installed. I thanked him for his time, hung up, and called Customer Service. At that point I didn't even mention the problem, I just asked for the part.
I recommend games. Problems include building custom memory managers, file managers, scripting languages, graphics systems, physics engines, and tool sets, just to name a few. If you get in with a company that is either sill building up their technology base, or in the middle of a big re-hash, your comp sci degree is going to be pushed to the limits. Even regular day to day stuff will require making smart decisions to tough problems.
For example, I didn't know much about dynamic programming until I had to implement text diffing for a tool that was part of an internal compare program for our custom data file format. I got paid to read up on the topic and then immediately apply my new knowledge.
Plus, you are making games, so chances are it's cool to take a break in the middle of the day and play a game, and you won't get into trouble!
Ok, so this next part is important for the game companies: THERE IS NO COPY PROTECTION, NOR WILL THERE EVER BE, THAT CAN STOP PIRACY.
Yup, they know that copy protection doesn't STOP piracy; but that's not the point of using copy protection. Copy protection, when properly thought out, should act like a safe: no safe can keep people out forever, but what a safe buys you is time. Check out this article for a good example of copy protection done right: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20011017/dodd_01 .htm
Of course, the article details a PS2 game, and most of the discussion on this forum has been about PC games. The best solution I've seen on the PC so far is Valve's Steam. No discs at all, instead the games are packaged inside a system that is built from the ground up for digital distribution. Other people have touched on the topic of simply having a CD-key and an online verification, and although that screws over people who can't easily get online, overall I think it's a much more satisfying experience than having a game be rejected because of something stupid like third party software you happen to have installed.
Personally, I wish that PC games could come on DVD's, like console games, and just work right out of the box, without an installer. Maybe the DVD drives would need a special certification to be game-compatible (to ensure minimum read & seek times, etc). Then use some sort of software, approved by the publisher, to allow copies to be made to the hard drive, maybe with a quick online verification of some sort to keep it all legit. Basically, I'm saying the publishers should innovate, and allow people to do what it is they have to break the DMCA to do now. And while I'm arbitrarily demanding objects of fantasy, I'd like a unicorn.
DRM means a lot of things, but if you want to explain what it means to music enthusiast Joe Ipod, try using a real-world example:
-----
DRM is a way of limiting what a person is allowed to do with a given computer file. The limits are imposed by the people who create the file.
For example, when you buy music from iTunes, you send them money, and they send you a file. That file contains music. However, the music is wrapped inside of technology called DRM, that limits the access to that music. In order to listen to the music in that file, you have to appease the DRM by getting approval from iTunes. Of course, you just bought it from iTunes, so of course they give you permission to listen to it. However, if you sent that file off to your good friend Alice, and she tried to play it, the DRM is still there, and it asks iTunes if Alice can listen to the music, and iTunes would say, no, Alice does not have the right to listen to it, because she hasn't paid for that right.
The full extent of what this means is contrary to how people are used to dealing with purchased music. With CD's, for example, there is a single original copy, and you can sell that copy to someone else if you no longer want it. A music file limited by DRM, on the other hand, cannot be sold or given away. You are stuck with it. At least as long as iTunes remains up and running. If iTunes ceased to exist, then when you go to play the file, and the DRM asks iTunes if you can listen to the music, without the proper response, the DRM will not let you at the music, and thus you can no longer listen to it.
If you then extend this to files containing other types of information, like books and movies, the same set of rules apply: if you cannot prove that you are allowed to access a file you have, then you cannot access it. Guilty until proven innocent.
-----
In general, if you are speaking to the non-geek, I find it's good to use common place terminology, even if it is technically not accurate (like calling all digital audio "mp3" for example). Also, try to give an unbiased overview before launching into the reasons why it is the devil incarnate. Trying to remain neutral helps me to keep my thoughts organized, and also keeps the n00b from being turned off by a hateful geek rant.
Besides, what would a "pointer to unsigned short 'sy'" look like in hungarian notation?:-)
In our system, it would be "pn" for a pointer to a generic integer. You could change the type to long*, int*, unsigned char*, whatever, and it would still be a pointer to a generic integer. We don't use hungarian to put an explicit type to a variable. We use it to describe the type of data that that variable is expected to hold. This works for use because we also discourage variable reuse within a block of code.
