Well, your comment forced me to look up the article (New York Times, November 16, 2001 by David Gallagher). I guess it's not quite the spam we all know and love, but it is a step in that direction. Cut and pasted here in case NYT expires the article.
IN-CAR information services like the OnStar system from General Motors are starting to duplicate some of the Web's most useful offerings: driving directions, stock quotes, customized news and weather reports. Now, some of the companies behind these services are adding advertising and "mobile commerce" to the mix.
The companies say their subscribers will not be subject to the dashboard equivalent of junk e-mail and annoying pop-up ads. Consumer concerns about privacy, along with the focus on driver distractions prompted by the spread of cellphones, mandate a conservative approach. But the possibilities may be too interesting to ignore.
For example, Wingcast, a joint venture of Ford Motor and Qualcomm, plans to offer a "gas station locator" feature soon after its service is introduced in mid-2002, said Mark Lieberman, vice president for business development. Subscribers can set up a personal profile on the service's Web site, then designate their preferred gas station chains. When fuel is running low, a computerized voice will notify the driver and offer directions to the nearest station.
Similar features of these so-called telematics services might let the driver know which gas station in the area has the lowest prices, whether a favorite department store is having a sale or when a new CD by a favorite artist is available at a music outlet nearby. Services like Wingcast could potentially charge companies for the right to send marketing messages to their customers, or get a cut when a transaction takes place.
"To me, it's an opt-in kind of service," Mr. Lieberman said. "It can't be just like the Web advertising we're so used to that just comes across your screen. It's got to be meaningful to that person and relevant when you're in a car environment. It's got to meet the profile of the customer."
The heart of telematics services are functions that guide the driver and summon help in case of an emergency. Using cellular technology and a receiver that picks up signals from the satellites of the Global Positioning System, a subscriber's car can report its location to a command center, and the driver can communicate with an operator or with a voice-recognition system through a hands-free microphone and the car's speakers. Other services are built around small screens on the dashboard that display maps and other information.
This equipment makes it technically possible for the system to know a car's location at any time, information that could be used to deliver highly specific ads pointing the driver to, say, a restaurant or store a block away. But the telematics companies do not want to appear to be stalking their customers and barraging them with marketing messages. (The wireless phone industry will soon confront the same issue, as the federal government pushes it to add tracking features to phones for safety reasons.)
OnStar, by far the biggest service with 1.5 million users, says it makes note of a car's location only in an emergency or when a driver makes contact with the service. The OnStar system is built into many G.M. models and the high-end Honda Acura models; the service is free for the first year.
"The privacy and the confidentiality of our subscribers are of the utmost importance," said Don Butler, the OnStar vice president in charge of the new Virtual Advisor service. "We're not going to be in a situation where we are tracking the location of a vehicle. We just don't think that's what consumers are looking for."
OnStar seems more interested in advertising that is tied to content, not to a subscriber's location. Subscribers obtaining stock quotes from the automated Virtual Advisor service are told that the information is sponsored by Fidelity Investments. If they have a Fidelity account, they can connect to an automated Fidelity system and trade stocks while they drive.
Subscribers, who pay $199 to $399 a year for OnStar, incur additional per-minute fees from OnStar when they are connected to Virtual Advisor, which also offers content from ESPN, ABC News, The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets. Mr. Butler said his company was exploring the idea of inserting ads into this content, but said, "we've got to be careful on how far we go."
Of course, drivers listen to unsolicited commercial messages every day on their car radios, with no fuss. Philip J. Rowland, a principal in the London office of the consulting firm McKinsey & Company who has studied the telematics market, predicted a shift from traditional radio to digital audio services for drivers. This might mix personalized information, like local traffic reports, with advertising messages that the subscriber has agreed to receive.
Mr. Rowland said the increased automation of telematics services, using voice recognition and other technologies, should lower the cost significantly. Growth could also be driven by loyalty programs for gas stations and airlines, he added. For example, a service might let a driver know about a chance to earn frequent-flier miles by shopping at a store nearby.
