It doesn't mean that at all. The story specifically states that you need to log back into the admin account for the data to be wiped. So it sounds like the parent is correct and the admin account is wiping itself. The bug is why it decides to do so.
Killzone's controls were laggy, but recent patches have somewhat fixed it. The developer introduced a new 'High Precision' option, which they now enable by default:
When this option is switched on, it makes the analog sticks more responsive to small movements. Turned off, the controls behave exactly as they did before the patch.
I bought the game on release day and I found it a little frustrating at first - the controls did feel slow and heavy, both for aiming but also for moving. One thing that exacerbated it was that in single-player you would accelerate as you moved, it would take a second or so to get up to full speed so if you changed direction or stopped and started then you would be moving slowly for a while. It wasn't a big deal, but coming from other games like Halo it could feel a little jarring.
A FPS could work quite well on the iPhone, especially if they look at how the Wii Metroid did it. In Metroid you aimed with the pointer and the more you moved the pointer from the middle of the screen the faster it turned in that direction.
You could do the exact same thing with the iPhone, always play with your finger touching the screen, and as you move your finger from the center look in that direction.
If you constrained an iPhone FPS to only allow horizontal camera panning then moving your finger up and down the screen could move you forward and backwards, and movement to the left and right would turn you. Tapping anywhere would shoot (either always in the center of the screen, or the exact point that you tapped).
Alternatively if you use the multitouch you could remove the vertical constraint and look by stroking in any direction and move by stroking with two fingers.
Another option if you don't want to be always touching the screen is to allow you to flick the viewpoint around (sort of like flicking through photos). A stroke to the left (from anywhere on the screen) turns you left, a faster stroke turns faster, and flicking turns really quickly... Continuous turning either by multiple strokes, or have the initial speed of the stroke set the turn speed and if you hold your finger at the end point continue to turn or move at that speed until you release.
I really think there are a lot of options for rather precise control and I think a most game genres could work on the iPhone; determining which control scheme works the best will just require a few demos and some testing.
I agree that they should not care about piracy (for the reasons you state) however they very much do care.
Look at the time, effort, and great annoyance they cause through their attempts at preventing windows and office piracy (just now a story was posted about only allowing one significant hardware change for vista).
I know you are just trying to make a joke, but you are being deliberately obtuse.
Copying: Microsoft copies the EyeToy Sony copies the Wii-mote Sony copies Xbox Live
Innovation: Nintendo invent the Wii-mote
As to xbox live Nintendo haven't copied anything, in fact I wish they did. Their online service is very limited and doesn't even begin to offer what Microsoft do. I see where they are coming from (ease of use and protecting kids from unsavory types) but it would be nice if it was a lockable feature that parents could enable.
I realize you were specifically talking about live arcade (the downloadable content) but that doesn't count as innovation by anyone (not recently at least). Nintendo announced they would allow downloadable games well before the xbox released so being first doesn't make it Microsoft's idea. But downloadable games and content well predates this generation of consoles - computers have been offering that for as long as I can remember.
The "is there any innovation" question definitely applies to Microsoft and Sony but honestly I don't think anyone can put up an argument that Nintendo failed us this generation. Like it or hate it, at least they are trying something different.
As other people have mentioned a lot of xbox games used it for caching to speed up load times. However one point that a developer for the xbox 360 made (and I am really sorry I can't remember the developer or the name of the game) was that the lack of the harddrive is placing restrictions on what they can do for the 360.
This developer was writing a game that streamed all the content from the disc (sort of like GTA does I guess) and they said they had planned to have a helicopter/plane as one of the vehicles you could use, but that without a harddrive and due to the increased texture sizes etc... associated with HD support that they just couldn't stream the data from the DVD fast enough to let you fly around. Because of that they cut the flying vehicles. With a harddrive through they could precache a bunch of stuff.
