I'd think that they can be held liable - not for $65 mill, perhaps, but let's face it: if not for their crummy system, and for really dropping the ball as far as security and verification are concerned, this never would have happened.
I've worked in banks for years, and I know if someone comes in claiming to be Ms. Smith, then steals all of the real Ms. Smith's money/safety deposit box items/etc, the bank is held accountable for fucking up. I don't see a big difference here.
Verisign should pay a fair and equitable amount for their mistake, improve the system (if they haven't already) so it never happens again, and go on.
I think I like more of the "puzzle" style battles.
Take Kohans as an example. There was one battle where you were given posession of a *ton* of Mana generating points.
Problem was, they drew a lot of cash to keep, and there were invading hordes of enemies coming in.
My solution? Destroy the mana towers - that would make them auto-attack anything in range, weakening my attackers. Granted, I'm not sure if the developers thought of that, but I like strategy games where you can use the terrain itself (ie: high ground, swamps, etc) to cause your enemy troubles, rather than just overwhelming them with tons of numbers.
In some ways, Warcraft III has that, in levels where it's "go do this - but watch out for these guys". Still a bit to much "build and smash", but the break is always good.
The core idea behind Kohans: Immortal Sovereigns deals with a group of immortal beings who can be resurrected at any time as long as you have their medallion.
The game is in the RTS genre, with some nice features. Micromanagement is largely out, since once you "claim" a resource, it's yours, unless one of your enemies goes to claim it.
Instead of having huge armies, it's organized into squads with 1 leader, 4 "primary" units, and 2 secondary units.
The squad system is unique, and adds some interesting strategy. Each Kohan (the immortal guys) have their own specialty, like "bonus to horse riding units", or "extra healing powers". And, as your Kohans, go into battle, they gain levels to get stronger (and can be carried from mission to mision.) You might want to do things like put the healing expert Kohan in charge of a defensive force, and have them protect the city, while a Kohan who gives bonuses to speed might be sent out to scout out enemy territory and claim mines and such.
One thing to remember - if your Kohan dies, they go back to Level 1 after you pay to "resurrect" them, so you start to get attached and have to weigh sacrificing a Kohan this time to win a battle, playing it safer to win the war, or hitting the "reload" button.
There was a lot to like about the game, and while most levels are usually just "go claim other cities and kick ass", and having a mass of squads in battle can really slow things down, overall Kohan is probably worth your time to check it out.
Now, if they would just make an OS X version, I'd be set....
So all in all, it seems almost as if the DVD player manufacturers did not want the movie industry's plan to succeed...
Close - but more like the DVD manufacturers want to make money with "exclusive" features.
If it comes down to a choice between a) a DVD player for $99, or b) a DVD player that costs $99, but you've read about the "cheat codes", the manufacturer is hoping you'll vote for B.
Manufacturers, to a large extent, care more about their customers than the movie industry. (I know that's not universal, and there's give and take. Last time I checked, though, I give more money directly to Apex than a movie studio does.)
Should we sue the Post Office for anthrax sent through the mail? Sue the Dept of Highway Safety because a gangster robbed the bank then made his getaway on the highway? Sue the telephone service because a stalker keeps calling your house?
No company - no company - should be able to sue a communications company just because they don't like what somebody says. If the government of China doesn't want to shut it down, then the RIAA should be applying the powers that be there - not on the communications medium.
Personally, I hope that AT&T et all take them on and give them what for.
Ever see a kid in elementary school who steals the lunch money of other kids? Then see that same kid after one of his victims breaks his nose? He's not so keen on stealing money anymore; the cost has become too high.
The same thing exists here with all of these silly software/genetic patents that the Patent Office, accepted by people with the brainpower of rancid jello. For now, they can do it, and it's a proven technique - patent something that already exists, then collect from businesses who know it will cost more to fight than to simply pay.
Sooner or later, one of two things will happen. A) Someone will patent something that others really, really care about, and you'll see an Enron/Worldcom level knee-jerk response (Damn! We must make a law to stop this), or B) they'll finally tackle somebody with enough deep pockets and pissed off attitude to crush a company like this, and set a major legal precident.
Either way, I figure I'll keep coding my stuff, and to hell with people who steal the future.
Yes, but if they're using Intenet Explorer to render the web pages, the only way to get rid of all the pop ups will be to remove your skull from your shoulders, wait a moment, then put it back on.
