Only Russia has the time machine technology that could be used to travel to three years ago to retrieve this technology-- and they aren't interested in sharing.
I think the idea is that Nintendo will be releasing new games which explicitly choose to use online play. I do not think they will be making any move to make their existing WLAN games work via the internet.
Tunneling is nice but it is highly unlikely to be the sort of thing a major vendor like Nintendo is likely to embrace. For one thing, designing your game to be comfortable with the hazards of internet play, like latency and dropped packets and such, isn't an effortless process. Tunnelled WLAN games are simply not going to play with the same level of quality that you'd get out of a normal WLAN game, or a game designed for online; for example playing Mario Kart DD on Warp Pipe can result in the game slowing down noticeably. Nintendo has quality expectations they have to meet for their first party products and they're unlikely to find that sort of thing terribly acceptable...
The Nintendo DS will also have free online gaming by the end of the year, one assumes by the same mechanism or service as the Revolution; and they have announced that Animal Crossing DS will be created from the ground up for online gaming, which if you've played the original Animal Crossing, you'll know is going to be just crazy.
Also the Revolution will be backward compatible with the Gamecube, and Reggie Fuls-Aime of Nintendo said something in an interview yesterday on penny-arcade.com which strongly implies they will be announcing a U.S. release of the Play-Yan mp3/mpeg4 player for the GBASP and DS at E3.
How many WISPs will a single area be able to support, or more specifically, what will be the maximum number of WISP licensees for a given area?
Are there limitations on the number of WISP licenses you may hold? That is to say, would it be possible for Clear Channel or SBC or subsidiaries of either to buy up all the WISP licenses for a certain area and then just sit on them, blocking any competition from entering the market?
I can't say there is anything at all unreasonable about the viewpoints you are expressing here. But I do want to note the alternate viewpoint can, in fact, have a "semblance of rationality", or at least half a page of what appears on the surface to be rational justification:)
Whoa there cowboy
First time I've ever been correctly identified as a Texan on the internet before except via hostmask. Congratulations.
there is a huge difference between "I guess I'll sacrifice the fiscal wellbeing of our country for the illusion of safety" and "GOOD! Cutting taxes and increasing spending is a WONDERFUL idea!" That's the point I was trying to make.:]
You are right in the sense that there is a difference, at least in America today; but alas I do not really think there should be a difference:(
You still have a Legislature that has to approve his budget for the year - you can't dump all the blame off on him.
A legislature which happens to be completely controlled by a republican party which, due to circumstances of the moment, follow and support every single decision of the bush administration without question.
How convenient.
Also, it's false that anyone who voted for Bush supports "don't tax and spend (and spend and spend and spend)" - people vote (or not vote) for candidates for any variety of reasons.
If unconditionally re-electing someone who demonstrates fiscal irresponsibility is not support for fiscal irresponsibility, then what is?
It doesn't matter if that was the individual voter's "swing issue". They voted for it.
I am continually perplexed by the extent to which people defending the Bush administration jump through bizarre hoops to prevent anyone taking any sort of blame or even responsibility for that administration's actions. If the president is not responsible for the budget when he has complete sway over congress, who is? If the people who voted that president into power knowing full well what he would do with it are not responsible for or "supporting" him, what do those words even mean?
There was one specific time at which the president's desk had on it a plaque saying "the buck stops here". The Bush Administration and its defenders, despite having no credible opposition or oversight for their actions either in congress or the media and a complete control of the agenda of the Republican party, seem to disclaim either that the buck at any point passed through their hands or even that they have a clear idea what, if they saw it, the buck would look like.
I'd agree George W. Bush himself is of course not personally responsible for any of this, since it seems to me most of the time frankly that almost none of the decisions in this administration are made or possibly even entirely understood by him, but the fact is it is his job to oversee and take responsibility for the members of his administration and the legislation he signs into being. He's the president of the united states of america. If he isn't doing this he isn't doing his job.