Personally I think the really silly thing about not including the harddrive is that it is a false saving. If you don't buy the harddrive you need to get a memory card (for about $40). So already the two xbox packs are really $340 and $400. Microsoft should really not sell a memory card and just sell the harddrive seperately for $60 or so. Their marketing monkeys can still have a $300 and a $400 pack and developers can all program assuming a harddrive.
I think Bungie made two mistakes with the level system. The first one is that all new players (or rather previously unranked players) start at level 1, rather than whatever the average level is. This means that you constantly have people playing who are much better than that, and they race up through the ranks meaning their first 50 or more games are rather pointless. Apart from wasting the time of good players on easy games, this means that people who are actually ranked low constantly have people of much higher level playing against them. And the problem doesn't fix itself with time as although people do move up the ranks you constantly get an influx of new players and so the low ranked players constantly have to put up with it.
Better would be to have started everyone at the average rank, so that low players move down, good players move up, and average players stay where they are.
The second problem Bungie have is that there are far too many ranks. I think there are 50 or so (although I don't know if anyone gets into the high 40s). This really promotes an unhealthy attitude towards ranks with people trying anything they can to get a high rank (cheats etc...) and once people achieve a 'high' rank they let it affect their gameplay and enjoyment. I know multiple people who started a new account on xbox live just so they didn't risk having their rank drop if they wanted to play for fun instead of deadly seriously.
Better is a system like Crimson Skies where you only have 5 or so ranks (with the top rank only containing 10% of players). This lets people get a decent idea of how good their opponent is, without making everyone so self-conscious of their level. You can still have a leaderboard that lists peoples individual ranking (number 1, 2, 3 etc...) but at least there is less importance put on the actual 'rank' you have.
Don't bullshit yourself - graphics sell more than any type of gameplay. Perhaps the original poster could have chosen a different game to use as an example, but I think you delibrately missed the point. Yes MGS has had some gameplay changes between games, but do you really think that if MGS3 was released looking like MGS it would actually sell?
'True' gamers might concentrate on the gameplay, but we kid ourselves if we think we are in the majority. Pretty much the first (and only) comment I ever hear about a game is what it looks like.
Gameplay only matters after you have bought a game... you don't find out until too late.
This seems really odd, especially as back in July (this year) IGN ran a story about the BC sequel...
Seems the sequel was going to be online. At the time I thought perhaps the developer should finish the first game before worrying about sequels - it seems I was right.
I presume the sequel is cancelled as well then? The story didn't seem to say.
I doubt the developer sees much difference between pirating, renting or buying a second-hand copy. Unless you buy it retail then they don't get a cent.
Not only that, but the DS with its touch-screen would make adventure games easily playable. Playing on a d-pad or even with a control-stick would get tedious as you sent your cursor all around the screen looking for hot-spots. The touch-screen would be preferable even to a mouse for such a game.
And as most adventure games seem to make use of large inventories, the second screen would even get a useful purpose.
True, except in this case they were (if buying ATI) given an incentive due to the game-voucher... Which in itself is practically a statement certifying that the video card would run the game.
But in general I definitely agree with you; it is not sensible to buy hardware to run something in advance (well not too far in advance). But with a subscription service (as the original parent was discussing) that is exactly what you are doing - except with software, not hardware.
What happens if your decision to pay for the "all products within sub-period" is based upon fraudulent information? I bring this up because it seems the very issue has already arisen with Valve, who kept repeating a release date they knew they never had a chance of meeting - and I think a fair few people are regretting the purchase of new video cards based on that information...
I can imagine an awful lot of people subscribing for a year (or however long) based on the assumption that the new game will ship in that time period, and being awfully annoyed when it doesn't.
That and I don't like the idea of paying basically full price for a game but getting less rights to it. If you buy the physical copy you can still play it in a few years time; there had better be a huge cost saving or a lot of extra features over Steam before I gave up that ability.
