It's a matter of how you approach the game. If you want fast action, then Diablo II is better than your typical roguelike. If you like to be surprised by things you didn't expect well beyond the first two weeks of playing a game, then a roguelike may be better. But of course you do have to accept the necessity to buy scrolls of Disguise Self As Artichoke. And the often ridiculous (by today's standards) graphics, if there are graphics at all.
I don't even think these are mutually exclusive, I enjoy both types of games. Although it has to be said that I still play Nethack after almost 20 years of knowing it, while Diablo II only lasted me a few years. Has to have something to do with the inevitability of winning a Diablo II game, even my battle.net hardcore characters all made it through the game the full three times before finally dying in some mindless leveling after beating the game. Beating Nethack is not as inevitable; even though I have beaten the game with every class you can play at least once, I lack the patience to play it safe, and winning it is still an achievement and every game is different.
I played all Diablo and Sacred episodes. The one thing that Diablo II had and Sacred lacked was online games with the character stored on the server and gameplay running on the server. People figured out how to predict gambled items and such, but apart from that, provided that you played on closed battle.net, Diablo II was cheat-free back in the day. Sacred on the other hand was so buggy that Sacred Plus was released for free, and there were all kinds of cheats based on manipulating the game state in memory. I did enjoy both games, but D2 was more fun when played online, while Sacred was really only playable solo and its ladders etc. were meaningless.
The problem why XE hasn't gained any measurable following is its CPU and DB size restrictions. Effectively you are allowed to use Oracle XE for applications where MySQL, or probably flat files, are sufficient and/or more efficient.
I don't know if Germans would buy more e-books if more were available; there aren't that many to choose from at this time in the first place. I live in Germany and I've been buying a fair number of e-books in the last few years, but all of these purchases probably count toward the US numbers as I bought all of them from US-based online shops (such as Baen). Also, my employer has a Safari subscription and I've downloaded several books from there... which should again count toward the US numbers.
And yeah, I won't consider a Kindle; if I pay money for a book then I want the book physically present in my shelf, or I want the file on a disk that I control and can make backup copies of.
In addition to virtualisation being an excellent story to sell, VMware has done a great job on marketing its product as *the* virtualization solution. I guess it's expected that people will now try VMware first before considering their actual requirements. FreeBSD jails, or Solaris zones, are virtualisation technologies too, they're just not as present as VMware is. And chroot is one too, even though nobody ever thinks of that anymore thanks to VMware's marketing. They can't do all that VMware can do, but most likely, if you don't actually intend to consolidate multiple different platforms on one kind of server, or you don't actually need your managers to be able to move servers around, you don't need VMware. And if all you want to do is isolate individual *server processes* that otherwise run on the same platform, then VMware is most definitely not what you need. Basically, everything starting with plain old chroot could potentially do a better job unless you have very specific needs that can only be fulfilled with complete virtualisation.
Okay, you're certainly within your rights in chosing to never pay for an internet service. So, in your ideal world, who exactly should be paying? There is a substantial cost involved in offering services on the internet to a large group of users, especially bandwidth-intensive services such as streaming music. On top of that, you have to pay a license or royalties. So who should pay for that, if the beneficiary of these offerings, the end user, is already taken out of the equation? Sure, free lunches are nice, but how do you explain that you should be the only one who should be getting one, and why other people (such as the operators of last.fm) should be paying for your free lunch?
Nah, we just have that a lot in Germany. Something bad happens, and politicians jump to it and want to ban violent computer games over it. So, for example, someone shoots some people at a school and the day later, we learn from the press that we need to ban Counterstrike, and also that suspicious pornography was found. Then of course we need to something against child pornography, regardless of no child pornography being involved whatsoever in the shooting or the shooter's private live. You get the idea.
That said, I would personally appreciate if computer game makers could cut down on the violence a little, I don't like it very much in my games. Of course, other adults who like to shoot pixels should be allowed to do so, and the government should stay out of it.
Bleh, it's not surprising the defendants didn't bash copyrights. *Nobody* stands up in court and says "yes I did it, but this stuff shoulda been free in the first place".
Yeah maybe, but Sun wants JavaFX (which is based on Java) to be a Flash killer, and for that I'm guessing it needs to load a lot faster than the typical Java applet used to...
