Best Buy used to sell the Insignia Pilot, which had 8 GB of memory, supports OGG (not sure about FLAC), has bluetooth support, built-in FM radio, is expandable via an SDHC slot, etc. It has an actual 24 hour battery life (!). I got mine new for $99, and absolutely love it. It mounts under Ubuntu as a stoage device, and I just drag and drop MP3s, OGGs, divx files, JPGs, text files, etc.
Hmmm, I missed the part where "illegal activities" was the stated reason for dropping USENET...
Right here. Gives the ISPs a stated purpose for dropping those expensive Giganet Usenet feeds from their internet lineup - "we're saving the children!". It's interesting to note that even the effort linked to above (which I don't agree with, BTW) was aimed at blocking alt.* access, not all of Usenet. That's how you know Comcast's doing it to save money.
To absolutely nobody's surprise, Comcast's monthly fee for internet access didn't drop one penny.
As a user of both binary and text Usenet groups, now I get to wait and see how Charter responds to this...
I would, agree if the DLC is question hadn't already been written and added to the original disc for the initial release, then made available for an extra sum later. Quite often with DLC on the 360 you download a 300k "key" which unlocks content that was shipped with the original game, and held in abeyance until the consumer ponies up more cash. I'm not saying this is the case with Forza 2; I really don't know. But the trend to post-charge for content shipped with the game is infuriating.
I think it takes the time of two iterations of the game for Infinity Ward to write, test and polish a high-quality COD title. Rumor has it IW is alrady working on CoD 6. Rather than wait for IW to finish the game, Activision has a different developer do the odd releases so they can make more money. Clever, eh?
The problem remains that if CoD 5 sucks ass and Activision tries to charge extra for online play on top of the cost of a bad game, then they will burn up a lot of goodwill for the CoD franchise. I'm pretty sure IW is more than capable of earning it back, but why take chances? \
Then again, maybe Treyarch will surprise us and CoD 5 will be great. But I'm not holding my breath afer CoD 3.
Actually, in almost every case where I've seen the word used (including this one), "monetize" is a direct synonym for "charge for". so the headline really reads:
Activision to charge for COD online play.
They don't want to use the words "charge for" because it has the negative connotation that they're going to charge you for online play, so they use the word "monetize" instead, even though it means the same thing.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. People playing PC or PS3 shooters are accustomed to being able to play online for free. People playing on Xbox Live, while accustomed to paying, may not be thrilled with the idea of having to pay two different middle men in order to play, especially when other excellent shooters (GoW2) are coming soon and aren't charging extra for online play.
This is de facto true in the US as well, where, while it may be technically illegal to download someone else's copyrighted IP, the RIAA will never sue for this. There is this fear that if they do, and the person in question already owned a copy of the IP in question ("I had the CD and it broke! Really! Here's the pre-download dated receipt!"), a precedent could be set making some forms of downloading legal, and make all those black-and-white "downloading music is stealing!" advertising campaigns much less clear to the average man on the street.
As in Canada, it's uploading that the (C|R)IAA goes after, because there is no "gray area" where it would be okay to give someone else's copyrighted IP away without their permission to do so.
Confusing (and unappealing) names seem to be part of the software landscape. The important part of the announcement is that they open sourced the language and framework. Free software gains another set of tools. This is a Good Thing. Props to 280 North.
Opps! Posting to get rid of an accidental moderation on this comment. I found it insightful, but Slashdot's new "choose and lose" moderation system decided I'd chosen Flamebait with no way (that I could see) to retract it.
I'm surprised I got this far down the thread before someone (sanely) suggested the posting individual contact a lawyer.
Think about it. Microsoft could have did stuff like this. Thankfully, they didn't
...
Sure, and when the occasional legitimate user who has somehow who has somehow tripped up WGA (happens all the time) and has to suffer these limitations, Microsoft would not only have to deal with a massive PR backlash, they might even be subject to a class action suit.
How exactly do you grind from level 1-60 without getting your very own level 38 world drop... which you can then sell for enough gold to buy one.
This is an interesting point. There are alternate ways to navigate the virtual economy even when prices skyrocket on the AH, possibly due to gold farming. I buy limited-quantity items (usually patterns or recipes) from odd vendors that are hard to discover, and then sell them for anywhere from 5-20 times what I paid for them. This allows me to "keep up" with the cost of things on the AH even though I don't farm, play obsessively, or pay for gold.