So something like this:
float g; g = radSomeAngle; ... g = sSomeLength; ...
should instead look like this:
float rad = radSomeAngle; ... float s = sSomeLength; ...
C++ class names usually end up being the basis for a new Hungarian prefix, so in those cases, we are explicitly typing out variables. And if it comes to it, there are editors that can keep the task of renaming from totally agony. I believe Source Insight has a context sensitive (c++ class/namespace/scope/etc) project wide renaming capability, which would make it a one step process.
This works well for what we do. If you are working in a situation where it doesn't make sense, then don't use it. I don't mean to push Hungarian, because I can understand it's not for everyone. That's just part of what works for us, and thus it's part of our enforced coding standard.
Both of them are worst comments, because they only formulate in english what the code already says by itself. Everyone can see that this is an if-statement, everyone is able to identify the condition, and everyone knows the semantics of an if-statement.
A good comment is not describing what is done (since everybody can see that from the code itself), a good comment describes why something is done, or what the overall objective of the statement is.
Amen to that.
In addition to the original comments being redundant, there's also the issue of the code and the comments getting out of sync...
The company I work for just wrote up a formal coding standard, which includes everything from a guide to our internal hungarian notation, indentation guidelines, and even which C++ features/paradigms are supported, frowned upon, or not allowed. All the coders got a chance to send in feedback before it was finalized, and we even ended up with a list of recommended reading on the subject, including:
Sutter & Alexandrescu's C++ Coding Standards,
Meyer's Effective C++,
Meyer's More Effective C++, and
McConnell's Code Complete.
The idea is to keep the code readable and maintainable with the least amount of re-invention of the wheel. With good coding practices, it's easier to avoid bugs in your own code and spot them in others (reviews are also a big plus on both counts). And it gets any religious battles out of the way up front, so you don't have to waste time bickering later on.
Good point. If its just a usb drive, any machine you plug it into can copy the whole thing. So maybe do what those crappy video game memory cards did, and have a switch that physically switches banks. Then you control when public stuff is available, when private stuff is available. You could also have a switch for read vs read/write.
Either that or come up with some new protocol where the host requests info, and the device can choose to give that info or not. So you plug your USB keychain into a public phone booth, and the phone booth asks for your address book, and it gets it, but it asks for your credit card number and is denied. Something like that.
USB Keychain drives. 128MB, on a key chain. You can encrypt sensitive stuff, put programs on it, put your book marks, e-mail, etc on it, and it follows you wherever you go.
Why store it on someone else's network?
Re:Uhhhh, that's not in the EULA...
on
More MS EULA Fun
·
· Score: 1
oh, my bad, there it is (turns out there's a second one...)
Uhhhh, that's not in the EULA...
on
More MS EULA Fun
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I find it interesting that as of this post, the offending statements are not in the EULA I got from clicking on Windows Update, selecting SP3 only, and clicking "review and install". I couldn't find anything out of the oridinary, in fact. Where was the original EULA found? Do you have to get it off their web page to see this?
Well, either way, I'm gonna install it. I personally feel that there is a lot of paranoia running around, as for Microsoft to initiate an upload of some software updates to a random windows user X, there would be a HUGE GAPING HOLE in the security of the software (if M$ can do it, 1337 h4x0rz can do it...), plus they would have to know your IP (which seems to change on a regular basis for many home users I've met). So that leaves two avenues: auto-updates (for those who leave that enabled), and manual updates. For those who've used the Window Update feature to manually update, You get a fair amount of information on each update, and although they could sneak something by, I think someone out there would figure it out, and I don't think microsoft is blind to the fact that the public outcry would be substantial.