McKinsey estimates that telematics could be a $100 billion business in the United States, Western Europe and Japan by 2010. But Mr. Rowland said the industry was still in its early stages, and "there's huge uncertainty about what consumers will pay for."
At least one company is sticking to a basic approach. ATX Technologies, which provides telematics systems and services for Mercedes-Benz, Lincoln-Mercury and other carmakers, tries to strengthen the bond between car buyers and car brands, said Gary Wallace, a company spokesman. Functions like alerting the driver, the manufacturer and perhaps a local dealer to a problem with the car are a priority, he said, while helping to pitch products that have little to do with cars is not.
"We've done a lot of research, and we haven't seen any of our customers wanting that type of service," Mr. Wallace said. "Primarily, when you're in your car, the information you want is kind of vehicle-centric. I think that's what customers really want now."
Just so you know this isn't even as theoretical as you may have thought. I believe (though I'm not sure) that this is either already implemented with GM's OnStar car GPS system, or is in the works. When you drive near a McDonalds, it says "To get to McDonalds, turn left 1/2 mile up the road" or whatever.
First of all, what is the point? What are we, the readers, supposed to take away from this article?
Hooray! I'm not the only one who feels this way! I came away wondering, "Why did anyone write an 'article' with no point?" I think we were all subject to Jon Katz's latest brainstorm while he was sitting on the toilet this morning. Every time he writes he gets more common, now sinking so low as to predict Apple's demise because they "just don't get it." Gee, never heard that one before. A cliched troll is the best way to describe this article.
Why must it have been a salesman? I can see that a developer would also like to see his project ranked highly, so maybe it was the.NET dev team that started this.
Also, I don't think this is evil at all; Mac sites do this (Ever see those polls where Mac OS is #1 with 85-90% of the vote?). So do linux sites. Just because MS is a company doesn't make this extra evil. However, I would think they'd be smart enough not to do stuff like this, knowing how people scrutinize MS's actions so much more than everybody else. I guess Uncle Steve's gonna have to give everyone over at MS a stern talking-to!
You are going one step further by claiming that massive (and often distributed) attacks on open relays and ill-prepared ISPs constitutes "speech." I must admit that this is one of the more puzzling arguments I've heard in favor of spammers.
This is not what the law appears to forbid. It appears to forbid "unsolicited email documents". This is what I was ranting about. If the law forbade using open mail relays or anything that can be considered an "attack" I'd have no problem. But it seems to be forbidding the messages themselves. Maybe this is for logistical reasons (how do you prove it's an attack?) but banning people from "sending unsolicited email" seems wrong to me. I don't have a personal relationship with my Congressperson, if I send him an unsolicited email can that be considered spam? Sure, I'm being nitpicky here, but this is the law, and I think it's a bad one. From the law: "17538.4. (a) No person or entity conducting business in this state shall facsimile (fax) or cause to be faxed, or electronically mail (e-mail) or cause to be e-mailed, documents consisting of unsolicited advertising material for the lease, sale, rental, gift offer, or other disposition of any realty, goods, services, or extension of credit unless..." This doesn't mention attacks or open relays or anything of the sort. It says you can't send unsolicited messages. That is the problem.
"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
-- Napoleon, "Animal Farm"
I realize that spam is annoying, and that spammers often use resources that don't belong to them, but I find it odd that the Slashdot crowd, which so frequently touts Freedom of speech as one of the major benefits of "open source" or GPLed software, should be so dead-set against a certain group's speech. The law, as far as I can tell, makes illegal "unsolicited email documents" when "the documents (a) are addressed to recipients who do not have existing business or personal relationships with the initiator and (b) were not sent at the request of or with the consent of the recipient. ( 17538.4, subd. (e).) "
This will probably lead to 1000 people explaining to me that spam wastes bandwidth and all that, but really, I would expect less hypocrisy from a group that frequently appears to defend freedom of speech so vehemently. This isn't to say I don't like spam, but if fucking C++ source code can be considered speech, why isn't "Do you want a longer penis?" Honestly, I would consider spam more of an expressive medium than code. Maybe the guy selling penis enlargment sauce really feels deeply about it and wants the world to know how truly great his product is. Anyhow, before everyone pats themselves on the back for this "win" over spammers, maybe you should take a step back and look at it from the much-heralded freedom-of-speech angle you usually take on Napster/Ogg/Kazaa/Microsoft/DeCSS issues.