We're not actually able to keep up with feeding all of us, mind.
But it's not that we can't produce enough food. The feed for all our cattle world-wide could feed more than 8 billion humans instead. We choose to eat things that are expensive to make via processes that really don't scale, but any claims of the sort "we can't possibly feed X billion more people because we can barely feed all of us now" are, plainly, rubbish.
Apple doesn't have a semi-monopoly. This is about abusing a predominant market position in one area to gain an unfair advantage in a different one.
Pretty sure MS could get out of this easily by changing the IE start page to a page that links you to download locations for the latest IE, Firefox, and Opera releases or something like that. I think that makes way more sense than including ten different browsers.
Btw., Safari *is* tied into the OS in the exact same way. Removing Safari.app is like removing iexplore.exe, you'd still have WebKit and removing that would break a bunch of other applications. (But possibly not Finder.)
You're quoting from a page that tries to sell subscriptions. I'll agree that it is misleading, but I know for a fact that it's not meant in the way you're reading it.
Agreed. It also usually doesn't refer to a programming language or environment. At any rate, "enterprise" applications have historically been written in a bunch of languages that don't do array bounds checking. Granted, ruby is supposed to do it, but I mean, seriously - are kids these days so spoiled by JavaScript and VB that this kind of error is a surprise and the biggest bug ever?
A vulnerability in an open source project was found by a third party doing a security audit of the code. The possibility to validate the source code is exactly what open source proponents claim is the reason for open source being more secure. Everybody can have a go, a thousand pairs of eyes see more than one pair, and all that. Try auditing Visual Basic 6 for comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a matter of how you approach the game. If you want fast action, then Diablo II is better than your typical roguelike. If you like to be surprised by things you didn't expect well beyond the first two weeks of playing a game, then a roguelike may be better. But of course you do have to accept the necessity to buy scrolls of Disguise Self As Artichoke. And the often ridiculous (by today's standards) graphics, if there are graphics at all.
I don't even think these are mutually exclusive, I enjoy both types of games. Although it has to be said that I still play Nethack after almost 20 years of knowing it, while Diablo II only lasted me a few years. Has to have something to do with the inevitability of winning a Diablo II game, even my battle.net hardcore characters all made it through the game the full three times before finally dying in some mindless leveling after beating the game. Beating Nethack is not as inevitable; even though I have beaten the game with every class you can play at least once, I lack the patience to play it safe, and winning it is still an achievement and every game is different.
I played all Diablo and Sacred episodes. The one thing that Diablo II had and Sacred lacked was online games with the character stored on the server and gameplay running on the server. People figured out how to predict gambled items and such, but apart from that, provided that you played on closed battle.net, Diablo II was cheat-free back in the day. Sacred on the other hand was so buggy that Sacred Plus was released for free, and there were all kinds of cheats based on manipulating the game state in memory. I did enjoy both games, but D2 was more fun when played online, while Sacred was really only playable solo and its ladders etc. were meaningless.
Except people figured out fairly quickly how to switch it to 3rd person display, and it has too many RPG elements to be called a pure shooter...
Actually, that might work.
The iPod and iPhone also support (Cisco) VPN. (No OpenVPN though, AFAIK, until it's jailbroken.)
The problem why XE hasn't gained any measurable following is its CPU and DB size restrictions. Effectively you are allowed to use Oracle XE for applications where MySQL, or probably flat files, are sufficient and/or more efficient.
I don't know if Germans would buy more e-books if more were available; there aren't that many to choose from at this time in the first place. I live in Germany and I've been buying a fair number of e-books in the last few years, but all of these purchases probably count toward the US numbers as I bought all of them from US-based online shops (such as Baen). Also, my employer has a Safari subscription and I've downloaded several books from there... which should again count toward the US numbers.
And yeah, I won't consider a Kindle; if I pay money for a book then I want the book physically present in my shelf, or I want the file on a disk that I control and can make backup copies of.
We have that in Germany anyway. Same problem as with child pornography, the main point was that it *should be illegal*, ignoring that it already is...
'Nuf said. The controls from W&G were a huge step backward from Sam&Max, I hope they don't do that to a game in a traditionally mouse-driven series...