First off, I'd like to address the repeated sentiment that "games aren't what they used to be." I disagree. I think that people aren't paying attention to the power of nostalgia in the judgements of quality we make. The old games weren't necessarily "better" in terms of gameplay than anything we have today. Nostalgia is a tricky thing that candy coats those things we reveled in our youth because we hadn't yet become jaded gamers. We didn't have the exposure to games to judge them the way we do today. When you look at a game today, you think "that's just like Prince of Persia" or "dude, that's Pacman in 3-D." You can say that because you've been playing games forever. And of course the first games you play are going to be really cool because you are young, excitable, and uninformed. I'm not knocking these games, I've got the same nostalgia that everyone else has, I just think too many people make generalizations like "they don't make games like they used to" without understanding all the prejudices involved in that statement. I go to DigiPen Institute of Technology where we make video games as a course requirement, and I hear this all the time. "Games these days suck, why aren't they l33t like mario?" Well, if you'd never played any games in your life, you might think they were l33t. Ask an 8 year old what's hip, because no offense, but it seems we may be getting a bit old and cynical.
Also, a little fun fact, PacMan was originally called PuckMan, but they ditched the title fearing ruffians at arcades would make a few artistic alterations to the title (hint: change the "P").
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why firmware upgrades like how MS/Nintendo/Sony have them are a bad idea.
Actually, especially with the incredible security found on the Xbox 360, it's the only way to secure online gaming from cheaters. Software (and even hardware) can never be 100% bug free, and when problems are found, you need to be able to fix them.
For an example of cheating on an insecure platform, just look at the history of first person shooters on the PC. In the heydays of pre-1.0 counter-strike cheaters, it could get down-right obnoxious, with both actual cheaters polluting servers, as well as witch hunts that end up banning non-cheaters, and the inevitable forum flame war that results. Most users don't want to deal with that crap, they just want to blow off some steam playing a fun game.
And online gaming is definitely a big draw for console gamers these days, and cheaters ruin it for everyone. Sony/Microsoft/etc have to assume that this will translate into less customer satisfaction for the system as a whole. So they have a financial interest in keeping the system secure. Thus they all built in firmware patching systems.
So I would say it is actually the only commercially viable way to make a console these days. And, if as a by product, it allows you to roll out new features for the platform, that's just more value added, and another way to increase user satisfaction.
Rather then just small patches, a lot of them overwrite a lot of the base code.
That's not true. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_System_Software and you'll find that the 360, at least, has a separate file system for system updates, and the firmware that ships with the console is rarely, if ever, touched.
the makers certainly shouldn't prevent you from online play if you don't upgrade
I disagree with this for two reasons:
1. Security - you specifically want to prevent insecure clients from connecting to your servers. It seems to me that, from the end user's perspective, the most consistent way to enforce this is by simply requiring the latest version of the firmware to connect online.
2. Maintenance, performance, and overall stability - if your servers have to support multiple versions of clients, you will have a much more difficult, time consuming, and expensive quality assurance process. Plus, the combinatorial nature of thousands of players, each with potentially different client versions, means there would be a much higher chance of missed bugs, both in client and in the servers themselves. Basically, it is cheaper and easier to force everyone to a single version of the client. And because it's a closed system, it's trivial to enforce it.
And most firmware updates don't *need* to be done in the first place
But really, upgradable firmware in game consoles is just a bad idea to use.
To sum up my arguments: online multiplayer games make system updates necessary. And if you have the functionality to update, using it for feature upgrades doesn't seem like such a bad idea. It keeps the users interested, plus it can help you stay ahead of new competition without forcing the users to go out and buy a new piece of hardware, so it's actually more cost effective for everyone involved.
If your post is really just venting that Sony's QA missed this issue with 2.40, then go ahead and be mad. I just disagree with your argument that allowing system updates in a modern gaming console is a poor design decision.
I spent $850. A similarly equiped Mac Pro is $2800.
Now, I already had the hard drive and optical drive, so to get something comparable to the Mac Pro, there's another $120 for a 320GB 7200RPM SATA drive and a decent DVD burner. Also, that $850 includes $110 for Leopard (which the morally ambiguous may find optional). Plus, I like my computers silent, so that $850 includes a Ninja Copper heatsink and a nice quiet Antec case and quiet, modular power supply.
Also, that's a 2.4GHz Quad, while the Mac has a 2.8Ghz Quad. And my video card is a cheap nVidia 7300 GT 256MB, vs whatever the Mac Pro comes with by default.
Regardless, I guess that's a savings of $2800 - $850 - $120 = $1930, which is pretty sweet.