Microsoft's view of the EULA is that the operating system you purchase from the manufacturer only applies to that computer.
In other words, if I buy a computer from Dell that comes with Windows XP, and I format the hard drive and install Linux, then take the Windows XP CD (which Dell wouldn't send me anyway) and install it on another computer, I've violting the EULA.
Which, in my mind, is total bitchcake. And part of the reason I use a Mac.
I know there's Yellow Dog Linux that runs on Macs, and my understanding is that they even allow dual booting (No! Imagine that!).
Has anyone tried running YD Linux on a Powermac? Any thoughts on the results? I don't have a reason to do it (OS X works just fine for me, including XDarwin), but there's always that idea of retiring the old Powermac someday and turning it into a server. (Why? Um...because I can?)
My own feelings on the little debate is rather simple. Unix machines (Linux, SGI, OS X) are becoming the standard for Hollywood level style movies - they're powerful, you can cluster them with relative ease, and they don't crash that often.
DirectX9 is really about games - render less polygons on the fly, and it only works with one operating system (any guesses on which one?).
As games and movies start to approach each other in graphical abilities, I wonder if OpenGL will become more important as the Unix graphics programmers start getting pulled from their Toy Story 3 seats to help with the guys making Toy Story 3: The Game.
Right now, the #1 reason why OpenGL is still in a good number of Windows machines is John Carmack. Will things change? Maybe, maybe not. But I still wonder about the future.
Actually, if you read the article, that's not true.
You'll notice that the idea behind Open Source is, as Bruce states, to "create its own standard". If I want to figure out how to make SMB connections, I've got to reverse engineer the packets, and come up with a way of talking to it.
If I'm making something to interface with a GPL license, I can look at the source code to build my interfaces. I'm not forced to use that source code - if I do, there are consequences for using someone else's intellectual property (which is what the GPL is protecting, really - my right to do with my intellectual property as I desire - in this case, keep it free).
My problem behind MS and other companies "preferring" the BSD license (and those like it) is what Bruce brings up in the article:
I give money to the government. Government gives money to researchers. Researchers develop code. Proprietary company takes code, makes new product, makes money off of my tax dollars, and sometimes even tries to patent their own way of doing it that breaks the standard (Kerebros, anyone?). I pay company for their product - thus paying twice.
With GPL, you can have this:
I give moneyh to the government. Government gives money to researchers. Proprietary company sees code, uses this as a standard, builds interfaces, maybe even better code. I choose - GPL software, or proprietary? Either way, I know that *my* tax dollars aren't going to make someone else money unless *I choose to give it to them*.
I think it's a little of both. I think we have a case where the studios realize they can make a lot of money from releasing not one, but three versions of the video staggered across several months. And the DVD has been hyped more than that XXX movie. (I don't get the big deal - I've been watching XXX for years now, and Vin Diesel didn't show up once.)
On the other hand, if you look what they're doing, it makes sense that it's taking awhile for the last "extra bits" to be finished - as the article states, all new music is being composed, the formerly shot scenes have to be put into the movie in a way that they add to it, not just go "Oh, and here's another 5 minutes here", and so on.
Personally - I have the $40 version reserved (though after reading more about the $70 version, I am leaning - no, I will be strong, I don't need the extra National Geographic special (I don't give a crap about the bookends - I want the extra video)), and I'm debating doing other things (like trading in 3 old DVD's for the free movie at my local Software Etc, taking a Kia test, drive, etc) to get the current one free.
Are the people who use Windows in their business happy? Happy to have increased licensing costs for a "yearly" subscription? Happy to have an operating system with security holes the size of my Aunt Lilly's ass? Happy that Microsoft is about to release the details of API's - but you can only use some of them if you "license" their use?
We're so happy at my Day Job that we're pretty much converting everything over to Novell or Linux, we're installing OpenOffice (except where we *must* have MS Office), and I'm still trying ton convince people that really, OS X is a great desktop system for the business. Oh yeah, happy are we with Windows.
Here's a thought. The idea behind these chips is that they combine several smaller chips (Cells) into one large one, then use multilple processor cores to control the information. Want to make it small? Just one processor core and a few Cells. Need more power? Add more cells and more processor cores.