In addition to virtualisation being an excellent story to sell, VMware has done a great job on marketing its product as *the* virtualization solution. I guess it's expected that people will now try VMware first before considering their actual requirements. FreeBSD jails, or Solaris zones, are virtualisation technologies too, they're just not as present as VMware is. And chroot is one too, even though nobody ever thinks of that anymore thanks to VMware's marketing. They can't do all that VMware can do, but most likely, if you don't actually intend to consolidate multiple different platforms on one kind of server, or you don't actually need your managers to be able to move servers around, you don't need VMware. And if all you want to do is isolate individual *server processes* that otherwise run on the same platform, then VMware is most definitely not what you need. Basically, everything starting with plain old chroot could potentially do a better job unless you have very specific needs that can only be fulfilled with complete virtualisation.
If it sucks then you don't need to argue, since you're not using the service. Right?
I will NEVER pay for an internet service.
Okay, you're certainly within your rights in chosing to never pay for an internet service. So, in your ideal world, who exactly should be paying? There is a substantial cost involved in offering services on the internet to a large group of users, especially bandwidth-intensive services such as streaming music. On top of that, you have to pay a license or royalties. So who should pay for that, if the beneficiary of these offerings, the end user, is already taken out of the equation? Sure, free lunches are nice, but how do you explain that you should be the only one who should be getting one, and why other people (such as the operators of last.fm) should be paying for your free lunch?
Nah, we just have that a lot in Germany. Something bad happens, and politicians jump to it and want to ban violent computer games over it. So, for example, someone shoots some people at a school and the day later, we learn from the press that we need to ban Counterstrike, and also that suspicious pornography was found. Then of course we need to something against child pornography, regardless of no child pornography being involved whatsoever in the shooting or the shooter's private live. You get the idea.
That said, I would personally appreciate if computer game makers could cut down on the violence a little, I don't like it very much in my games. Of course, other adults who like to shoot pixels should be allowed to do so, and the government should stay out of it.
Bleh, it's not surprising the defendants didn't bash copyrights. *Nobody* stands up in court and says "yes I did it, but this stuff shoulda been free in the first place".
Yeah maybe, but Sun wants JavaFX (which is based on Java) to be a Flash killer, and for that I'm guessing it needs to load a lot faster than the typical Java applet used to...
We're not actually able to keep up with feeding all of us, mind.
But it's not that we can't produce enough food. The feed for all our cattle world-wide could feed more than 8 billion humans instead. We choose to eat things that are expensive to make via processes that really don't scale, but any claims of the sort "we can't possibly feed X billion more people because we can barely feed all of us now" are, plainly, rubbish.
Apple doesn't have a semi-monopoly. This is about abusing a predominant market position in one area to gain an unfair advantage in a different one.
Pretty sure MS could get out of this easily by changing the IE start page to a page that links you to download locations for the latest IE, Firefox, and Opera releases or something like that. I think that makes way more sense than including ten different browsers.
Btw., Safari *is* tied into the OS in the exact same way. Removing Safari.app is like removing iexplore.exe, you'd still have WebKit and removing that would break a bunch of other applications. (But possibly not Finder.)
Safari has had a privacy mode for ages now.
Feel free to e-mail me about it at df at sun dot com.
The COPYING file is just the standard GNU General Public License, version 2. I don't see what you're trying to prove quoting from it.
You're quoting from a page that tries to sell subscriptions. I'll agree that it is misleading, but I know for a fact that it's not meant in the way you're reading it.
How would that work, seeing as it is explicitly allowed to use the free version for any purpose?
No, that's not true. Sun provides binaries of MySQL *5.0* every half year. 5.0.51a/b was in January so I'd expect the next set pretty soon now.
Sun has also been providing binaries of 5.1 for quite some time now.
Agreed. It also usually doesn't refer to a programming language or environment. At any rate, "enterprise" applications have historically been written in a bunch of languages that don't do array bounds checking. Granted, ruby is supposed to do it, but I mean, seriously - are kids these days so spoiled by JavaScript and VB that this kind of error is a surprise and the biggest bug ever?
A vulnerability in an open source project was found by a third party doing a security audit of the code. The possibility to validate the source code is exactly what open source proponents claim is the reason for open source being more secure. Everybody can have a go, a thousand pairs of eyes see more than one pair, and all that. Try auditing Visual Basic 6 for comparison.