A couple weeks ago, I tried out a MacMini at an Apple store, and one of the staff there used a Mac for music, and warned me that I would run out of power too quickly with the mini. He actually suggested I find someone with a college ID and order a student priced iMac online instead. After that, and a bit of googling around, I decided it was worth it to try making my own. And the challenge definitely made it more appealing...
I can see this turning/degenerating into a "why doesn't Apple just license MacOS X for PCs?!" discussion awful quick. But just because it's possible doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Apple made the decision that if they can't control the user experience, then they don't want to sell it. That decision is not inherently good or bad, but allowing anyone to run MacOSX on any hardware would mean loss of that control.If you look at Microsoft, they cannot guarantee the user experience. Any hardware producer can produce a buggy product with buggy drivers, or a product with conflicts when combined with some other product, etc, and if a consumer ends up with problems, either because they built a system with conflicting hardware, or, more likely, they bought a cheap computer that someone else built with conflicting hardware, they are likely to blame Windows.
Sure, you can still get that with Apple, but with the huge variety of hardware available for Windows, it is far more likely that someone will find two pieces that don't like each other. Plus Apple doesn't let you buy your own motherboards and power supplies, for example, both of which can cause all kinds of exotic problems.
And Microsoft really wants to try to gain some of the control that Apple has, but when they do stuff like try to enforce signed drivers, it makes the enthusiasts unhappy, because it is seen as a freedom that is being taken away. From Microsoft's point of view, they are trying to ensure a pleasant user experience.
Apple has avoided most all of that by just making all the (important) hardware themselves. I imagine their compatibility testing labs are infinitely smaller than Microsoft's. And unless Apple revisits that decision (which seems unlikely as long as Steve Jobs has anything to say about it), they will not market (or probably even license) Mac OSX as an OS that can be bought and installed on off the shelf hardware.
I'm currently browsing slashdot in Firefox running in OSX 10.5.2 on an Asus P5W DH Deluxe board with an Intel Q6600 Quad 2.4Ghz proc, 4GB RAM, and a DigiRack 002 Pro Tools LE rig. And yes, I have legally purchased my copy of Leopard (I was worried they wouldn't sell stand alone retail copies, since it normally comes with the hardware, but NewEgg had 'em, so now I do).
It definitely takes a lot of tweaks to get right. For example, if my Apple brand USB keyboard is plugged directly into the USB ports on the back of the motherboard, then the machine will not properly wake from sleep. I had to run the keyboard first through a Belkin 7 port hub. That one took me a couple of (frustrating) days (including buying a second video card to rule that out) to figure out.
The Pro Tools/DigiRack had previously only been run through Windows, and although it installed and recognized the hardware OK, I was having problems with playback and crashes until I went back and did even more BIOS tweaking (I think disabling SpeedStep was the key, although I also turned off everything else I could find that said it might automatically throttle the CPU or RAM). Now even that seems to be running smoothly.
Summary: not for the faint of heart, and it could break with any Apple software update, but when it works, it is brilliant.
There is nothing wrong with C++.
There is nothing wrong with C.
I think that epine has it right, that a lot of the rancor over C and C++ is due to abuses of the languages made by unskilled hands. Just as you need the right tool for the job, you also need the right worker for the job. Even with the best tools, you still need an experienced plumber to keep the water in the pipes, and an electrician to keep high voltages out of people, etc.
C is hugely popular, and probably always will be. C++ was created to reap the benefits of C, while allowing people to code in ways that would improve productivity, if so desired, without abandoning all that code that was already written in C.
And it's been my experience that proper C++ (along with competent co-workers) does improve productivity. That doesn't mean it's right in every situation, or that all C code could be "improved" by using the features unique to C++. It also doesn't mean they got it perfect the first time, which is why people are working on new standards.
I second Dell.
About 5 years ago I had a Dell Inspiron laptop, and I spilled Jones soda on the keyboard, which resulted in some permanently stuck keys, but zero damage otherwise. I was able to get the part from Customer Service by just asking for the keyboard for the specific model of Inspiron I had. It cost me maybe $25, and arrived within the week.