The Play Yan media player, which allows music and movie playback on the GBA and DS, launched in Japan yesterday. Along with it, Nintendo opened a new section of their Play Yan site.
For your pleasure and amusement "Garage Games" are downloadable for the device, which can be saved to a Panasonic SD card via your PC. The first game available is Insect, and a new game will be unveiled each week until the twelve games are available. Upcoming games include BAT, which is a baseball-based game. A thirteenth game is available to Japanese Club Nintendo members only.
The download is around 650kb, and plays in a thumbnail sized area of your screen, where files are normally displayed.
If the DS only had available in America all the things that it does in Japan, it would be just like the coolest thing ever.
What I very very much would like is some kind of DS flash cart that I can load Linux or ciLinux or whatever onto from my mac, and Linux once running would be able to just treat the flash cart like a hard drive, writing to it freely. I don't really care about homebrew games, I bought the thing because I wanted to play Nintendo's games. But I would very much love to be able to run Linux and a web browser of some sort, maybe a TI-89 emulator since my real TI-89 is a little too large for my pocket and I keep accidentally leaving it home. How far away is this, in whatever form, does anyone know?
I wonder if maybe Apple will be the first big American company to finally break the silence and speak out against software patents. Microsoft had their "see, bad law affects you too" moment with Eolas, but their reaction (quietly settle the matter in court and suddenly start jacking up the size of their patent library) has been so odd it almost seems like "Whoa, you mean patent law can be abused? Cool!"
But now that Apple's finding themselves up against a frivolous patent suit, maybe it will finally occur to them they aren't really getting anything out of patent law but they're having to pay for frivolous patent lawsuits and only have to pay more and more as IP abuse looks more and more like a growth industry...
The thing is that in general people tend to hate Microsoft because they have performed ethically deplorable actions that have negatively impacted the computer industry and its users.
They don't just hate Microsoft because Microsoft is successful, as many of Microsoft's defenders seem to think they do.
So unless you try to excessively simplify things, there does not seem to be an immediate logical reason that if Google becomes successful, people will begin to hate them too in significant number.
Google would have to start performing ethically deplorable actions that negatively impact the computer industry and its users for that.
I'm sure some people do just hate whatever's successful, of course. But I don't think they're anything other than an insignificant minority.
Apple's innovation shouldn't necessarily even be attributed to an R&D Lab. I remember that Apple emphasizes a research-to-product-development cycle. Apples tells its developers precisely that: "these things better turn into products!"
This story may be a bit old for you to notice this comment, but I really have to say I much prefer this to the way they were in the 90s. In the 90s Apple had an amazing, forward-thinking and brilliant research lab, but nothing ever came of anything they did. They'd just make these brilliant research products and build a publicly available prototype, but then neither they nor the parent company would bother to mature this to a product anyone knew about or that you could really make use of.
Now their research lab may be a bit more results-oriented and less visionary than they were then, but frankly it seems like more actual "innovation" is taking place. The reason is that we're getting small innovations that actually get implemented and we can use, instead of huge brilliant innovations like OpenDoc that flounder unsupported and disappear into the night without having made any impact except as something for Microsoft to rip off.
If everything will be back-ported to XP and Windows 2003, how does Microsoft plan to make any money off Longhorn, which has cost the company a lot in development time and money?
Maybe finally selling upgrades to all the people who never upgraded from Windows 2000 because there was no reason?
If the idea is that your Windows system will remain safe because attackers will be too busy exploiting the slightly-less-protected Windows systems around you to notice you there, this isn't very comforting.
You might forget that MS is not a security company
So, like... if your car's radio has a tendency to catch on fire, do you defend this by saying "well ford is not a stereo company"?
Security is part of an operating system. It is a basic, simple feature in the sense that with most other products "not catching on fire" could be considered a feature. If Microsoft makes an operating system but can't make it secure, at least the way many people would look at it, their product doesn't work.