Why stop there? Why shouldn't you pay programmers directly for software instead of their employers? When I buy a gallon of milk, shouldn't the money go directly to the dairy farmer instead of the grocery store? [ PETA version: it goes to the cow. ] And of course every penny of that $25K Explorer should go to the auto workers that built it.
Sorry, Ford and Waldbaums aren't actively trying to get Congress to enact retroactive laws to limit the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. RIAA/MPAA are. I have no problem supporting an organization I feel is legitimate (such as the corner grocery, gas stations, etc), but the RIAA/MPAA really want consumers to have fewer/less rights. I don't really see music downloads as too much of an ethical dilemma since the other companies you mentioned create real property (except for the programmer, and honestly I would have no problem paying the programmers directly. Lots of businesses do that; I believe the entire shareware industry was based on that model initially. Also for games like Quake 3, I'm sure id gets far more of the revenue than Activision, though I'm basing that on total speculation), whereas RIAA/MPAA are in charge of intellectual property. IMO, IP law is still completely wrong in every regard, and so I have no problem breaking it. IP is completely different from Real property because if you, for example, copy a CD from someone else, you're not depriving the other person of the audio on that disc. Taking the actual disc from the person is obviously stealing, but I don't consider the former to be theft. You can call me whatever name you like, but I just don't see that as an illegal or immoral activity.
There's also the "I don't want it enough to buy it, but I want it enough to have it for free" factor. There are some songs I hear on the radio that are catchy, but clearly not good enough to warrant me paying $16-18 to hear them. I will honestly never buy these CDs. The artist isn't going to get any money from me either way, so why shouldn't I just grab the file for free if I can? Note that, as Courtney Love said , this only applies to the lamers who have one decent song on the whole CD. I recently purchased Linkin Park's CD because there were at least 3 songs on it that I liked -- and if it weren't for the radio and Morpheus, that sale wouldn't have happened.
Like I said, I'm sure I'll take some heat for this (Clearly I must be a socialist!), but the idea that downloading music files from other people somehow makes one a "pirate" is so ridiculous it makes me wonder how people can say it with a straight face.
Napster will offer artists and labels tools to register as rights holders and get paid for sharing their music on Napster. Artists and other rights holders can set rules for how their music files are used, check their account status online, and receive quarterly statements.
Sorry, this sounds like more of the same. Giving artists a cut sounds like mp3.com's idea, and I'd like to know how well that worked out. Anybody here have experience with mp3.com's artist payment scheme? Anyhow, if I want the labels to get the money, I'll just buy the damn CD.
As far as I can tell, this only affects 4.7xx and above...
AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) has a major security vulnerability in the
latest stable (4.7.2480) and beta (4.8.2616) Windows versions.
Most people I know stayed with version 4.3, as it doesn't have the super-annoying "AIM Today" window when you login. Of course, AOL doesn't make this available, so I keep my AIM 4.3 installer in a safe place. If it turns out that 4.3 has this bug, well, I'll be sad.
If this is really discrimination, why are you asking Slashdot about it rather than your state's Department of Labor? New York State has a Department of Human Rights to deal specifically with discrimination.
Heh, I didn't think you were lying. Actually, today I had a better experience with the game, so maybe it just takes getting used to. But it's been a while since I had to deal with a display this dark, and there isn't even a contrast knob. But I tell you, Castlevania is a much funner way to pass the time on the train than the boring old newspaper. Plus 7 different people can have games stored! Amazing! Anyhow, hopefully with time I will grow more comfortable with the display, though I'm still looking at the backlit display at portablemonopoly.com.
Thanks for your feedback. Glad everybody isn't as glum as I (was).