True, but why have two screens rather than one screen twice as large? For instance the PSP will have a screen as large as the combined DS screens - so if the two screen idea is such a great one, the PSP developers could opt to use the display in that way. However if the screen idea is not a great one, there is nothing the DS developers can do about it.
As far as I see it, the two screen idea is basically a result of two decisions Nintendo made. Firstly they wanted a touch-screen, and a large touch screen would likely be prohibitively expensive. Secondly they needed to put in the existing GBA processor in order to provide backwards compatability, so why not use it?
If you notice, one screen will be able to display GBA quality graphics, whereas the other screen will be able to display graphics closer to a n64 (although the developers can toggle which screen does which - instantly I think). So basically it seems that Nintendo are putting the dual-processors to use in this thing... And why not?
I really think the two screen idea is about the least innovative, and possibly the worst thing about the DS - although in light of the above considerations I can see why they did it.
However my real excitement over the DS comes from the touch-screen, the wireless networking, the microphone (voice chat in multiplayer?), and the fact it is by Nintendo.
I will definitely be getting a DS, but that decision has nothing to do with the two screens.
Legendary was doable solo - it just doesn't seem so when you first play it. But give it a while and you won't have a problem - play through the earlier difficulties first.
The real trick is you have to start playing dirty:D In Normal you can basically run in guns blazing, but on Legendary you really have to take it much more slowly - pop out and shoot for a second, then duck for cover until your shields recharge... you spend most of the game hiding.
The other thing is you will start (or I did) using all the alien weapons... On normal I never used the plasma pistol (the one you can charge up) or the needler, but on Legendary those became weapons of choice. The needler is actually probably the best weapon on Legendary because a lot of the time you can't afford to stick around and aim, the enemies drop your shields too fast - but with the needler you don't have to.
The plasma pistol is good because a charged shot will drop an Elites shields instantly, which is important because they recharge just like you do, so you can't simply whittle them down by popping out from time to time.
The final tip is to get real good with the pistol... it is a seriously overpowered weapon, and a few head shots with it will drop anything.
It is definitely doable, I've done it, my brother has done it, and my friends have done it - and some of us them be classed as great players... The problem is after a bit of practice co-op isn't hard enough anymore... Bungie needed to put in a special co-op Legendary mode that upped the difficulty a bit.
Pissing off your customers doesn't matter in cases like this. It is just like Star Wars... If people want your product badly enough it doesn't matter what you do.
Everyone bitches about what Lucas is doing or has done (I totally agree with the complaints) and everyone will bitch about EA and The Sims.
However the vast majority of those people will be bitching while they are purchasing said products, while they are using said products, and while they are talking to their friends about said products.
Very few people will actually take a stand because of this - just you watch, Sims 2 is going to be one of the best selling games this year (probably the best).
I shouldn't reply because I know I am just asking for trouble... but how many people do you know run a spam filter?
I suppose that question isn't the correct one either - it should be how many people do you think run a spam filter?
The majority of computer users and the majority of email users do not frequent slashdot, nor do they have any idea how to set up a spam filter. The closest they will get is if they use a webmail service that filters it for them.
Well to begin with I didn't advocate charging for email, I simply said it wouldn't be an entirely bad thing. In any case I certainly didn't suggest charing $.25 per email.
I also doubt that 99% of the population can send email to begin with, or that introducing a charge for it would suddenly become the thing that prevents them from doing so (the cost of a computer, ISP, etc... might be the deciding factor).
It doesn't matter whether post is a national thing with physical borders (which I would dispute), what matters is that it is a service that is provided. Any service can (and usually is) charged for. The normal postal service is paid for by the purchase of stamps (as well as a government subsidy) which then entitles you to have your letter delivered.
Now as I am not advocating a charge system for email I haven't given great thought to how it would work (although I am sure others have done so, so google for it if you are interested) but I don't see why the stamp system would not be similarly applicable. Purchase a set of 'stamps' and then every email you send is signed with one. Servers only accept and redirect email traffic that is appropriately stamped.