However, an important note (and I had been warned about this by a friend ahead of time), don't get sucked into Tech Support Hell. I originally talked with a Tech Support guy, and he said I couldn't replace the keyboard myself (even though I had already removed it and replaced it a couple times while trying to clean it), and that instead I'd have to mail the whole laptop in, and it'd be $100 for parts and $200 for labor to get a new keyboard installed. I thanked him for his time, hung up, and called Customer Service. At that point I didn't even mention the problem, I just asked for the part.
I recommend games. Problems include building custom memory managers, file managers, scripting languages, graphics systems, physics engines, and tool sets, just to name a few. If you get in with a company that is either sill building up their technology base, or in the middle of a big re-hash, your comp sci degree is going to be pushed to the limits. Even regular day to day stuff will require making smart decisions to tough problems.
For example, I didn't know much about dynamic programming until I had to implement text diffing for a tool that was part of an internal compare program for our custom data file format. I got paid to read up on the topic and then immediately apply my new knowledge.
Plus, you are making games, so chances are it's cool to take a break in the middle of the day and play a game, and you won't get into trouble!
Yup, they know that copy protection doesn't STOP piracy; but that's not the point of using copy protection. Copy protection, when properly thought out, should act like a safe: no safe can keep people out forever, but what a safe buys you is time. Check out this article for a good example of copy protection done right: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20011017/dodd_01 .htm
Of course, the article details a PS2 game, and most of the discussion on this forum has been about PC games. The best solution I've seen on the PC so far is Valve's Steam. No discs at all, instead the games are packaged inside a system that is built from the ground up for digital distribution. Other people have touched on the topic of simply having a CD-key and an online verification, and although that screws over people who can't easily get online, overall I think it's a much more satisfying experience than having a game be rejected because of something stupid like third party software you happen to have installed.
Personally, I wish that PC games could come on DVD's, like console games, and just work right out of the box, without an installer. Maybe the DVD drives would need a special certification to be game-compatible (to ensure minimum read & seek times, etc). Then use some sort of software, approved by the publisher, to allow copies to be made to the hard drive, maybe with a quick online verification of some sort to keep it all legit. Basically, I'm saying the publishers should innovate, and allow people to do what it is they have to break the DMCA to do now. And while I'm arbitrarily demanding objects of fantasy, I'd like a unicorn.
DRM means a lot of things, but if you want to explain what it means to music enthusiast Joe Ipod, try using a real-world example:
-----
DRM is a way of limiting what a person is allowed to do with a given computer file. The limits are imposed by the people who create the file.
For example, when you buy music from iTunes, you send them money, and they send you a file. That file contains music. However, the music is wrapped inside of technology called DRM, that limits the access to that music. In order to listen to the music in that file, you have to appease the DRM by getting approval from iTunes. Of course, you just bought it from iTunes, so of course they give you permission to listen to it. However, if you sent that file off to your good friend Alice, and she tried to play it, the DRM is still there, and it asks iTunes if Alice can listen to the music, and iTunes would say, no, Alice does not have the right to listen to it, because she hasn't paid for that right.
The full extent of what this means is contrary to how people are used to dealing with purchased music. With CD's, for example, there is a single original copy, and you can sell that copy to someone else if you no longer want it. A music file limited by DRM, on the other hand, cannot be sold or given away. You are stuck with it. At least as long as iTunes remains up and running. If iTunes ceased to exist, then when you go to play the file, and the DRM asks iTunes if you can listen to the music, without the proper response, the DRM will not let you at the music, and thus you can no longer listen to it.
If you then extend this to files containing other types of information, like books and movies, the same set of rules apply: if you cannot prove that you are allowed to access a file you have, then you cannot access it. Guilty until proven innocent.
-----
In general, if you are speaking to the non-geek, I find it's good to use common place terminology, even if it is technically not accurate (like calling all digital audio "mp3" for example). Also, try to give an unbiased overview before launching into the reasons why it is the devil incarnate. Trying to remain neutral helps me to keep my thoughts organized, and also keeps the n00b from being turned off by a hateful geek rant.
In our system, it would be "pn" for a pointer to a generic integer. You could change the type to long*, int*, unsigned char*, whatever, and it would still be a pointer to a generic integer. We don't use hungarian to put an explicit type to a variable. We use it to describe the type of data that that variable is expected to hold. This works for use because we also discourage variable reuse within a block of code.