Apparently unlike you, mine came with one of the many external lighting adapters available for the GBA.
But I had written:
with the plugin light my girlfriend got me with it (causes glare)
I did get a small light, which does a decent job of illuminating the screen, but the angle at which the GBA must be held to see the screen causes glare and I can't see it. Even in direct sunlight the screen is extremely poor. I can only hope backlighting will alleviate this problem. I also received a portable Sony tv (the one with the Straptenna) which comes with an active matrix TFT LCD screen, and cost ~$120. I would have rather paid more and gotten a higher quality display, even if it was smaller.
I was the recipient of a GBA for Xmas, and I was very happy with it. Until I tried using it.
I see nothing wrong with the GBA screen other than the dependency on lighting. Which I'm willing to accept because it means highly increased battery life. Other than that it's a vast improvement on past gameboys.
I have tried playing a GBA in the following places:
on the couch
in the bedroom
in the bathroom
on the bus to work
on the train to work
with a halogen lamp over my shoulder
with the plugin light my girlfriend got me with it (causes glare)
In EVERY SINGLE SITUATION the ability to see the screen has been poor to awful. I remember reading that Nintendo chose long battery life over backlighting. Quite frankly, this was a horrible mistake. With backlighting this would have easily been the best game system of the year AFAIC. I have no use for Xbox, PS2, or gamecube, but GBA is exceptionally small and has some fun games. But with a screen I can't see it's absolutely useless. Honestly, I got a set of rechargeable NiMH batteries (6 AA, 2 AAA, 2 C, 2 D) plus the charger for $30, so I don't care about battery life. 2 hours, fine. if it took 4 batteries instead of 2, fine. If I have to plug it into an AC adapter sometimes, fine. But in its current state, it's essentially useless. Unfortunately, it's the only game in town for portable gaming.
Anyhow, how you can say "other than that it's a vast improvement on past gameboys" really confuses me. I was under the impression that the improved screen was one of the main selling points for the GBA. I've been playing Castlevania (which is great) and other than being much more comfortable to hold, how is this different from old skool gameboy/color? Please don't tell me that the graphics are so much better because I can't see them.
Anyway, "used to be" doesn't lend you much credibility when commenting about Apple's recent activites
Have there been lots of revolutions in the way Macs work since August? Moved to x86 or something? I was beginning development of an OS X client when the company tanked.
Why do you speak with certainty about Apple an their hardware when it's obvious that you don't follow the company, and don't have any experiece with their products?
Why do you bother speaking at all, when it's obvious you haven't the slightest ability to read or comprehend information more complex than "See Spot run!"? Please point me to a native Linux application that will play Quicktime movies that use the Sorenson codec (no, the WINE-based plugin for Mozilla/Netscape doesn't count). As for my supposed lack of experience with Apple products, I used to be a developer of Macintosh software.
I don't know why I'm even bothering to reply to your drivel when I've already responded to all of these points elsewhere in this thread. You're just too lazy to look them up, so that's all I have to say.
The author of the blurb (vnsnes), and even Timothy both acknowledge that this is a useless item. So why bother posting it to the front page? Let useless items fade away into obscurity on their own.
Re:"More powerful" != "Better."
on
Gadgets of 2002
·
· Score: 1
For that matter, why would anyone want to be so "wired" as to have a need to get to the web from their handheld in any case?
I spend 30 minutes each weekday on the train going to and from work. Right now I pass the time reading the paper, but I wouldn't mind having this little gadget instead, especially since I need a new cell phone anyway.
This is just like AOL's claim that Aimster is trying to use the term "Aim" in its name to associate itself with AIM. Since I used to work at Aimster I can tell you that this was certainly the case. The name Aimster was chosen, as one would have guessed in August 2000 when it was released, because it was intended to be a combination of AIM (AOL Instant Messenger) and Napster. Then when it became apparent that AOL was going to pursue this as a trademark infringement and try to get the aimster.com domain, John Deep came up with this crazy story that it's called Aimster because "Aimster" is a nickname for girls named Amy. Then he decided that his daughter (Madeline) would change her name to Aimee.