Sure some people might set up servers that allow un-stamped email through, much the same way that you could have somebody other than a postman deliver your letter; but as the majority of the email would go through stamped servers (and perhaps many ISPs would not accept un-stamped email) then effectively you have forced stamps on the world.
Stamps can be sold much the same way as domains are bought and sold - I am not sure who the final payment goes to, but many different companies allow you to purchase domain names, and those companies exist in multiple countries and offer differing prices. Once again as I am not advocating the system I could not tell you with complete accuracy how it would or should work - simply that I see no reason why it cannot work.
Purchasing blocks of stamps also gets around the micropayments argument I saw elsewhere - instead of buying one stamp at a fraction of a cent, you buy a thousand for a few dollars... that covers all your emailing for the year. Or perhaps mailservers would simple add the cost of each email to your monthly bill.
It isn't like paid services over the internet is an unheard of concept...
BTW what is absurd about paying per message? Do you mean the very idea? Which clearly isn't absurd because it is done with paper-mail. Or do you mean the technical problems? Which are not really absurd either - you pay per download from iTunes etc... which is postage in reverse.
And as to self-centered, I am really not sure what you are getting at... Did you mean that I am self-centered for suggesting it (which I actually didn't)? I certainly neither claimed it as my idea, nor pretended that it was an original one.
Actually you can't shout the word "fuck" on the street in Australia, well at least not if you live in NSW (as does most of the population).
Section 4A of the Summary Offences Act makes it an offence to use offensive language near, or within hearing of, a public place or a school. Section 4 makes general offensive conduct illegal, and is punishable by up to 3 months in prison.
Provided the fee was much, much lower (say a cent an email or less) I would happily pay per message provided there was absolutely no spam.
And it wouldn't just be Microsoft getting the money (not that anyone other than the paranoid voices in your head have suggested they are going to charge) but any 'service' provider much the same as there are multiple postal companies, multiple phone companies etc...
Forget your whinging about paying $.25 a message and think of the amount of time you spend a day sorting through spam - if it even amounts to a minute a day, then the cost in your time is probably more than the few cents you might pay to send messages. And the cost of spam to most corporations is probably higher than whatever mail costs they might pay... Seems win-win to me.
Seriously enough I saw an episode of that one show from last year (can't remember the name but it's a crime drama about national security) where this one terrorist killed a guy in another country, then came to the US with the guy's fingers in baggies strapped around his waist.
The show is called Threat Matrix in case you were interested.
I like it. It was extremely easy to install (a few 'next' buttons and a 'finish') and is giving me no problems at all.
Although I never really experienced a problem with Windows XP before SP2 (no viruses, worms, etc...) so it isn't like it has changed anything drastically, but the few littles things I have seen are nice.
Plus the new firewall seems to be a huge improvement over the old one (features-wise; regarding the actual security level of it I am not sure). It seems to do everything Norton Internet Security does - individual settings per program, open specific ports, subnets, ip addresses etc... And a minor thing that impressed me is that they seem to be playing fair with the default settings. The first time Microsoft ActiveSync (for my Pocket PC) tried to access the internet it got stopped - however Firefox and IE had no problems so I am guessing they have pre-allowed some recognized programs (either that or it doesn't care about port 80).
Anyway it is all very easy to use, and considering that it provides the firewall and monitors the status of your virus scanner (prompting you to install or update things), I am guessing most semi or non computer literate people will experience much greater protection than before.
As to slowdown, I have actually noticed the opposite. Before installing the service pack my computer was sometimes running a little bit slowly (as seems to happen with computers the longer you go between clean installs) but after the service pack everything runs more smoothly. I don't know if that is just a coincidence or if during the process of updating and replacing a lot of files things got cleaned up or orginized better.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't mean that at all. The story specifically states that you need to log back into the admin account for the data to be wiped. So it sounds like the parent is correct and the admin account is wiping itself. The bug is why it decides to do so.