What is happening due to gold farming is that the amount of gold you get from regular drops and quests becomes almost trivial in comaprison with what items on the AH cost, and you need to count on listing items on the AH (that you either buy as limited quantity items, or find in a lucky world drop) to cover the cost of anything else you want to buy on the AH.
You can also speculate, buying items listed at a low price and relisting them at a higher price. You need to know the prices people will pay in order to do this effectively.
GOTO being evil wasn't just a meme. When I took Intro to Computer Science in college in 1984, the course was in FORTRAN. I was informed that GOTO's led to unstructured code and that any project we handed in with a GOTO in it would receive a score of zero, as would any test on which we used one to solve a problem.
Instead of going after Glider, why not creating a way to detect Glider user, then AUTO-BAN the user?
Don't try to kill the software, just ban the cheater!
That has traditionally been their approach, but over the years WoW Glider has gotten so good that they can't tell by looking at its output whether there's a bot in control or not.
Blizzard finally decided its best course of action would be to shut down WoW Glider via the court system.
Since the attack wasn't on BreakingPoint, but rather than upstream DNS server, he pretty much just got swept up in the dragnet. These kind of attacks seem scarier than a direct attack, since you can do "everything right" with regard to patching, updating, firewalling, etc, and still get owned.
Let's see: 4.7 GB x 4 discs = 18.8 GB. Until recently, the standard HDD for the 360 was 20 GB, with only about 13-14 GB actually usable. While you could probably do a "core" install and leave most of the textures on disc, you're still going to need to swap out discs occasionally.
Blizzard has done an excellent job of not falling into that trap as compared to, say, SOE.
Well... I'm not sure what you mean by "Blizzard has done an excellent job of...", but a number of months ago, my WoW client, which I run under WINE, started crashing right after an update. I went to their forums to discover that many others running it under WINE were crashing after the latest update. Blizzard's rep basically toted the company line that they don't support running WoW under anything other than Windows and Macintosh. Fair enough.
After poking around for while, I discovered that it was crashing on an ActiveX call. Why would that be? I was running it using the OpenGL API setting; there shouldn't be any ActiveX calls. I changed the config file to use ActiveX, instead, and ran the client. The message popped up "Submitting non-personal system specifications" (or something like that), and they the client started right up without crashing. It turns out that before running the updated client they were executing an attached program that submitted your system specs to Blizzard - without asking or even informing the end user. The submission program was written using ActiveX calls, so running it in OpenGL mode in WINE caused the Windows client to crash.
Admittedly, Blizzard never claimed the WoW client would run fine under WINE, although Blizzard must be aware that lots of people out there are doing it. I suppose this is a great way to "not fall into that trap" of getting feedback from a skewed minority of users, but adding ActiveX-only calls to a mandatory program that retroactively informs the user they just submitted their systems specs did not endear them to their WINE fanbase, and probably didn't thrill the rest of their users either (Note that the WINE fanbase may be a comparatively small number, but if even 0.1% - 1 in a thousand - of their 10 million user subscribership is running the client under WINE, that's 10,000 users).
So do I, but there's a difference between hoping it's true and investing in a company whose product at this point is vague, expansive claims. One is optimistic, the other foolhardy.
Also, coding those games also for Mac OS X means they'll be written for OpenGL (rather than, or in addition to, DirectX, which is Windows-only). This makes getting them running under WINE a LOT easier, thus gaining them a foothold in the Linux world without having to code a native Linux version. I'd love to know how many WoW users are running the client under WINE (like I am:-)).
But at least the copyright holders can sit down and relax for the next 100 years...
Too bad they can't "surf" on the internet, because its shutdown...
No, they'll be able to sit down for about a month, until someone finds a way to circumvent the restrictions and the arms race moves up another notch. As usual, it's the legitimate users who will be left out in the cold by this.
Slashdot Mirror
Best Buy used to sell the Insignia Pilot, which had 8 GB of memory, supports OGG (not sure about FLAC), has bluetooth support, built-in FM radio, is expandable via an SDHC slot, etc. It has an actual 24 hour battery life (!). I got mine new for $99, and absolutely love it. It mounts under Ubuntu as a stoage device, and I just drag and drop MP3s, OGGs, divx files, JPGs, text files, etc.
Since Adobe Reader has such a bad rep, can anyone recommend a good free alternative for my windows box at work?
