They're just adding a feature for who use Twitter apps. It's not like this will become the only supported way to post or read blog replies, so what does it matter? They do support other blog posting API's too.
Since when protocols are something you can license? They're pretty much available for everyone, technical details available or not. Protocols really shouldn't be limited by licenses.
However on another case, Blizzard has been fighting such too against cheaters on their games.
But really, what law do you violate if you're using a "licensed" protocol? I haven't heard of such cases before.
Eh? I have nothing against open source. In fact I maintain linux servers on my daily job every day and think they're a lot better suited for the job than MS servers. But I do see and acknowledge both Windows and Linux problems and comment upon those - after all, that's what is going to fix the issues, not ignoring them and stamping "anti-open" on everyone that points out flaws in Linux.
Everything that aside, what does this has to do with Google? While Google does provide software open sourced for people while it's within their business goal, they're far from true open source culture. Just try to get any of their web services backends and you see why.
You do not seem to understand the difference between an ISP and electricity company. ISP's per-MB usage charge is just added there to discourage customers to actually use their connection. ISP's themself do not pay anything based on amount transferred. ISP's either peer with others by buying specific amount of bandwidth (1-10Gbit/s) or by agreement that they both peer either one free of charge (only with big ISP's where it benefits both). There are no transfer limits. Every ISP in the world has always oversold their capacity to consumers, as it makes sense (not even close anyone of them are going to use all of it all the time). BUT they make sure their contracts with other ISP's are enough to usually support the network.
I would agree it's probably 8/10 on the single player. It's good moments, movie-like experience, but the real fun really is in multiplayer with all of its levels, perks and tactics. The difference in classes you can build and tactic with really shows. Another great non-sp aspect is the co-op missions, especially the sniper ones. We had tons of fun in those, and they actually get really hard but still fun on the hardest levels.
The co-op and multiplayer aspects combined I would give it a 9.5/10, considering I still haven't got the time to play left4dead2 because MW2 multiplayer just seems so fun always. If you're just playing the single player aspect, you're losing a lot.
Assassin’s Creed II Borderlands Brutal Legend Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Dead Space: Extraction Dragon Age: Origins Grand Theft Auto IV: The Ballad of Gay Tony Demon’s Souls Left 4 Dead 2 Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars
Looks like a list of all the fun games of this year.
But oh, the fun just starts. Check out the alternatives list:
Alternative: Mirror's Edge Alternative: Infamous Alternative: Ghostbusters: The Video Game Alternative: Battlefield: Bad Company Alternative: Deadly Creatures Alternative: Braid Alternative: Batman: Arkham Asylum Alternative: Uncharted 2: Among Thieves Alternative: Overlord II Alternative: C.O.P.: The Recruit
Many of the games on the alternatives list have exactly the same kind of violence. Hell, in Overlord you're taking control of a evil god like character that controls his minions to destroy and kill enemies, the good people.
I bet many of us played games that had gore as teens. They should had have sex too - it's even a natural thing, while violence is not (or shouldn't be). The problem isn't the gore and it wont turn a teenager in to a mindless massacer - if it is, then he has other problems that the parents should be taking care of.
It's not really hard to make aimbot work so that it's not so obvious, it's only bad cheats that just jump to point to enemys head and shoot. It's obvious of course. But it's trivial to add smoothness and human-like errors to the movement. The data is there. Client knows where enemy is (because it has to be drawn). It's a matter of few cpu cycles to calculate the new direction to aim at and make command to shoot. No human can possible, ever, work that fast.
Another problem is ESP, warnings and other such cheats that do not directly interface gameplay, but give cheater a huge advantage because he gets a lot more info than other players. Then it's just up to him to act in a way that isn't so obvious.
Only the stupid cheaters are caught by server admins. And the actual non-cheating, but good players get kicked by trigger happy admins. There IS need for anti-cheating software.
In real life, getting over/around a chair is a neglible action, in an fps it's not always so simple in real life, it's quite easy getting out a half open window, but jumping up on the kitchen table without putting your hands on it is not so. in real life, you rarely get caught in an opening door, and never pushed by it.
Pffft, just talk for yourself. These are my everyday problems.
That and the fact if some of my teammates slip on ice I feel a sudden urge to go corpse-humping in front of his eyes.
I agree. I think it was for HL1 that I also tried making some maps and obvious first ideas were own home, school, friends places and other familiar stuff. It was fun seeing those familiar places in the games.
And speaking of level editors, I think Max Payne's level editor has been one of the best ones. It was nice to use, you could do lots of things easily (like moving platforms activated by triggers) and still powerful. After I went from MaxED to Hammer (or whatever the usual Quake level editor is called), it really felt like going back.
It still ruins it kinda. Sure you get off the idiots who run around at 100x speed aimbotting and killing everyone, but discreet use of esp hack that shows you where enemies are or if someone is coming behind you will still give major advantage to the cheater. It will not ruin the game completely, but it still makes it kind of stupid.