If this system works out, there could be a lot of power here. Now, here's the kicker: if they're really working to make this run with Linux and the like, what's to stop some other applications? X86 emulation, for example, done on the hardware level? Or, even better, PCC emulation - now Apple has access to powerful chips that were made from the ground up for graphics processing, something they're moving OS X into big time. It been thought that Apple might move from the PPC to something else (unless Motorola has some plans nobody knows about to make a faster chip) - this could be their ticket to both high power and economy of scale.
Could this technology be used to challenge Intel/AMD? Probably not, and we'll have to wait until they announce more details. But since I'm working on some database programming, my mind is wandering a bit.
Ah, yes. Of course - because GPL allows you to see/use the source code, if your product is stolen and reimplemented, then you deserve that.
While we're at it, if you have sex, you're going to get SIDS, so never swap fluids with someone of the opposite sex. Oh, and if you love people, they'll hurt you, so never show affection. Don't bother buying a house - they get burned down.
The truth is, this is theft, and I don't see Neoaudio releasing the source code for their product which uses CDex, so hopefully this is a company that can be sued for GPL violation. (And lord, if they did use the source code and they're not publishing their "enhancements", I do hope they get sued if for no other reason then to give GPL legal acknowledgement.)
For the folks telling me "99% of all gamers are men, so we don't want girls in our club", according to the IDSA, 40% of all console game sales were to women.
Guys, take down the "Girls not allowed" signs off the treehouse and lower the rope ladder, for pete's sake.
Focus on gaming? My wish list
on
Ziff Davis Teeters
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
For the most part, I've become rather jaded - not with the computer/video gaming industry, but about the reporting. It's all pretty much the same - vapid, chauvenistic, and annoying.
So if ZDNet is focusing on their gaming coverage, here's my own little wish list:
For the love of god, hire some more women. How many women are on the gamespot.com staff? I'm looking at today's Gamespotting, and it's all XY chromosomed folks. No wonder games like DOA Vollyball are coming out - there isn't someone to stop that jiggle fest from going out of control. (Not that I don't like good looking girls running round, but if they made it fair and featured guys in speedos, I wouldn't feel like it's being marketed only to 14 year old masturbating teenagers who don't have a like).
Stop it with the positive previews. I have yet to see a preview of a game that says "You know, we're working with an early build of a game - and it sucks. I mean, you thought Daikatana was bad - this game takes the cake." I don't even read reviews anymore - I just check out the synopsys of a game, download the demo, and that's it, because I know I can't rely on what game journalists say about the game before its released. I know it's hard, especially when a game in beta might be better in final version. But if you only have something nice to say (when it isn't deserved), don't say anything at all.
Ziff Davis also owns gamers.com, Official US Playstation Magazine, etc, etc, etc. I almost hope they go under, mainly because a good chunk of the paper gaming magazines are owned by one company, and you can tell. They're all pretty much the same (much like there's no reason to go to zdnet.com if you've already scanned the headlines for cnet.net). Anyone remember the Gamefan magazine? Great rag, and I was hoping GameGo would take off, but with a near monopoly on gaming magazines, Ziff-Davis has made sure everything is covered in a macho bullshit shell.
No booth babe pictures. Ever. Again. Look, maybe it's because I get laid on a regular basis, but I don't feel the need for computer gaming news to feature silicon injected flesh peddlers. I want to know about the game. Is it fun. Is it entertaining. I was annoyed after visiting E3 to see the high level of insults to women depicted there, and even more so after checking out a gaming magazine to see they focused the first section to pictures of the girls. Stop it. Please.
That's my little wish list, and I'm sure I'm forgetting other things.
Most of these governments looking at OSS software are non-United States governments?
I'm wondering how much of this is "OSS is good eatin'!", and how much is "Holy shit, do we really want software from another government running all our shit? I mean, if war breaks out between France and the US, and they don't allow Windows exports, that would be catastrophic!"
And while there's some tongue in cheek in this, I really think that 90% of the reason why FUD like this is out there is because of what people see on TV/Movies.
Law and order depicts "worm" that "takes control of your computer just be recieving an email!". Hackers: teenagers in bad oufits can crack into any system in the world (including being able to hack into a system by using phone lines taped together). Speed 2: leech loving man takes over a boat from his room with "fiber optic converter" (actually a data com port switch, I believe). The Net (another Sandra Bullock film) has a woman who's whole identity can be erased (especially when the FBI, Pentagon, and everybody else use the same anti-hacking software, which incredibly is used by evil hacker types).