It's obvious (to me, at least) that "Lindows" is intended to associate the product with both Linux and Windows. It is a good name for the product (though perhaps more than a bit tacky), much as Aimster was a good name for Aimster back in the day. However, the cleverness of the name has the downside that they're also piggybacking on all the work Microsoft has done to establish and protect the Windows trademark, so they'll probably lose, and I think it's probably in their best interest to simply change their product and domain to something else. That's what I suggested to John about Aimster, but of course I was ignored.
Then again, Michael Robertson isn't quite as naive as John, and has a lot more credibility and business sense, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about at all.
The real scourge of productivity has once again been left out. Billions of man-hours are lost each month in the US alone. A company with ten employees is losing, on average, over 1000 man-hours per month. That is over 40 Man-days!
Please, let's eliminate this awful practice of "sleeping." Those 6 hours a day should be spent working!
performance is just fine by my eyes @ 1024x768 and 16 bit color.
You just answered your question. by my eyes isn't good enough for hardcore gamers. There are valid reasons to need 125 fps in Q3A. My girlfriend currently gets 200.9 fps in Q3A with a Geforce 2 GTS, Athlon 1900+, and she's getting a Geforce 3 Ti500 from me for xmas (shhhhhhh). At that point I can only guess that her FPS will be in the 300+ range. Definitely more than necessary, but having 90 horsepower in your car is probably more than necessary too. Doesn't mean I wouldn't rather have 300.
Additionally, does your video card have things like full scene anti-aliasing? That's one of the major selling points of the gf3, as it improves image quality a lot.
I recently built a computer for my grandmother. I put a geforce 2 mx in for $60. Sure, you can find acceptable video cards for $30, but for another $30 you get one that you really don't have to worry about. Plus, you never know, grandma might decide to play CS or Q3.
Well, all your tirade really demonstrates is that you're willing to buy a console for one game. While that's not really a bad thing, it's also not how the vast majority of people decide which console to purchase. Most people are looking for quantity. How are you supposed to rate quality? Can you return games once they're opened? Store demos are usually broken.
I, too, bought N64 for Zelda, and I felt it was definitely worth it. At the time, it was the best game I had ever played, by far. I was sadly disappointed by Majora's mask, but that's beside the point.
Luigi's mansion and Pikmin look absolutely horrible to me, and the video of Zelda for gamecube looks absolutely awful, in fact it looks like a slap in the face to the people like me who grew up playing Zelda. I understand that Nintendo has traditionally been aimed at a younger market, but the market that was 10-13 when the original zelda came out is now in their 20s, and I for one don't want to play a game that looks like a cartoon. I thought that they ruined Super Mario Bros 2/3 with this.
Anyhow, while it looks interesting, it also looks stupid. It looks like they've already developed the game too much for them to change, but maybe the game will flop and the next iteration will be something most adults can stomach.
Slashdot Mirror
Just so you know this isn't even as theoretical as you may have thought. I believe (though I'm not sure) that this is either already implemented with GM's OnStar car GPS system, or is in the works. When you drive near a McDonalds, it says "To get to McDonalds, turn left 1/2 mile up the road" or whatever.
I don't know if Canadian trademark is the same as US, but in the US I don't think you can selectively uphold your trademark. You have to fight every instance of trademark infringement or the mark becomes diluted and you lose it. If Canadian trademark works the same way then I don't see how they can possibly uphold this. There must be thousands, if not millions, of Canadian citizens using the Canadian flag in some way or another without the government's authorization, and unless they intend to go after them all, I just don't see how this can work. But this is all contingent on Canadian © law working like US, so maybe it's completely wrong.
First of all, what is the point? What are we, the readers, supposed to take away from this article?
Hooray! I'm not the only one who feels this way! I came away wondering, "Why did anyone write an 'article' with no point?" I think we were all subject to Jon Katz's latest brainstorm while he was sitting on the toilet this morning. Every time he writes he gets more common, now sinking so low as to predict Apple's demise because they "just don't get it." Gee, never heard that one before. A cliched troll is the best way to describe this article.