Hmmm, I missed the part where "illegal activities" was the stated reason for dropping USENET...
Right here. Gives the ISPs a stated purpose for dropping those expensive Giganet Usenet feeds from their internet lineup - "we're saving the children!". It's interesting to note that even the effort linked to above (which I don't agree with, BTW) was aimed at blocking alt.* access, not all of Usenet. That's how you know Comcast's doing it to save money.
To absolutely nobody's surprise, Comcast's monthly fee for internet access didn't drop one penny.
As a user of both binary and text Usenet groups, now I get to wait and see how Charter responds to this...
I would, agree if the DLC is question hadn't already been written and added to the original disc for the initial release, then made available for an extra sum later. Quite often with DLC on the 360 you download a 300k "key" which unlocks content that was shipped with the original game, and held in abeyance until the consumer ponies up more cash. I'm not saying this is the case with Forza 2; I really don't know. But the trend to post-charge for content shipped with the game is infuriating.
I think it takes the time of two iterations of the game for Infinity Ward to write, test and polish a high-quality COD title. Rumor has it IW is alrady working on CoD 6. Rather than wait for IW to finish the game, Activision has a different developer do the odd releases so they can make more money. Clever, eh?
The problem remains that if CoD 5 sucks ass and Activision tries to charge extra for online play on top of the cost of a bad game, then they will burn up a lot of goodwill for the CoD franchise. I'm pretty sure IW is more than capable of earning it back, but why take chances? \
Then again, maybe Treyarch will surprise us and CoD 5 will be great. But I'm not holding my breath afer CoD 3.
Actually, in almost every case where I've seen the word used (including this one), "monetize" is a direct synonym for "charge for". so the headline really reads:
Activision to charge for COD online play.
They don't want to use the words "charge for" because it has the negative connotation that they're going to charge you for online play, so they use the word "monetize" instead, even though it means the same thing.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. People playing PC or PS3 shooters are accustomed to being able to play online for free. People playing on Xbox Live, while accustomed to paying, may not be thrilled with the idea of having to pay two different middle men in order to play, especially when other excellent shooters (GoW2) are coming soon and aren't charging extra for online play.
Thats already $93,000/y at @15/month in subscription fees alone...
6,211 linux users * $15/month = $93,165/month.
$93,165 * 12 months/year = $1,117,980/year.
Numbers look a little better, don't they?
I'd like to know where the 6,211 figure came from. I'd be wiling to bet that with the number of linux users in other countries, that number is higher.
And yes, I'm a US Linux WoW subscriber.
This is de facto true in the US as well, where, while it may be technically illegal to download someone else's copyrighted IP, the RIAA will never sue for this. There is this fear that if they do, and the person in question already owned a copy of the IP in question ("I had the CD and it broke! Really! Here's the pre-download dated receipt!"), a precedent could be set making some forms of downloading legal, and make all those black-and-white "downloading music is stealing!" advertising campaigns much less clear to the average man on the street.
As in Canada, it's uploading that the (C|R)IAA goes after, because there is no "gray area" where it would be okay to give someone else's copyrighted IP away without their permission to do so.
Confusing (and unappealing) names seem to be part of the software landscape. The important part of the announcement is that they open sourced the language and framework. Free software gains another set of tools. This is a Good Thing. Props to 280 North.
I hear that Okami on the Wii is fantastic. I haven't played it, but when I get a Wii, I'm planning on picking it up.
It is. One minor frustration is that the wiimote is hard to get used to using as a "calligraphy brush", but it's still a fantastic game.
Opps! Posting to get rid of an accidental moderation on this comment. I found it insightful, but Slashdot's new "choose and lose" moderation system decided I'd chosen Flamebait with no way (that I could see) to retract it.
I'm surprised I got this far down the thread before someone (sanely) suggested the posting individual contact a lawyer.
Think about it. Microsoft could have did stuff like this. Thankfully, they didn't
...
Sure, and when the occasional legitimate user who has somehow who has somehow tripped up WGA (happens all the time) and has to suffer these limitations, Microsoft would not only have to deal with a massive PR backlash, they might even be subject to a class action suit.
How exactly do you grind from level 1-60 without getting your very own level 38 world drop ... which you can then sell for enough gold to buy one.