In movies, anything (microwave, blender, vacuum, whatever) can be controlled by evil computer programs. Don't ever put your computer in charge of your house, or else it will develop artificial intelligence, and try to kill you by making electric cords whip around your neck (I never figured out how that worked).
Joe Public has no idea of how technology works - to him, it's indistinguishable from magic, so why couldn't it work? So when a man stands up and tells people a virus can circle the world 0 seconds, those who pray to the gods of technology in the hopes that their television doesn't turn off must believe.
We don't believe in monsters or demons, so we invent them in the form of hackers and superintelligent teenagers with a vengeance. We don't believe in gods, so we invent them in a government that knows all, sees all (when it's own FBI is 10 years behind the technology curve).
Due for release in 2005, the PlayStation 3 will thus be able to use its broadband Internet connection to reach across the Internet and draw additional computing power from idle processors. And if still more horsepower is needed, the PlayStation 3 can use a home network to enlist support from other available machines to tackle big computing jobs. Pieces of a computing task--for example, creating realistic 3D graphics that simulate entire worlds--will be distributed among available processors to harness their combined power.
Now, there's a thought that's running through my mind. What is it....
Oh yeah. No fucking way.
Look, I think the chips themselves will probably be great, and with 500 million transistors, they'll probably kick ass, do massive anti-aliasing (to get rid of them PS2 "jaggies"), and render Final Fantasy XIV chicks so realistic that 14 year old masterbation fantasies won't be realized by the CGI scenes, but by the game engine itself.
But. I don't believe that broadband will be far enough into the market - even by 2005 - for distributed computing to take off. Let's ignore my own home firewall and the like, where there's no way in H-E-double-hockey-sticks I'd let another computer "borrow" some of my processor power so they can play Grand Theft Auto 5: The Leiberman Censored Editition.
Powerful chip? Sure. Distributed computing for games? I'm not buying it yet.
Then again, if the product shows up and works with the distributed net and all, I could be proven wrong, and I have no problem admitting that. For now, I'm waiting for it, hoping it's PS2/PSOne backwards compatible, and keeping my fantasies just to Selphie Tilmitt. (Nunchucks...rowr!)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, but come on! Remember all those Pentium III commercials, "Speed up your Internet connection with the Pentium IV processor".
I mean, when I put in a Pentium III, my line went from a 56.6 line to a DSL connection. Surely it must be true!
I'd think that they can be held liable - not for $65 mill, perhaps, but let's face it: if not for their crummy system, and for really dropping the ball as far as security and verification are concerned, this never would have happened.
I've worked in banks for years, and I know if someone comes in claiming to be Ms. Smith, then steals all of the real Ms. Smith's money/safety deposit box items/etc, the bank is held accountable for fucking up. I don't see a big difference here.
Verisign should pay a fair and equitable amount for their mistake, improve the system (if they haven't already) so it never happens again, and go on.
I think I like more of the "puzzle" style battles.
Take Kohans as an example. There was one battle where you were given posession of a *ton* of Mana generating points.
Problem was, they drew a lot of cash to keep, and there were invading hordes of enemies coming in.
My solution? Destroy the mana towers - that would make them auto-attack anything in range, weakening my attackers. Granted, I'm not sure if the developers thought of that, but I like strategy games where you can use the terrain itself (ie: high ground, swamps, etc) to cause your enemy troubles, rather than just overwhelming them with tons of numbers.
In some ways, Warcraft III has that, in levels where it's "go do this - but watch out for these guys". Still a bit to much "build and smash", but the break is always good.
A Kohan review in less than 60 seconds:
The core idea behind Kohans: Immortal Sovereigns deals with a group of immortal beings who can be resurrected at any time as long as you have their medallion.
The game is in the RTS genre, with some nice features. Micromanagement is largely out, since once you "claim" a resource, it's yours, unless one of your enemies goes to claim it.
Instead of having huge armies, it's organized into squads with 1 leader, 4 "primary" units, and 2 secondary units.
The squad system is unique, and adds some interesting strategy. Each Kohan (the immortal guys) have their own specialty, like "bonus to horse riding units", or "extra healing powers". And, as your Kohans, go into battle, they gain levels to get stronger (and can be carried from mission to mision.) You might want to do things like put the healing expert Kohan in charge of a defensive force, and have them protect the city, while a Kohan who gives bonuses to speed might be sent out to scout out enemy territory and claim mines and such.