Killzone's controls were laggy, but recent patches have somewhat fixed it. The developer introduced a new 'High Precision' option, which they now enable by default:
When this option is switched on, it makes the analog sticks more responsive to small movements. Turned off, the controls behave exactly as they did before the patch.
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2009/05/27/killzone-2-patch-127-details/
I bought the game on release day and I found it a little frustrating at first - the controls did feel slow and heavy, both for aiming but also for moving. One thing that exacerbated it was that in single-player you would accelerate as you moved, it would take a second or so to get up to full speed so if you changed direction or stopped and started then you would be moving slowly for a while. It wasn't a big deal, but coming from other games like Halo it could feel a little jarring.
A FPS could work quite well on the iPhone, especially if they look at how the Wii Metroid did it. In Metroid you aimed with the pointer and the more you moved the pointer from the middle of the screen the faster it turned in that direction.
You could do the exact same thing with the iPhone, always play with your finger touching the screen, and as you move your finger from the center look in that direction.
If you constrained an iPhone FPS to only allow horizontal camera panning then moving your finger up and down the screen could move you forward and backwards, and movement to the left and right would turn you. Tapping anywhere would shoot (either always in the center of the screen, or the exact point that you tapped).
Alternatively if you use the multitouch you could remove the vertical constraint and look by stroking in any direction and move by stroking with two fingers.
Another option if you don't want to be always touching the screen is to allow you to flick the viewpoint around (sort of like flicking through photos). A stroke to the left (from anywhere on the screen) turns you left, a faster stroke turns faster, and flicking turns really quickly... Continuous turning either by multiple strokes, or have the initial speed of the stroke set the turn speed and if you hold your finger at the end point continue to turn or move at that speed until you release.
I really think there are a lot of options for rather precise control and I think a most game genres could work on the iPhone; determining which control scheme works the best will just require a few demos and some testing.
I agree that they should not care about piracy (for the reasons you state) however they very much do care.
Look at the time, effort, and great annoyance they cause through their attempts at preventing windows and office piracy (just now a story was posted about only allowing one significant hardware change for vista).
I know you are just trying to make a joke, but you are being deliberately obtuse.
Copying:
Microsoft copies the EyeToy
Sony copies the Wii-mote
Sony copies Xbox Live
Innovation:
Nintendo invent the Wii-mote
As to xbox live Nintendo haven't copied anything, in fact I wish they did. Their online service is very limited and doesn't even begin to offer what Microsoft do. I see where they are coming from (ease of use and protecting kids from unsavory types) but it would be nice if it was a lockable feature that parents could enable.
I realize you were specifically talking about live arcade (the downloadable content) but that doesn't count as innovation by anyone (not recently at least). Nintendo announced they would allow downloadable games well before the xbox released so being first doesn't make it Microsoft's idea. But downloadable games and content well predates this generation of consoles - computers have been offering that for as long as I can remember.
The "is there any innovation" question definitely applies to Microsoft and Sony but honestly I don't think anyone can put up an argument that Nintendo failed us this generation. Like it or hate it, at least they are trying something different.
As other people have mentioned a lot of xbox games used it for caching to speed up load times. However one point that a developer for the xbox 360 made (and I am really sorry I can't remember the developer or the name of the game) was that the lack of the harddrive is placing restrictions on what they can do for the 360.
This developer was writing a game that streamed all the content from the disc (sort of like GTA does I guess) and they said they had planned to have a helicopter/plane as one of the vehicles you could use, but that without a harddrive and due to the increased texture sizes etc... associated with HD support that they just couldn't stream the data from the DVD fast enough to let you fly around. Because of that they cut the flying vehicles. With a harddrive through they could precache a bunch of stuff.
Personally I think the really silly thing about not including the harddrive is that it is a false saving. If you don't buy the harddrive you need to get a memory card (for about $40). So already the two xbox packs are really $340 and $400. Microsoft should really not sell a memory card and just sell the harddrive seperately for $60 or so. Their marketing monkeys can still have a $300 and a $400 pack and developers can all program assuming a harddrive.