If you consider this kind of performance acceptable in products you buy, then of course, that is fine, go ahead and keep buying it. However in the meantime there are two problems for the rest of us.
1. Other companies do not seem to have these sorts of problems putting out a secure product on anywhere near the same consistent basis.
2. Yet elsewhere-- from people other than you, in discussions other than this one-- on a frequent basis Microsoft software is defended as being just as good from a security perspective as anything else. Often Microsoft's poor security track record is handwaved away as something in the past and forgotten, or it is somehow claimed that security in Microsoft products is somehow a factor not of the software, but of that somehow or other more people are "paying attention" to Microsoft software. Yet despite this, new and very surprising (in the sense that they seem they could have been very easy to prevent, or appear in places prevention should have been fundamental) vulnerabilities keep showing up in new MS products on a consistent basis.
Well, one of the two. Either Microsoft shouldn't expected to put out a secure product because Security is Hard!, or Microsoft makes grown-up operating system and business software that is worthy of being used as the platform for important things. But not both. In the real world, "security companies" or no, operating system vendors do consider security to be part of their job. If Microsoft doesn't, one wonders why they continue to defend their products as just as appropriate for professional use as the alternatives.
Depending on when this arrives, this could possibly be an attempt to take the wind out of the sails of Apple's Tiger release-- probably to arrive sometime before midyear-- which lists as one of its major selling points a new feature called "spotlight". Spotlight is a system service that has been described as offering similar functionality to WinFS, but does it without filesystem changes. I don't know exactly how accurate this description is, of course, since though Microsoft seems to talk an awful lot about WinFS and talk about its hypothetical technical capabilities, they never seem to give specifics on exactly how it works for the end user and what it means for the end user...
Of course, the above assumes Microsoft still actually cares about what Apple does, which isn't all that likely.
CNN mentions the guy who got fired from google for blogging.
What they don't mention is that the guy who got fired from google for blogging seems to have been violating SEC regulations by publicly posting certain information relating to Google's financials...
Common sense really needs to become an issue at some point.
Slashdot Mirror
The last I had heard was that PSP movies have region coding but that PSP games do not.
Only Russia has the time machine technology that could be used to travel to three years ago to retrieve this technology-- and they aren't interested in sharing.
I think the idea is that Nintendo will be releasing new games which explicitly choose to use online play. I do not think they will be making any move to make their existing WLAN games work via the internet.
Tunneling is nice but it is highly unlikely to be the sort of thing a major vendor like Nintendo is likely to embrace. For one thing, designing your game to be comfortable with the hazards of internet play, like latency and dropped packets and such, isn't an effortless process. Tunnelled WLAN games are simply not going to play with the same level of quality that you'd get out of a normal WLAN game, or a game designed for online; for example playing Mario Kart DD on Warp Pipe can result in the game slowing down noticeably. Nintendo has quality expectations they have to meet for their first party products and they're unlikely to find that sort of thing terribly acceptable...
Seriously, why do you particularly want linux on the DS?
:)
Do the words "$150 PDA" mean anything in particular to you?
I want to be able to websurf and ssh from Panera Bread, and no officially licensed DS web browser has yet been announced.
Yes, it will. Linux already works on the Gamecube and the Revolution will be backward-compatible.
:)
Now they just need to get Linux on the DS working, since there's actually some fathomable reason you'd want to run that
The Nintendo DS will also have free online gaming by the end of the year, one assumes by the same mechanism or service as the Revolution; and they have announced that Animal Crossing DS will be created from the ground up for online gaming, which if you've played the original Animal Crossing, you'll know is going to be just crazy.
Also the Revolution will be backward compatible with the Gamecube, and Reggie Fuls-Aime of Nintendo said something in an interview yesterday on penny-arcade.com which strongly implies they will be announcing a U.S. release of the Play-Yan mp3/mpeg4 player for the GBASP and DS at E3.
E3 should be very interesting.
Thank you.
Something like that
I don't really know but I slightly suspect this would be somewhat more intended for use with 802.16?