Why must it have been a salesman? I can see that a developer would also like to see his project ranked highly, so maybe it was the .NET dev team that started this.
Also, I don't think this is evil at all; Mac sites do this (Ever see those polls where Mac OS is #1 with 85-90% of the vote?). So do linux sites. Just because MS is a company doesn't make this extra evil. However, I would think they'd be smart enough not to do stuff like this, knowing how people scrutinize MS's actions so much more than everybody else. I guess Uncle Steve's gonna have to give everyone over at MS a stern talking-to!
Nobody around here would pull something like that... no sir.
For me to shell out more money for a new box, they better be offering some real compelling content.
I think that's eventually the point -- Real Compelling Content®.
You are going one step further by claiming that massive (and often distributed) attacks on open relays and ill-prepared ISPs constitutes "speech." I must admit that this is one of the more puzzling arguments I've heard in favor of spammers.
This is not what the law appears to forbid. It appears to forbid "unsolicited email documents". This is what I was ranting about. If the law forbade using open mail relays or anything that can be considered an "attack" I'd have no problem. But it seems to be forbidding the messages themselves. Maybe this is for logistical reasons (how do you prove it's an attack?) but banning people from "sending unsolicited email" seems wrong to me. I don't have a personal relationship with my Congressperson, if I send him an unsolicited email can that be considered spam? Sure, I'm being nitpicky here, but this is the law, and I think it's a bad one. From the law: "17538.4. (a) No person or entity conducting business in this state shall facsimile (fax) or cause to be faxed, or electronically mail (e-mail) or cause to be e-mailed, documents consisting of unsolicited advertising material for the lease, sale, rental, gift offer, or other disposition of any realty, goods, services, or extension of credit unless..." This doesn't mention attacks or open relays or anything of the sort. It says you can't send unsolicited messages. That is the problem.
I realize that spam is annoying, and that spammers often use resources that don't belong to them, but I find it odd that the Slashdot crowd, which so frequently touts Freedom of speech as one of the major benefits of "open source" or GPLed software, should be so dead-set against a certain group's speech. The law, as far as I can tell, makes illegal "unsolicited email documents" when "the documents (a) are addressed to recipients who do not have existing business or personal relationships with the initiator and (b) were not sent at the request of or with the consent of the recipient. ( 17538.4, subd. (e).) "
This will probably lead to 1000 people explaining to me that spam wastes bandwidth and all that, but really, I would expect less hypocrisy from a group that frequently appears to defend freedom of speech so vehemently. This isn't to say I don't like spam, but if fucking C++ source code can be considered speech, why isn't "Do you want a longer penis?" Honestly, I would consider spam more of an expressive medium than code. Maybe the guy selling penis enlargment sauce really feels deeply about it and wants the world to know how truly great his product is. Anyhow, before everyone pats themselves on the back for this "win" over spammers, maybe you should take a step back and look at it from the much-heralded freedom-of-speech angle you usually take on Napster/Ogg/Kazaa/Microsoft/DeCSS issues.
Why stop there? Why shouldn't you pay programmers directly for software instead of their employers? When I buy a gallon of milk, shouldn't the money go directly to the dairy farmer instead of the grocery store? [ PETA version: it goes to the cow. ] And of course every penny of that $25K Explorer should go to the auto workers that built it.
Sorry, Ford and Waldbaums aren't actively trying to get Congress to enact retroactive laws to limit the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. RIAA/MPAA are. I have no problem supporting an organization I feel is legitimate (such as the corner grocery, gas stations, etc), but the RIAA/MPAA really want consumers to have fewer/less rights. I don't really see music downloads as too much of an ethical dilemma since the other companies you mentioned create real property (except for the programmer, and honestly I would have no problem paying the programmers directly. Lots of businesses do that; I believe the entire shareware industry was based on that model initially. Also for games like Quake 3, I'm sure id gets far more of the revenue than Activision, though I'm basing that on total speculation), whereas RIAA/MPAA are in charge of intellectual property. IMO, IP law is still completely wrong in every regard, and so I have no problem breaking it. IP is completely different from Real property because if you, for example, copy a CD from someone else, you're not depriving the other person of the audio on that disc. Taking the actual disc from the person is obviously stealing, but I don't consider the former to be theft. You can call me whatever name you like, but I just don't see that as an illegal or immoral activity.