But Halo 2 was such a complete story, wrapping up all loose ends... how could they possible make another?
I think Bungie made two mistakes with the level system. The first one is that all new players (or rather previously unranked players) start at level 1, rather than whatever the average level is. This means that you constantly have people playing who are much better than that, and they race up through the ranks meaning their first 50 or more games are rather pointless. Apart from wasting the time of good players on easy games, this means that people who are actually ranked low constantly have people of much higher level playing against them. And the problem doesn't fix itself with time as although people do move up the ranks you constantly get an influx of new players and so the low ranked players constantly have to put up with it.
Better would be to have started everyone at the average rank, so that low players move down, good players move up, and average players stay where they are.
The second problem Bungie have is that there are far too many ranks. I think there are 50 or so (although I don't know if anyone gets into the high 40s). This really promotes an unhealthy attitude towards ranks with people trying anything they can to get a high rank (cheats etc...) and once people achieve a 'high' rank they let it affect their gameplay and enjoyment. I know multiple people who started a new account on xbox live just so they didn't risk having their rank drop if they wanted to play for fun instead of deadly seriously.
Better is a system like Crimson Skies where you only have 5 or so ranks (with the top rank only containing 10% of players). This lets people get a decent idea of how good their opponent is, without making everyone so self-conscious of their level. You can still have a leaderboard that lists peoples individual ranking (number 1, 2, 3 etc...) but at least there is less importance put on the actual 'rank' you have.
Don't bullshit yourself - graphics sell more than any type of gameplay. Perhaps the original poster could have chosen a different game to use as an example, but I think you delibrately missed the point. Yes MGS has had some gameplay changes between games, but do you really think that if MGS3 was released looking like MGS it would actually sell?
'True' gamers might concentrate on the gameplay, but we kid ourselves if we think we are in the majority. Pretty much the first (and only) comment I ever hear about a game is what it looks like.
Gameplay only matters after you have bought a game... you don't find out until too late.
This seems really odd, especially as back in July (this year) IGN ran a story about the BC sequel...
Seems the sequel was going to be online. At the time I thought perhaps the developer should finish the first game before worrying about sequels - it seems I was right.
I presume the sequel is cancelled as well then? The story didn't seem to say.
I doubt the developer sees much difference between pirating, renting or buying a second-hand copy. Unless you buy it retail then they don't get a cent.
Not only that, but the DS with its touch-screen would make adventure games easily playable. Playing on a d-pad or even with a control-stick would get tedious as you sent your cursor all around the screen looking for hot-spots. The touch-screen would be preferable even to a mouse for such a game.
And as most adventure games seem to make use of large inventories, the second screen would even get a useful purpose.
True, except in this case they were (if buying ATI) given an incentive due to the game-voucher... Which in itself is practically a statement certifying that the video card would run the game.
But in general I definitely agree with you; it is not sensible to buy hardware to run something in advance (well not too far in advance). But with a subscription service (as the original parent was discussing) that is exactly what you are doing - except with software, not hardware.
What happens if your decision to pay for the "all products within sub-period" is based upon fraudulent information? I bring this up because it seems the very issue has already arisen with Valve, who kept repeating a release date they knew they never had a chance of meeting - and I think a fair few people are regretting the purchase of new video cards based on that information...
I can imagine an awful lot of people subscribing for a year (or however long) based on the assumption that the new game will ship in that time period, and being awfully annoyed when it doesn't.
That and I don't like the idea of paying basically full price for a game but getting less rights to it. If you buy the physical copy you can still play it in a few years time; there had better be a huge cost saving or a lot of extra features over Steam before I gave up that ability.
True, but why have two screens rather than one screen twice as large? For instance the PSP will have a screen as large as the combined DS screens - so if the two screen idea is such a great one, the PSP developers could opt to use the display in that way. However if the screen idea is not a great one, there is nothing the DS developers can do about it.