Actually this is and will always be a major problem with open source online games. You don't even need to debug assembly and create a hack for it, you just need to edit the source code and build your own client. Open source anti-cheating system has the same problems too, and in addition open source community would probably yell against locking down the client with such system. Sure, server admins can still ban the obvious cheaters, but this is one of the things commercial games (and commercial anti-cheating software) will always have advantage over open source games, at least until we can actually just render the player screen on server and transmit it over the internet.
They don't really lock you, but they offer you cheaper services if you do make a longer contract. There has always been month to month contracts, in fact the long contracts are a new thing. Another thing is that people traditionally buy their phones from store themself and then get contract. Or just buy a pay-as-you-go SIM card from kiosk without any contracts.
iPhone was the first phone you only got with a contract.
Your points would come off a lot better if you didn't throw around such foul words and hoping for me to die because I dislike the idea of iPhone like app store and locked-up experience for computers. While I think there's something seriously wrong with you, I'm going to respond anyway.
If at any point Linux gained marketshare, people would install their latests games off DVD's, download their third party software they want from the internet and the old repositories-only model just wouldn't work. Linux itself is great currently and I love it in server environments. But the practices Linux and the distros use, and which arguably provide some additional security for it too, aren't going to run with casual people.
Well do you really want the iPhone like only-approved-software app store for your computer? With no way to download software from anywhere else than that said approved app store.
The software ecosystem is "much more confusing" because it's an OS with 95% marketshare and theres millions of 3rd party programs and games for users. And they really want and need those.
Actually it would really suck if Windows had just one Microsoft verified "app store" where everything is controlled like with iPhone.
But so what if it only gets access to one user? Malware doesn't really need root access. Stealing user data and sending spam is just as possible from user base. In history malware tried to just fuck over the computer which would had required root access, but now its just about sending spam or stealing data.
But this is not really about vulnerabilities. This is a screensaver that user downloads from a website. Open source or not, you can't fix that unless the whole system is totally locked down like iPhone. And that doesn't really sound good.
Any (good) linux sysadmin knows that there has been many Linux worms in the history. Yes, history. You're also referencing to a 2003 Windows worm here.
Conficker aside, such worms are pretty much in history. Most malware now a days comes via trojans, and any OS can't protect against that unless it's totally locked down (like iPhone)
Slashdot Mirror
That's MySpace, and it wasn't CEO of MySpace you were friends with.
They're just adding a feature for who use Twitter apps. It's not like this will become the only supported way to post or read blog replies, so what does it matter? They do support other blog posting API's too.
"Best defense is to attack" is not just non-sense.
Since when protocols are something you can license? They're pretty much available for everyone, technical details available or not. Protocols really shouldn't be limited by licenses.
However on another case, Blizzard has been fighting such too against cheaters on their games.
But really, what law do you violate if you're using a "licensed" protocol? I haven't heard of such cases before.
Eh? I have nothing against open source. In fact I maintain linux servers on my daily job every day and think they're a lot better suited for the job than MS servers. But I do see and acknowledge both Windows and Linux problems and comment upon those - after all, that's what is going to fix the issues, not ignoring them and stamping "anti-open" on everyone that points out flaws in Linux.
Everything that aside, what does this has to do with Google? While Google does provide software open sourced for people while it's within their business goal, they're far from true open source culture. Just try to get any of their web services backends and you see why.
You do not seem to understand the difference between an ISP and electricity company. ISP's per-MB usage charge is just added there to discourage customers to actually use their connection. ISP's themself do not pay anything based on amount transferred. ISP's either peer with others by buying specific amount of bandwidth (1-10Gbit/s) or by agreement that they both peer either one free of charge (only with big ISP's where it benefits both). There are no transfer limits. Every ISP in the world has always oversold their capacity to consumers, as it makes sense (not even close anyone of them are going to use all of it all the time). BUT they make sure their contracts with other ISP's are enough to usually support the network.
I would agree it's probably 8/10 on the single player. It's good moments, movie-like experience, but the real fun really is in multiplayer with all of its levels, perks and tactics. The difference in classes you can build and tactic with really shows. Another great non-sp aspect is the co-op missions, especially the sniper ones. We had tons of fun in those, and they actually get really hard but still fun on the hardest levels.
The co-op and multiplayer aspects combined I would give it a 9.5/10, considering I still haven't got the time to play left4dead2 because MW2 multiplayer just seems so fun always. If you're just playing the single player aspect, you're losing a lot.
And here we see Google falling because they think they're "too big" and "dont-be-evil" to take their users privacy seriously...
I actually applaud Firefox for this change. Marketing companies shouldn't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.
And the list:
Assassin’s Creed II
Borderlands
Brutal Legend
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
Dead Space: Extraction
Dragon Age: Origins
Grand Theft Auto IV: The Ballad of Gay Tony
Demon’s Souls
Left 4 Dead 2
Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars
Looks like a list of all the fun games of this year.