So something like this:
float g;
g = radSomeAngle;
g = sSomeLength;
should instead look like this:
float rad = radSomeAngle;
float s = sSomeLength;
C++ class names usually end up being the basis for a new Hungarian prefix, so in those cases, we are explicitly typing out variables. And if it comes to it, there are editors that can keep the task of renaming from totally agony. I believe Source Insight has a context sensitive (c++ class/namespace/scope/etc) project wide renaming capability, which would make it a one step process.
This works well for what we do. If you are working in a situation where it doesn't make sense, then don't use it. I don't mean to push Hungarian, because I can understand it's not for everyone. That's just part of what works for us, and thus it's part of our enforced coding standard.
Amen to that.
In addition to the original comments being redundant, there's also the issue of the code and the comments getting out of sync...
The company I work for just wrote up a formal coding standard, which includes everything from a guide to our internal hungarian notation, indentation guidelines, and even which C++ features/paradigms are supported, frowned upon, or not allowed. All the coders got a chance to send in feedback before it was finalized, and we even ended up with a list of recommended reading on the subject, including:
The idea is to keep the code readable and maintainable with the least amount of re-invention of the wheel. With good coding practices, it's easier to avoid bugs in your own code and spot them in others (reviews are also a big plus on both counts). And it gets any religious battles out of the way up front, so you don't have to waste time bickering later on.
Good point. If its just a usb drive, any machine you plug it into can copy the whole thing. So maybe do what those crappy video game memory cards did, and have a switch that physically switches banks. Then you control when public stuff is available, when private stuff is available. You could also have a switch for read vs read/write.
Either that or come up with some new protocol where the host requests info, and the device can choose to give that info or not. So you plug your USB keychain into a public phone booth, and the phone booth asks for your address book, and it gets it, but it asks for your credit card number and is denied. Something like that.
USB Keychain drives. 128MB, on a key chain. You can encrypt sensitive stuff, put programs on it, put your book marks, e-mail, etc on it, and it follows you wherever you go.
Why store it on someone else's network?
oh, my bad, there it is (turns out there's a second one...)
I find it interesting that as of this post, the offending statements are not in the EULA I got from clicking on Windows Update, selecting SP3 only, and clicking "review and install". I couldn't find anything out of the oridinary, in fact. Where was the original EULA found? Do you have to get it off their web page to see this?
Well, either way, I'm gonna install it. I personally feel that there is a lot of paranoia running around, as for Microsoft to initiate an upload of some software updates to a random windows user X, there would be a HUGE GAPING HOLE in the security of the software (if M$ can do it, 1337 h4x0rz can do it...), plus they would have to know your IP (which seems to change on a regular basis for many home users I've met). So that leaves two avenues: auto-updates (for those who leave that enabled), and manual updates. For those who've used the Window Update feature to manually update, You get a fair amount of information on each update, and although they could sneak something by, I think someone out there would figure it out, and I don't think microsoft is blind to the fact that the public outcry would be substantial.
At least that's my opinion.
www.digipen.edu
First off, I'd like to address the repeated sentiment that "games aren't what they used to be." I disagree. I think that people aren't paying attention to the power of nostalgia in the judgements of quality we make. The old games weren't necessarily "better" in terms of gameplay than anything we have today. Nostalgia is a tricky thing that candy coats those things we reveled in our youth because we hadn't yet become jaded gamers. We didn't have the exposure to games to judge them the way we do today. When you look at a game today, you think "that's just like Prince of Persia" or "dude, that's Pacman in 3-D." You can say that because you've been playing games forever. And of course the first games you play are going to be really cool because you are young, excitable, and uninformed. I'm not knocking these games, I've got the same nostalgia that everyone else has, I just think too many people make generalizations like "they don't make games like they used to" without understanding all the prejudices involved in that statement. I go to DigiPen Institute of Technology where we make video games as a course requirement, and I hear this all the time. "Games these days suck, why aren't they l33t like mario?" Well, if you'd never played any games in your life, you might think they were l33t. Ask an 8 year old what's hip, because no offense, but it seems we may be getting a bit old and cynical. Also, a little fun fact, PacMan was originally called PuckMan, but they ditched the title fearing ruffians at arcades would make a few artistic alterations to the title (hint: change the "P").