<sarcasm>Slashdot was the only news-reposting site to cover this story</sarcasm>
Slashdot is a state of mind
I can't say there is anything at all unreasonable about the viewpoints you are expressing here. But I do want to note the alternate viewpoint can, in fact, have a "semblance of rationality", or at least half a page of what appears on the surface to be rational justification :)
:]
:(
Whoa there cowboy
First time I've ever been correctly identified as a Texan on the internet before except via hostmask. Congratulations.
there is a huge difference between "I guess I'll sacrifice the fiscal wellbeing of our country for the illusion of safety" and "GOOD! Cutting taxes and increasing spending is a WONDERFUL idea!" That's the point I was trying to make.
You are right in the sense that there is a difference, at least in America today; but alas I do not really think there should be a difference
Why don't they just buy a Google Ad?
You still have a Legislature that has to approve his budget for the year - you can't dump all the blame off on him.
A legislature which happens to be completely controlled by a republican party which, due to circumstances of the moment, follow and support every single decision of the bush administration without question.
How convenient.
Also, it's false that anyone who voted for Bush supports "don't tax and spend (and spend and spend and spend)" - people vote (or not vote) for candidates for any variety of reasons.
If unconditionally re-electing someone who demonstrates fiscal irresponsibility is not support for fiscal irresponsibility, then what is?
It doesn't matter if that was the individual voter's "swing issue". They voted for it.
I am continually perplexed by the extent to which people defending the Bush administration jump through bizarre hoops to prevent anyone taking any sort of blame or even responsibility for that administration's actions. If the president is not responsible for the budget when he has complete sway over congress, who is? If the people who voted that president into power knowing full well what he would do with it are not responsible for or "supporting" him, what do those words even mean?
There was one specific time at which the president's desk had on it a plaque saying "the buck stops here". The Bush Administration and its defenders, despite having no credible opposition or oversight for their actions either in congress or the media and a complete control of the agenda of the Republican party, seem to disclaim either that the buck at any point passed through their hands or even that they have a clear idea what, if they saw it, the buck would look like.
I'd agree George W. Bush himself is of course not personally responsible for any of this, since it seems to me most of the time frankly that almost none of the decisions in this administration are made or possibly even entirely understood by him, but the fact is it is his job to oversee and take responsibility for the members of his administration and the legislation he signs into being. He's the president of the united states of america. If he isn't doing this he isn't doing his job.
You killed it
What's a "passthrough device"?
What I very very much would like is some kind of DS flash cart that I can load Linux or ciLinux or whatever onto from my mac, and Linux once running would be able to just treat the flash cart like a hard drive, writing to it freely. I don't really care about homebrew games, I bought the thing because I wanted to play Nintendo's games. But I would very much love to be able to run Linux and a web browser of some sort, maybe a TI-89 emulator since my real TI-89 is a little too large for my pocket and I keep accidentally leaving it home. How far away is this, in whatever form, does anyone know?
I wonder if maybe Apple will be the first big American company to finally break the silence and speak out against software patents. Microsoft had their "see, bad law affects you too" moment with Eolas, but their reaction (quietly settle the matter in court and suddenly start jacking up the size of their patent library) has been so odd it almost seems like "Whoa, you mean patent law can be abused? Cool!"
But now that Apple's finding themselves up against a frivolous patent suit, maybe it will finally occur to them they aren't really getting anything out of patent law but they're having to pay for frivolous patent lawsuits and only have to pay more and more as IP abuse looks more and more like a growth industry...
The thing is that in general people tend to hate Microsoft because they have performed ethically deplorable actions that have negatively impacted the computer industry and its users.
They don't just hate Microsoft because Microsoft is successful, as many of Microsoft's defenders seem to think they do.
So unless you try to excessively simplify things, there does not seem to be an immediate logical reason that if Google becomes successful, people will begin to hate them too in significant number.