One thing to remember - if your Kohan dies, they go back to Level 1 after you pay to "resurrect" them, so you start to get attached and have to weigh sacrificing a Kohan this time to win a battle, playing it safer to win the war, or hitting the "reload" button.
There was a lot to like about the game, and while most levels are usually just "go claim other cities and kick ass", and having a mass of squads in battle can really slow things down, overall Kohan is probably worth your time to check it out.
Now, if they would just make an OS X version, I'd be set....
Close - but more like the DVD manufacturers want to make money with "exclusive" features.
If it comes down to a choice between a) a DVD player for $99, or b) a DVD player that costs $99, but you've read about the "cheat codes", the manufacturer is hoping you'll vote for B.
Manufacturers, to a large extent, care more about their customers than the movie industry. (I know that's not universal, and there's give and take. Last time I checked, though, I give more money directly to Apex than a movie studio does.)
The problem here isn't about fair use.
Should we sue the Post Office for anthrax sent through the mail? Sue the Dept of Highway Safety because a gangster robbed the bank then made his getaway on the highway? Sue the telephone service because a stalker keeps calling your house?
No company - no company - should be able to sue a communications company just because they don't like what somebody says. If the government of China doesn't want to shut it down, then the RIAA should be applying the powers that be there - not on the communications medium.
Personally, I hope that AT&T et all take them on and give them what for.
Ever see a kid in elementary school who steals the lunch money of other kids? Then see that same kid after one of his victims breaks his nose? He's not so keen on stealing money anymore; the cost has become too high.
The same thing exists here with all of these silly software/genetic patents that the Patent Office, accepted by people with the brainpower of rancid jello. For now, they can do it, and it's a proven technique - patent something that already exists, then collect from businesses who know it will cost more to fight than to simply pay.
Sooner or later, one of two things will happen. A) Someone will patent something that others really, really care about, and you'll see an Enron/Worldcom level knee-jerk response (Damn! We must make a law to stop this), or B) they'll finally tackle somebody with enough deep pockets and pissed off attitude to crush a company like this, and set a major legal precident.
Either way, I figure I'll keep coding my stuff, and to hell with people who steal the future.
Yes, but if they're using Intenet Explorer to render the web pages, the only way to get rid of all the pop ups will be to remove your skull from your shoulders, wait a moment, then put it back on.
It's not.
Microsoft's view of the EULA is that the operating system you purchase from the manufacturer only applies to that computer.
In other words, if I buy a computer from Dell that comes with Windows XP, and I format the hard drive and install Linux, then take the Windows XP CD (which Dell wouldn't send me anyway) and install it on another computer, I've violting the EULA.
Which, in my mind, is total bitchcake. And part of the reason I use a Mac.
I know there's Yellow Dog Linux that runs on Macs, and my understanding is that they even allow dual booting (No! Imagine that!).
Has anyone tried running YD Linux on a Powermac? Any thoughts on the results? I don't have a reason to do it (OS X works just fine for me, including XDarwin), but there's always that idea of retiring the old Powermac someday and turning it into a server. (Why? Um...because I can?)
To be totally honest - Huh? I don't get what you mean by your question.
My own feelings on the little debate is rather simple. Unix machines (Linux, SGI, OS X) are becoming the standard for Hollywood level style movies - they're powerful, you can cluster them with relative ease, and they don't crash that often.
DirectX9 is really about games - render less polygons on the fly, and it only works with one operating system (any guesses on which one?).
As games and movies start to approach each other in graphical abilities, I wonder if OpenGL will become more important as the Unix graphics programmers start getting pulled from their Toy Story 3 seats to help with the guys making Toy Story 3: The Game.
Right now, the #1 reason why OpenGL is still in a good number of Windows machines is John Carmack. Will things change? Maybe, maybe not. But I still wonder about the future.
Actually, if you read the article, that's not true.
You'll notice that the idea behind Open Source is, as Bruce states, to "create its own standard". If I want to figure out how to make SMB connections, I've got to reverse engineer the packets, and come up with a way of talking to it.
If I'm making something to interface with a GPL license, I can look at the source code to build my interfaces. I'm not forced to use that source code - if I do, there are consequences for using someone else's intellectual property (which is what the GPL is protecting, really - my right to do with my intellectual property as I desire - in this case, keep it free).
My problem behind MS and other companies "preferring" the BSD license (and those like it) is what Bruce brings up in the article:
I give money to the government.
Government gives money to researchers.
Researchers develop code.