This is an interesting point. There are alternate ways to navigate the virtual economy even when prices skyrocket on the AH, possibly due to gold farming. I buy limited-quantity items (usually patterns or recipes) from odd vendors that are hard to discover, and then sell them for anywhere from 5-20 times what I paid for them. This allows me to "keep up" with the cost of things on the AH even though I don't farm, play obsessively, or pay for gold.
What is happening due to gold farming is that the amount of gold you get from regular drops and quests becomes almost trivial in comaprison with what items on the AH cost, and you need to count on listing items on the AH (that you either buy as limited quantity items, or find in a lucky world drop) to cover the cost of anything else you want to buy on the AH.
You can also speculate, buying items listed at a low price and relisting them at a higher price. You need to know the prices people will pay in order to do this effectively.
Oops, lost some of the link. Here it is:
OPP
What's OPP?
It's a rap song by Naughty By Nature
GOTO being evil wasn't just a meme. When I took Intro to Computer Science in college in 1984, the course was in FORTRAN. I was informed that GOTO's led to unstructured code and that any project we handed in with a GOTO in it would receive a score of zero, as would any test on which we used one to solve a problem.
I can't tell if this is beautiful poetry or if you're just autistic.
Thank you - that was the best laugh I've had all week!
Instead of going after Glider, why not creating a way to detect Glider user, then AUTO-BAN the user?
Don't try to kill the software, just ban the cheater!
That has traditionally been their approach, but over the years WoW Glider has gotten so good that they can't tell by looking at its output whether there's a bot in control or not.
Blizzard finally decided its best course of action would be to shut down WoW Glider via the court system.
Thanks for the link!
Since the attack wasn't on BreakingPoint, but rather than upstream DNS server, he pretty much just got swept up in the dragnet. These kind of attacks seem scarier than a direct attack, since you can do "everything right" with regard to patching, updating, firewalling, etc, and still get owned.
Let's see: 4.7 GB x 4 discs = 18.8 GB. Until recently, the standard HDD for the 360 was 20 GB, with only about 13-14 GB actually usable. While you could probably do a "core" install and leave most of the textures on disc, you're still going to need to swap out discs occasionally.
Blizzard has done an excellent job of not falling into that trap as compared to, say, SOE.
Well ... I'm not sure what you mean by "Blizzard has done an excellent job of ...", but a number of months ago, my WoW client, which I run under WINE, started crashing right after an update. I went to their forums to discover that many others running it under WINE were crashing after the latest update. Blizzard's rep basically toted the company line that they don't support running WoW under anything other than Windows and Macintosh. Fair enough.
After poking around for while, I discovered that it was crashing on an ActiveX call. Why would that be? I was running it using the OpenGL API setting; there shouldn't be any ActiveX calls. I changed the config file to use ActiveX, instead, and ran the client. The message popped up "Submitting non-personal system specifications" (or something like that), and they the client started right up without crashing. It turns out that before running the updated client they were executing an attached program that submitted your system specs to Blizzard - without asking or even informing the end user. The submission program was written using ActiveX calls, so running it in OpenGL mode in WINE caused the Windows client to crash.
Admittedly, Blizzard never claimed the WoW client would run fine under WINE, although Blizzard must be aware that lots of people out there are doing it. I suppose this is a great way to "not fall into that trap" of getting feedback from a skewed minority of users, but adding ActiveX-only calls to a mandatory program that retroactively informs the user they just submitted their systems specs did not endear them to their WINE fanbase, and probably didn't thrill the rest of their users either (Note that the WINE fanbase may be a comparatively small number, but if even 0.1% - 1 in a thousand - of their 10 million user subscribership is running the client under WINE, that's 10,000 users).
So do I, but there's a difference between hoping it's true and investing in a company whose product at this point is vague, expansive claims. One is optimistic, the other foolhardy.
Also, coding those games also for Mac OS X means they'll be written for OpenGL (rather than, or in addition to, DirectX, which is Windows-only). This makes getting them running under WINE a LOT easier, thus gaining them a foothold in the Linux world without having to code a native Linux version. I'd love to know how many WoW users are running the client under WINE (like I am :-)).
But at least the copyright holders can sit down and relax for the next 100 years...
Too bad they can't "surf" on the internet, because its shutdown...
No, they'll be able to sit down for about a month, until someone finds a way to circumvent the restrictions and the arms race moves up another notch. As usual, it's the legitimate users who will be left out in the cold by this.