There's also the "I don't want it enough to buy it, but I want it enough to have it for free" factor. There are some songs I hear on the radio that are catchy, but clearly not good enough to warrant me paying $16-18 to hear them. I will honestly never buy these CDs. The artist isn't going to get any money from me either way, so why shouldn't I just grab the file for free if I can? Note that, as Courtney Love said , this only applies to the lamers who have one decent song on the whole CD. I recently purchased Linkin Park's CD because there were at least 3 songs on it that I liked -- and if it weren't for the radio and Morpheus, that sale wouldn't have happened.
Like I said, I'm sure I'll take some heat for this (Clearly I must be a socialist!), but the idea that downloading music files from other people somehow makes one a "pirate" is so ridiculous it makes me wonder how people can say it with a straight face.
If this is really discrimination, why are you asking Slashdot about it rather than your state's Department of Labor? New York State has a Department of Human Rights to deal specifically with discrimination.
Heh, I didn't think you were lying. Actually, today I had a better experience with the game, so maybe it just takes getting used to. But it's been a while since I had to deal with a display this dark, and there isn't even a contrast knob. But I tell you, Castlevania is a much funner way to pass the time on the train than the boring old newspaper. Plus 7 different people can have games stored! Amazing! Anyhow, hopefully with time I will grow more comfortable with the display, though I'm still looking at the backlit display at portablemonopoly.com.
Thanks for your feedback. Glad everybody isn't as glum as I (was).
Conxion probably won't be too happy with them using the name "Connexion" with regards to an Internet service. Lawyers everywhere rejoice.
- on the couch
- in the bedroom
- in the bathroom
- on the bus to work
- on the train to work
- with a halogen lamp over my shoulder
- with the plugin light my girlfriend got me with it (causes glare)
In EVERY SINGLE SITUATION the ability to see the screen has been poor to awful. I remember reading that Nintendo chose long battery life over backlighting. Quite frankly, this was a horrible mistake. With backlighting this would have easily been the best game system of the year AFAIC. I have no use for Xbox, PS2, or gamecube, but GBA is exceptionally small and has some fun games. But with a screen I can't see it's absolutely useless. Honestly, I got a set of rechargeable NiMH batteries (6 AA, 2 AAA, 2 C, 2 D) plus the charger for $30, so I don't care about battery life. 2 hours, fine. if it took 4 batteries instead of 2, fine. If I have to plug it into an AC adapter sometimes, fine. But in its current state, it's essentially useless. Unfortunately, it's the only game in town for portable gaming.Anyhow, how you can say "other than that it's a vast improvement on past gameboys" really confuses me. I was under the impression that the improved screen was one of the main selling points for the GBA. I've been playing Castlevania (which is great) and other than being much more comfortable to hold, how is this different from old skool gameboy/color? Please don't tell me that the graphics are so much better because I can't see them.
Anyway, "used to be" doesn't lend you much credibility when commenting about Apple's recent activites
Have there been lots of revolutions in the way Macs work since August? Moved to x86 or something? I was beginning development of an OS X client when the company tanked.
Why do you speak with certainty about Apple an their hardware when it's obvious that you don't follow the company, and don't have any experiece with their products?
Why do you bother speaking at all, when it's obvious you haven't the slightest ability to read or comprehend information more complex than "See Spot run!"? Please point me to a native Linux application that will play Quicktime movies that use the Sorenson codec (no, the WINE-based plugin for Mozilla/Netscape doesn't count). As for my supposed lack of experience with Apple products, I used to be a developer of Macintosh software.