As far as I see it, the two screen idea is basically a result of two decisions Nintendo made. Firstly they wanted a touch-screen, and a large touch screen would likely be prohibitively expensive. Secondly they needed to put in the existing GBA processor in order to provide backwards compatability, so why not use it?
If you notice, one screen will be able to display GBA quality graphics, whereas the other screen will be able to display graphics closer to a n64 (although the developers can toggle which screen does which - instantly I think). So basically it seems that Nintendo are putting the dual-processors to use in this thing... And why not?
I really think the two screen idea is about the least innovative, and possibly the worst thing about the DS - although in light of the above considerations I can see why they did it.
However my real excitement over the DS comes from the touch-screen, the wireless networking, the microphone (voice chat in multiplayer?), and the fact it is by Nintendo.
I will definitely be getting a DS, but that decision has nothing to do with the two screens.
Legendary was doable solo - it just doesn't seem so when you first play it. But give it a while and you won't have a problem - play through the earlier difficulties first.
:D In Normal you can basically run in guns blazing, but on Legendary you really have to take it much more slowly - pop out and shoot for a second, then duck for cover until your shields recharge... you spend most of the game hiding.
The real trick is you have to start playing dirty
The other thing is you will start (or I did) using all the alien weapons... On normal I never used the plasma pistol (the one you can charge up) or the needler, but on Legendary those became weapons of choice. The needler is actually probably the best weapon on Legendary because a lot of the time you can't afford to stick around and aim, the enemies drop your shields too fast - but with the needler you don't have to.
The plasma pistol is good because a charged shot will drop an Elites shields instantly, which is important because they recharge just like you do, so you can't simply whittle them down by popping out from time to time.
The final tip is to get real good with the pistol... it is a seriously overpowered weapon, and a few head shots with it will drop anything.
It is definitely doable, I've done it, my brother has done it, and my friends have done it - and some of us them be classed as great players... The problem is after a bit of practice co-op isn't hard enough anymore... Bungie needed to put in a special co-op Legendary mode that upped the difficulty a bit.
Pissing off your customers doesn't matter in cases like this. It is just like Star Wars... If people want your product badly enough it doesn't matter what you do.
Everyone bitches about what Lucas is doing or has done (I totally agree with the complaints) and everyone will bitch about EA and The Sims.
However the vast majority of those people will be bitching while they are purchasing said products, while they are using said products, and while they are talking to their friends about said products.
Very few people will actually take a stand because of this - just you watch, Sims 2 is going to be one of the best selling games this year (probably the best).
I shouldn't reply because I know I am just asking for trouble... but how many people do you know run a spam filter?
I suppose that question isn't the correct one either - it should be how many people do you think run a spam filter?
The majority of computer users and the majority of email users do not frequent slashdot, nor do they have any idea how to set up a spam filter. The closest they will get is if they use a webmail service that filters it for them.
Well to begin with I didn't advocate charging for email, I simply said it wouldn't be an entirely bad thing. In any case I certainly didn't suggest charing $.25 per email.
I also doubt that 99% of the population can send email to begin with, or that introducing a charge for it would suddenly become the thing that prevents them from doing so (the cost of a computer, ISP, etc... might be the deciding factor).
It doesn't matter whether post is a national thing with physical borders (which I would dispute), what matters is that it is a service that is provided. Any service can (and usually is) charged for. The normal postal service is paid for by the purchase of stamps (as well as a government subsidy) which then entitles you to have your letter delivered.
Now as I am not advocating a charge system for email I haven't given great thought to how it would work (although I am sure others have done so, so google for it if you are interested) but I don't see why the stamp system would not be similarly applicable. Purchase a set of 'stamps' and then every email you send is signed with one. Servers only accept and redirect email traffic that is appropriately stamped.