Proprietary company takes code, makes new product, makes money off of my tax dollars, and sometimes even tries to patent their own way of doing it that breaks the standard (Kerebros, anyone?).
I pay company for their product - thus paying twice.
With GPL, you can have this:
I give moneyh to the government.
Government gives money to researchers.
Proprietary company sees code, uses this as a standard, builds interfaces, maybe even better code.
I choose - GPL software, or proprietary? Either way, I know that *my* tax dollars aren't going to make someone else money unless *I choose to give it to them*.
But that's my opinion. I could be wrong.
I think it's a little of both. I think we have a case where the studios realize they can make a lot of money from releasing not one, but three versions of the video staggered across several months. And the DVD has been hyped more than that XXX movie. (I don't get the big deal - I've been watching XXX for years now, and Vin Diesel didn't show up once.)
On the other hand, if you look what they're doing, it makes sense that it's taking awhile for the last "extra bits" to be finished - as the article states, all new music is being composed, the formerly shot scenes have to be put into the movie in a way that they add to it, not just go "Oh, and here's another 5 minutes here", and so on.
Personally - I have the $40 version reserved (though after reading more about the $70 version, I am leaning - no, I will be strong, I don't need the extra National Geographic special (I don't give a crap about the bookends - I want the extra video)), and I'm debating doing other things (like trading in 3 old DVD's for the free movie at my local Software Etc, taking a Kia test, drive, etc) to get the current one free.
Actually, I believe this to be a valid question.
Are the people who use Windows in their business happy? Happy to have increased licensing costs for a "yearly" subscription? Happy to have an operating system with security holes the size of my Aunt Lilly's ass? Happy that Microsoft is about to release the details of API's - but you can only use some of them if you "license" their use?
We're so happy at my Day Job that we're pretty much converting everything over to Novell or Linux, we're installing OpenOffice (except where we *must* have MS Office), and I'm still trying ton convince people that really, OS X is a great desktop system for the business. Oh yeah, happy are we with Windows.
Here's a thought. The idea behind these chips is that they combine several smaller chips (Cells) into one large one, then use multilple processor cores to control the information. Want to make it small? Just one processor core and a few Cells. Need more power? Add more cells and more processor cores.
If this system works out, there could be a lot of power here. Now, here's the kicker: if they're really working to make this run with Linux and the like, what's to stop some other applications? X86 emulation, for example, done on the hardware level? Or, even better, PCC emulation - now Apple has access to powerful chips that were made from the ground up for graphics processing, something they're moving OS X into big time. It been thought that Apple might move from the PPC to something else (unless Motorola has some plans nobody knows about to make a faster chip) - this could be their ticket to both high power and economy of scale.
Could this technology be used to challenge Intel/AMD? Probably not, and we'll have to wait until they announce more details. But since I'm working on some database programming, my mind is wandering a bit.
Ah, yes. Of course - because GPL allows you to see/use the source code, if your product is stolen and reimplemented, then you deserve that.
While we're at it, if you have sex, you're going to get SIDS, so never swap fluids with someone of the opposite sex. Oh, and if you love people, they'll hurt you, so never show affection. Don't bother buying a house - they get burned down.
The truth is, this is theft, and I don't see Neoaudio releasing the source code for their product which uses CDex, so hopefully this is a company that can be sued for GPL violation. (And lord, if they did use the source code and they're not publishing their "enhancements", I do hope they get sued if for no other reason then to give GPL legal acknowledgement.)
I have to agree with this one - this is a business decision.
Give me a reason to upgrade my TV, a purpose of spending another $300-$500 dollars so I can get what I get now.
For the folks telling me "99% of all gamers are men, so we don't want girls in our club", according to the IDSA, 40% of all console game sales were to women.
Guys, take down the "Girls not allowed" signs off the treehouse and lower the rope ladder, for pete's sake.
So if ZDNet is focusing on their gaming coverage, here's my own little wish list:
- For the love of god, hire some more women. How many women are on the gamespot.com staff? I'm looking at today's Gamespotting, and it's all XY chromosomed folks. No wonder games like DOA Vollyball are coming out - there isn't someone to stop that jiggle fest from going out of control. (Not that I don't like good looking girls running round, but if they made it fair and featured guys in speedos, I wouldn't feel like it's being marketed only to 14 year old masturbating teenagers who don't have a like).