But oh, the fun just starts. Check out the alternatives list:
Alternative: Mirror's Edge
Alternative: Infamous
Alternative: Ghostbusters: The Video Game
Alternative: Battlefield: Bad Company
Alternative: Deadly Creatures
Alternative: Braid
Alternative: Batman: Arkham Asylum
Alternative: Uncharted 2: Among Thieves
Alternative: Overlord II
Alternative: C.O.P.: The Recruit
Many of the games on the alternatives list have exactly the same kind of violence. Hell, in Overlord you're taking control of a evil god like character that controls his minions to destroy and kill enemies, the good people.
I bet many of us played games that had gore as teens. They should had have sex too - it's even a natural thing, while violence is not (or shouldn't be). The problem isn't the gore and it wont turn a teenager in to a mindless massacer - if it is, then he has other problems that the parents should be taking care of.
It's not really hard to make aimbot work so that it's not so obvious, it's only bad cheats that just jump to point to enemys head and shoot. It's obvious of course. But it's trivial to add smoothness and human-like errors to the movement. The data is there. Client knows where enemy is (because it has to be drawn). It's a matter of few cpu cycles to calculate the new direction to aim at and make command to shoot. No human can possible, ever, work that fast.
Another problem is ESP, warnings and other such cheats that do not directly interface gameplay, but give cheater a huge advantage because he gets a lot more info than other players. Then it's just up to him to act in a way that isn't so obvious.
Only the stupid cheaters are caught by server admins. And the actual non-cheating, but good players get kicked by trigger happy admins. There IS need for anti-cheating software.
In real life, getting over/around a chair is a neglible action, in an fps it's not always so simple
in real life, it's quite easy getting out a half open window, but jumping up on the kitchen table without putting your hands on it is not so.
in real life, you rarely get caught in an opening door, and never pushed by it.
Pffft, just talk for yourself. These are my everyday problems.
That and the fact if some of my teammates slip on ice I feel a sudden urge to go corpse-humping in front of his eyes.
I agree. I think it was for HL1 that I also tried making some maps and obvious first ideas were own home, school, friends places and other familiar stuff. It was fun seeing those familiar places in the games.
And speaking of level editors, I think Max Payne's level editor has been one of the best ones. It was nice to use, you could do lots of things easily (like moving platforms activated by triggers) and still powerful. After I went from MaxED to Hammer (or whatever the usual Quake level editor is called), it really felt like going back.
Las Vegas would be fun. Killing zombies in middle of slot machines, poker tables and all the lights and bling bling.
You're totally correct about crazy and weird at least.
It still ruins it kinda. Sure you get off the idiots who run around at 100x speed aimbotting and killing everyone, but discreet use of esp hack that shows you where enemies are or if someone is coming behind you will still give major advantage to the cheater. It will not ruin the game completely, but it still makes it kind of stupid.
Actually this is and will always be a major problem with open source online games. You don't even need to debug assembly and create a hack for it, you just need to edit the source code and build your own client. Open source anti-cheating system has the same problems too, and in addition open source community would probably yell against locking down the client with such system. Sure, server admins can still ban the obvious cheaters, but this is one of the things commercial games (and commercial anti-cheating software) will always have advantage over open source games, at least until we can actually just render the player screen on server and transmit it over the internet.
They don't really lock you, but they offer you cheaper services if you do make a longer contract. There has always been month to month contracts, in fact the long contracts are a new thing. Another thing is that people traditionally buy their phones from store themself and then get contract. Or just buy a pay-as-you-go SIM card from kiosk without any contracts.
iPhone was the first phone you only got with a contract.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware#Threats
Your points would come off a lot better if you didn't throw around such foul words and hoping for me to die because I dislike the idea of iPhone like app store and locked-up experience for computers. While I think there's something seriously wrong with you, I'm going to respond anyway.
If at any point Linux gained marketshare, people would install their latests games off DVD's, download their third party software they want from the internet and the old repositories-only model just wouldn't work. Linux itself is great currently and I love it in server environments. But the practices Linux and the distros use, and which arguably provide some additional security for it too, aren't going to run with casual people.
Well do you really want the iPhone like only-approved-software app store for your computer? With no way to download software from anywhere else than that said approved app store.
The software ecosystem is "much more confusing" because it's an OS with 95% marketshare and theres millions of 3rd party programs and games for users. And they really want and need those.
Actually it would really suck if Windows had just one Microsoft verified "app store" where everything is controlled like with iPhone.
But so what if it only gets access to one user? Malware doesn't really need root access. Stealing user data and sending spam is just as possible from user base. In history malware tried to just fuck over the computer which would had required root access, but now its just about sending spam or stealing data.
And that is why there will never be the year of the linux on desktop.
But this is not really about vulnerabilities. This is a screensaver that user downloads from a website. Open source or not, you can't fix that unless the whole system is totally locked down like iPhone. And that doesn't really sound good.
But the thing is, most malware doesn't even need root access to do it's job. Stealing users data and sending spam works just as well from user base.
Requiring root access is mostly for those who want control over that exact machine, like hackers.
Any (good) linux sysadmin knows that there has been many Linux worms in the history. Yes, history. You're also referencing to a 2003 Windows worm here.
Conficker aside, such worms are pretty much in history. Most malware now a days comes via trojans, and any OS can't protect against that unless it's totally locked down (like iPhone)