Google would have to start performing ethically deplorable actions that negatively impact the computer industry and its users for that.
I'm sure some people do just hate whatever's successful, of course. But I don't think they're anything other than an insignificant minority.
Apple's innovation shouldn't necessarily even be attributed to an R&D Lab. I remember that Apple emphasizes a research-to-product-development cycle. Apples tells its developers precisely that: "these things better turn into products!"
This story may be a bit old for you to notice this comment, but I really have to say I much prefer this to the way they were in the 90s. In the 90s Apple had an amazing, forward-thinking and brilliant research lab, but nothing ever came of anything they did. They'd just make these brilliant research products and build a publicly available prototype, but then neither they nor the parent company would bother to mature this to a product anyone knew about or that you could really make use of.
Now their research lab may be a bit more results-oriented and less visionary than they were then, but frankly it seems like more actual "innovation" is taking place. The reason is that we're getting small innovations that actually get implemented and we can use, instead of huge brilliant innovations like OpenDoc that flounder unsupported and disappear into the night without having made any impact except as something for Microsoft to rip off.
If everything will be back-ported to XP and Windows 2003, how does Microsoft plan to make any money off Longhorn, which has cost the company a lot in development time and money?
Maybe finally selling upgrades to all the people who never upgraded from Windows 2000 because there was no reason?
If the idea is that your Windows system will remain safe because attackers will be too busy exploiting the slightly-less-protected Windows systems around you to notice you there, this isn't very comforting.
You might forget that MS is not a security company
So, like... if your car's radio has a tendency to catch on fire, do you defend this by saying "well ford is not a stereo company"?
Security is part of an operating system. It is a basic, simple feature in the sense that with most other products "not catching on fire" could be considered a feature. If Microsoft makes an operating system but can't make it secure, at least the way many people would look at it, their product doesn't work.
If you consider this kind of performance acceptable in products you buy, then of course, that is fine, go ahead and keep buying it. However in the meantime there are two problems for the rest of us.
1. Other companies do not seem to have these sorts of problems putting out a secure product on anywhere near the same consistent basis.
2. Yet elsewhere-- from people other than you, in discussions other than this one-- on a frequent basis Microsoft software is defended as being just as good from a security perspective as anything else. Often Microsoft's poor security track record is handwaved away as something in the past and forgotten, or it is somehow claimed that security in Microsoft products is somehow a factor not of the software, but of that somehow or other more people are "paying attention" to Microsoft software. Yet despite this, new and very surprising (in the sense that they seem they could have been very easy to prevent, or appear in places prevention should have been fundamental) vulnerabilities keep showing up in new MS products on a consistent basis.
Well, one of the two. Either Microsoft shouldn't expected to put out a secure product because Security is Hard!, or Microsoft makes grown-up operating system and business software that is worthy of being used as the platform for important things. But not both. In the real world, "security companies" or no, operating system vendors do consider security to be part of their job. If Microsoft doesn't, one wonders why they continue to defend their products as just as appropriate for professional use as the alternatives.
Depending on when this arrives, this could possibly be an attempt to take the wind out of the sails of Apple's Tiger release-- probably to arrive sometime before midyear-- which lists as one of its major selling points a new feature called "spotlight". Spotlight is a system service that has been described as offering similar functionality to WinFS, but does it without filesystem changes. I don't know exactly how accurate this description is, of course, since though Microsoft seems to talk an awful lot about WinFS and talk about its hypothetical technical capabilities, they never seem to give specifics on exactly how it works for the end user and what it means for the end user...
Of course, the above assumes Microsoft still actually cares about what Apple does, which isn't all that likely.
CNN mentions the guy who got fired from google for blogging.
What they don't mention is that the guy who got fired from google for blogging seems to have been violating SEC regulations by publicly posting certain information relating to Google's financials...
Common sense really needs to become an issue at some point.
Well that's kind of just getting into a matter of semantics, isn't it? Personally I would distinguish between "exposed" and "accessible". :)