I don't know why I'm even bothering to reply to your drivel when I've already responded to all of these points elsewhere in this thread. You're just too lazy to look them up, so that's all I have to say.
The author of the blurb (vnsnes), and even Timothy both acknowledge that this is a useless item. So why bother posting it to the front page? Let useless items fade away into obscurity on their own.
For that matter, why would anyone want to be so "wired" as to have a need to get to the web from their handheld in any case?
I spend 30 minutes each weekday on the train going to and from work. Right now I pass the time reading the paper, but I wouldn't mind having this little gadget instead, especially since I need a new cell phone anyway.
This is just like AOL's claim that Aimster is trying to use the term "Aim" in its name to associate itself with AIM. Since I used to work at Aimster I can tell you that this was certainly the case. The name Aimster was chosen, as one would have guessed in August 2000 when it was released, because it was intended to be a combination of AIM (AOL Instant Messenger) and Napster. Then when it became apparent that AOL was going to pursue this as a trademark infringement and try to get the aimster.com domain, John Deep came up with this crazy story that it's called Aimster because "Aimster" is a nickname for girls named Amy. Then he decided that his daughter (Madeline) would change her name to Aimee.
It's obvious (to me, at least) that "Lindows" is intended to associate the product with both Linux and Windows. It is a good name for the product (though perhaps more than a bit tacky), much as Aimster was a good name for Aimster back in the day. However, the cleverness of the name has the downside that they're also piggybacking on all the work Microsoft has done to establish and protect the Windows trademark, so they'll probably lose, and I think it's probably in their best interest to simply change their product and domain to something else. That's what I suggested to John about Aimster, but of course I was ignored.
Then again, Michael Robertson isn't quite as naive as John, and has a lot more credibility and business sense, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about at all.
The real scourge of productivity has once again been left out. Billions of man-hours are lost each month in the US alone. A company with ten employees is losing, on average, over 1000 man-hours per month. That is over 40 Man-days!
Please, let's eliminate this awful practice of "sleeping." Those 6 hours a day should be spent working!
performance is just fine by my eyes @ 1024x768 and 16 bit color.
You just answered your question. by my eyes isn't good enough for hardcore gamers. There are valid reasons to need 125 fps in Q3A. My girlfriend currently gets 200.9 fps in Q3A with a Geforce 2 GTS, Athlon 1900+, and she's getting a Geforce 3 Ti500 from me for xmas (shhhhhhh). At that point I can only guess that her FPS will be in the 300+ range. Definitely more than necessary, but having 90 horsepower in your car is probably more than necessary too. Doesn't mean I wouldn't rather have 300.
Additionally, does your video card have things like full scene anti-aliasing? That's one of the major selling points of the gf3, as it improves image quality a lot.
I recently built a computer for my grandmother. I put a geforce 2 mx in for $60. Sure, you can find acceptable video cards for $30, but for another $30 you get one that you really don't have to worry about. Plus, you never know, grandma might decide to play CS or Q3.
Well, all your tirade really demonstrates is that you're willing to buy a console for one game. While that's not really a bad thing, it's also not how the vast majority of people decide which console to purchase. Most people are looking for quantity. How are you supposed to rate quality? Can you return games once they're opened? Store demos are usually broken.
I, too, bought N64 for Zelda, and I felt it was definitely worth it. At the time, it was the best game I had ever played, by far. I was sadly disappointed by Majora's mask, but that's beside the point.
Luigi's mansion and Pikmin look absolutely horrible to me, and the video of Zelda for gamecube looks absolutely awful, in fact it looks like a slap in the face to the people like me who grew up playing Zelda. I understand that Nintendo has traditionally been aimed at a younger market, but the market that was 10-13 when the original zelda came out is now in their 20s, and I for one don't want to play a game that looks like a cartoon. I thought that they ruined Super Mario Bros 2/3 with this.
Anyhow, while it looks interesting, it also looks stupid. It looks like they've already developed the game too much for them to change, but maybe the game will flop and the next iteration will be something most adults can stomach.
Here's some video of the game in all its horror.