- Stop it with the positive previews. I have yet to see a preview of a game that says "You know, we're working with an early build of a game - and it sucks. I mean, you thought Daikatana was bad - this game takes the cake." I don't even read reviews anymore - I just check out the synopsys of a game, download the demo, and that's it, because I know I can't rely on what game journalists say about the game before its released. I know it's hard, especially when a game in beta might be better in final version. But if you only have something nice to say (when it isn't deserved), don't say anything at all.
- Ziff Davis also owns gamers.com, Official US Playstation Magazine, etc, etc, etc. I almost hope they go under, mainly because a good chunk of the paper gaming magazines are owned by one company, and you can tell. They're all pretty much the same (much like there's no reason to go to zdnet.com if you've already scanned the headlines for cnet.net). Anyone remember the Gamefan magazine? Great rag, and I was hoping GameGo would take off, but with a near monopoly on gaming magazines, Ziff-Davis has made sure everything is covered in a macho bullshit shell.
- No booth babe pictures. Ever. Again. Look, maybe it's because I get laid on a regular basis, but I don't feel the need for computer gaming news to feature silicon injected flesh peddlers. I want to know about the game. Is it fun. Is it entertaining. I was annoyed after visiting E3 to see the high level of insults to women depicted there, and even more so after checking out a gaming magazine to see they focused the first section to pictures of the girls. Stop it. Please.
That's my little wish list, and I'm sure I'm forgetting other things.all right, just to help the clueless.
Look at the parent post about "I use debian, but I like mandrake, blah, blah, blah".
Then, look at the follow up - "I use OS X, but I like mandrake, blah, blah, blah".
It's called "joke" or "sarcasm".
Most of these governments looking at OSS software are non-United States governments?
I'm wondering how much of this is "OSS is good eatin'!", and how much is "Holy shit, do we really want software from another government running all our shit? I mean, if war breaks out between France and the US, and they don't allow Windows exports, that would be catastrophic!"
And while there's some tongue in cheek in this, I really think that 90% of the reason why FUD like this is out there is because of what people see on TV/Movies.
Law and order depicts "worm" that "takes control of your computer just be recieving an email!". Hackers: teenagers in bad oufits can crack into any system in the world (including being able to hack into a system by using phone lines taped together). Speed 2: leech loving man takes over a boat from his room with "fiber optic converter" (actually a data com port switch, I believe). The Net (another Sandra Bullock film) has a woman who's whole identity can be erased (especially when the FBI, Pentagon, and everybody else use the same anti-hacking software, which incredibly is used by evil hacker types).
In movies, anything (microwave, blender, vacuum, whatever) can be controlled by evil computer programs. Don't ever put your computer in charge of your house, or else it will develop artificial intelligence, and try to kill you by making electric cords whip around your neck (I never figured out how that worked).
Joe Public has no idea of how technology works - to him, it's indistinguishable from magic, so why couldn't it work? So when a man stands up and tells people a virus can circle the world 0 seconds, those who pray to the gods of technology in the hopes that their television doesn't turn off must believe.
We don't believe in monsters or demons, so we invent them in the form of hackers and superintelligent teenagers with a vengeance. We don't believe in gods, so we invent them in a government that knows all, sees all (when it's own FBI is 10 years behind the technology curve).
Good god, but I hate human ignorance.
Oh yeah. No fucking way.
Look, I think the chips themselves will probably be great, and with 500 million transistors, they'll probably kick ass, do massive anti-aliasing (to get rid of them PS2 "jaggies"), and render Final Fantasy XIV chicks so realistic that 14 year old masterbation fantasies won't be realized by the CGI scenes, but by the game engine itself.
But. I don't believe that broadband will be far enough into the market - even by 2005 - for distributed computing to take off. Let's ignore my own home firewall and the like, where there's no way in H-E-double-hockey-sticks I'd let another computer "borrow" some of my processor power so they can play Grand Theft Auto 5: The Leiberman Censored Editition.
Powerful chip? Sure. Distributed computing for games? I'm not buying it yet.
Then again, if the product shows up and works with the distributed net and all, I could be proven wrong, and I have no problem admitting that. For now, I'm waiting for it, hoping it's PS2/PSOne backwards compatible, and keeping my fantasies just to Selphie Tilmitt. (Nunchucks...rowr!)
I finally eliminate all french fries from my diet, but if I get a cool mod for my car, I'll still smell like I work at McDonalds.</sarcasm>