Sure some people might set up servers that allow un-stamped email through, much the same way that you could have somebody other than a postman deliver your letter; but as the majority of the email would go through stamped servers (and perhaps many ISPs would not accept un-stamped email) then effectively you have forced stamps on the world.
Stamps can be sold much the same way as domains are bought and sold - I am not sure who the final payment goes to, but many different companies allow you to purchase domain names, and those companies exist in multiple countries and offer differing prices. Once again as I am not advocating the system I could not tell you with complete accuracy how it would or should work - simply that I see no reason why it cannot work.
Purchasing blocks of stamps also gets around the micropayments argument I saw elsewhere - instead of buying one stamp at a fraction of a cent, you buy a thousand for a few dollars... that covers all your emailing for the year. Or perhaps mailservers would simple add the cost of each email to your monthly bill.
It isn't like paid services over the internet is an unheard of concept...
BTW what is absurd about paying per message? Do you mean the very idea? Which clearly isn't absurd because it is done with paper-mail. Or do you mean the technical problems? Which are not really absurd either - you pay per download from iTunes etc... which is postage in reverse.
And as to self-centered, I am really not sure what you are getting at... Did you mean that I am self-centered for suggesting it (which I actually didn't)? I certainly neither claimed it as my idea, nor pretended that it was an original one.
Actually you can't shout the word "fuck" on the street in Australia, well at least not if you live in NSW (as does most of the population).
c e/s/1/?TITLE=%22Summary%20Offences%20Act%201988%20 No%2025%22&nohits=y/
n ocache~1~SubTopicDetailsID~956.htm/
Section 4A of the Summary Offences Act makes it an offence to use offensive language near, or within hearing of, a public place or a school. Section 4 makes general offensive conduct illegal, and is punishable by up to 3 months in prison.
For a copy of the Act:
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/summarize/infor
Further information:
http://www.aussielegal.com.au/informationoutline~
http://www.findlaw.com.au/article/8872.htm/
Provided the fee was much, much lower (say a cent an email or less) I would happily pay per message provided there was absolutely no spam.
And it wouldn't just be Microsoft getting the money (not that anyone other than the paranoid voices in your head have suggested they are going to charge) but any 'service' provider much the same as there are multiple postal companies, multiple phone companies etc...
Forget your whinging about paying $.25 a message and think of the amount of time you spend a day sorting through spam - if it even amounts to a minute a day, then the cost in your time is probably more than the few cents you might pay to send messages. And the cost of spam to most corporations is probably higher than whatever mail costs they might pay... Seems win-win to me.
I wish I had mod points - very very true.
The show is called Threat Matrix in case you were interested.
I like it. It was extremely easy to install (a few 'next' buttons and a 'finish') and is giving me no problems at all.
Although I never really experienced a problem with Windows XP before SP2 (no viruses, worms, etc...) so it isn't like it has changed anything drastically, but the few littles things I have seen are nice.
Plus the new firewall seems to be a huge improvement over the old one (features-wise; regarding the actual security level of it I am not sure). It seems to do everything Norton Internet Security does - individual settings per program, open specific ports, subnets, ip addresses etc... And a minor thing that impressed me is that they seem to be playing fair with the default settings. The first time Microsoft ActiveSync (for my Pocket PC) tried to access the internet it got stopped - however Firefox and IE had no problems so I am guessing they have pre-allowed some recognized programs (either that or it doesn't care about port 80).
Anyway it is all very easy to use, and considering that it provides the firewall and monitors the status of your virus scanner (prompting you to install or update things), I am guessing most semi or non computer literate people will experience much greater protection than before.
As to slowdown, I have actually noticed the opposite. Before installing the service pack my computer was sometimes running a little bit slowly (as seems to happen with computers the longer you go between clean installs) but after the service pack everything runs more smoothly. I don't know if that is just a coincidence or if during the process of updating and replacing a lot of files things got cleaned up or orginized better.
No, that would be spiderman 2 you are thinking of.